Tennessee to teach the controversy

These are ambiguous, poorly formed questions. "Why are we here" firstly fails to define what here really means and secondly begs the question that there is a "why" that is not a "how". To explain further: the human race exists because it evolved on a planet that formed etc etc. Science can continue to endeavour to explain the processes of our history but until we have evidence of a purpose asking why is loading the question.

"Where did we come from" is a similarly bad question because when people ask it they tend to have some vague notion of divinity/supernatural purpose behind it. I say that because the answer of: the species evolved and across tens of thousands of years we spread across the globe and due to a variety of factors developed a variety of civilisations.

"Where do we go when we die" is probably the worst formed as it presupposes a "we" disconnected from life. It is an excellent example of begging the question. "I" insofar as my conscious mind ceases to exist when I die, it doesn't go anywhere and asking where it went is like asking "where does a flame go when blown out?" On the other hand "I" insofar as the physical body (that gives rise to me when it is healthy and awake) will probably be harvested for its organs and usable tissues before being cremated and the ashes scattered. "I" wont be around to see and confirm that but those are my wishes and my family has promised to carry them out.

I don't think spirituality can answer any questions and I don't think that science can answer them all. Spirituality is a way for people to soothe themselves in regards to the unanswerable questions, or the illogical questions, in the same way the science "soothes" people in regards to the physical universe.

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine

A weakness is in the "why"? Isn't that being less objective and going towards the route of concluding there is a fundamental motive out there determining the course of the universe? To assert such things on less than sufficient evidence is absurd in my opinion. For now, I thought science wasn't asking such things as "why" does this happen rather, how, given the data this can occur from that?



From my high-school science courses, the only weakness that was discussed was science doesn't have all the answers so we don't exactly know more than what has been conducted through experimentation and empirical analysis. I am tired but still, I don't think, given my past, you can conclude that this protects scientific information and doesn't detract from objectively trying to uncover more evidence, laws, etc....

Are private schools exempt from teaching such concepts in their curriculum? I am not well versed on this sort of law impacting schools that are considered private. I know you must teach a certain set of subjects and subjects that pertains to the school's core values, but doesn't this law/or would this law still impact the private school in the same manner as a publicly funded one?

Here is an excerpt from “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” published by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine [. . .]

Francisco J. Ayala (chair) 1
Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California
Irvine


Bruce Alberts1
Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics
University of California
San Francisco


May R. Berenbaum1
Swanlund Professor of Entomology
Department of Entomology
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign


Betty A. Carvellas
Science Instructor
Essex Junction High School (retired)
Essex Junction, Vt.


M.T. Clegg1
Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences
Department of Ecology and Evolution
University of California
Irvine


G. Brent Dalrymple1
Professor and Dean Emeritus
Oregon State University
Corvallis


Robert M. Hazen
Staff Scientist
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Washington, D.C.


Toby Horn
Co-Director
Carnegie Academy for Science Education
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Washington, D.C.


Nancy A. Moran1
Regents’ Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Arizona
Tucson


Gilbert S. Omenn2

Professor of Medicine, Genetics, and Public Health
Center for Computational Medicine and Biology
University of Michigan Medical School
Ann Arbor


Robert T. Pennock
Professor
Department of Philosophy
Lyman Briggs School of Science
Michigan State University
East Lansing


Peter H. Raven1
Director
Missouri Botanical Garden
St. Louis


Barbara A. Schaal1
Spencer T. Olin Professor of Biology
Department of Biology
Washington University
St. Louis
Neil de Grasse Tyson
Visiting Research Scientist
Princeton University Observatory
Princeton, N.J.


Holly Wichman
Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Idaho
Moscow


NATIONAL ACADEMY STAFF


Jay B. Labov
Study Director

Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms

WASHINGTON -- The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution's role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.

"SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution," said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. "The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science."

"Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease," said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. "For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS' genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future."

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with "intermediate" features -- four finlike legs -- that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually "bud off" of existing species.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. "Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not," the committee stated.

Somewhat related ... even if only to provide an argument against the position: "I don't live in that state. Why should I care?"

But also, it's hilarious.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...12/don-mcleroy

Somewhat related ... even if only to provide an argument against the position: "I don't live in that state. Why should I care?"

But also, it's hilarious.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...12/don-mcleroy

I just get an "unavailable video" message.
It might be a copyright issue. I've run into that before, with things that can't be accessed from outside of the US. I've probably already seen it, though, since I watch the show pretty much every night.

National Science Education Standards Addressed

Standard A: Science as Inquiry - Students will analyze evidence regarding the process of natural selection and reflect upon this simulation and how it relates to present knowledge and thinking on evolution.

Standard C: Life Science - In completion of this activity, students will discover more about the structure and function of DNA, an integral part of life science. Students will also learn about DNA on a molecular basis, as the molecule responsible for heredity. Students will complete activities in which they discuss that DNA provides genetic continuity between generations. This activity explores at a molecular level many of the key points for natural selection as the driving force for evolution.

Standard E: Science and Technology – Addition of the CLUSTAL analysis will provide an opportunity for the learner for ways to see how important technology is to investigate scientific questions. Use of the mentioned algorithms that model the process of natural selection are also valuable means for students to design their own experiments and carry them out in a simulation.

Standard F: Science in Personal and Social Perspectives – The theory of evolution remains a topic of fervent discussion in the U.S. and is challenged by other groups using non-scientific means. This activity provides a clear, concise model of the events that lead to many of the steps necessary for evolution by natural selection.

Standard G: History and Nature of Science - The theory of evolution has been under societal attack by some groups since its inception. The polarization around this issue is the largest of its kind in the scientific community. Students will investigate some of the early arguments used to defend evolution and how the arguments have been strengthened in light of molecular biology. Bioinformatics information provides irrefutable evidence for the power of the process of evolution by natural selection. http://www.asm.org/images/MDA-PDF/md...wpdf.final.pdf

Danger, this was from last night. The full episode is also available on hulu.com