Monday, February 19, 2007 | Science : Teaching Science | print version

Memo: Stop teaching evolution

by Robert T. Garrett, The Dallas Morning News

Thanks to Mark Richards for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_14tex.ART.State.Edition1.298e1cb.html

Georgia lawmaker's plea comes to Texas through No. 2 in House

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – The second most powerful member of the Texas House has circulated a Georgia lawmaker's call for a broad assault on teaching of evolution.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges.

The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.

He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism."

Mr. Chisum said he knows Mr. Bridges from their joint service on a committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"That is a courtesy to a member of the Georgia legislature, is all that is," said Mr. Chisum, a social conservative who opposes abortion rights and wants the state to prefer heterosexuals over gays and lesbians in recruiting foster parents. He authored the 2005 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Mr. Chisum was asked if Mr. Bridges' memo reflects his own views.

"No, absolutely, although I'm a Christian, and I believe in creation," he said. Creation science is the idea that the Earth was created in six days some 6,000 years ago.

"You ought to teach creation as well as the fact of evolution," Mr. Chisum said, though he said "all of those kinds of sciences have holes in them. ... But I'm not about teaching religion in schools."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, February 19, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 87 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #22475 by G Bile on February 19, 2007 at 9:31 am

The 'FixedEarth' link above does not work (there should a space between the com and the comma!).*

Well, the link does not 'work' anyway, because there is some evidence that the earth is really moving, around the sun, around the center of our galaxy and so on.

But then there is Mr. Chisum ...

* Already corrected, thanks.

Other Comments by G Bile

2. Comment #22476 by CruciFiction on February 19, 2007 at 9:33 am

Watch this Rep. Warren Chisum nutjob play the part on the Texas house floor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUl6x1YXpg&eurl=

Other Comments by CruciFiction

3. Comment #22478 by beelzebub on February 19, 2007 at 9:43 am

Surely this is a joke? I mean, no one with even a single brain cell could go for this stuff? Anyway, that 'Fixed Earth' site looks suspiciously like a spoof to me - maybe the representatives are taking the p** out of us! :-)

Other Comments by beelzebub

4. Comment #22479 by Roy_H on February 19, 2007 at 9:44 am

what a batty website! it reminds me of the guy Patrick Moore was interviewing many years ago on British TV who formulated a theory that the moon was not a globe at all, but a flat disc, oh and before I forget, it was made of pure carbon!

Other Comments by Roy_H

5. Comment #22480 by Zaphod on February 19, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Sometimes you just have to stand up and say "Excuse me sir, you are an idiot".

Other Comments by Zaphod

6. Comment #22482 by ButteryAtheist on February 19, 2007 at 1:03 pm

@Roy_H:

What rubbish.
Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese.

Other Comments by ButteryAtheist

7. Comment #22483 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 19, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Fighting dogmatism with more dogmatism are we?

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

8. Comment #22485 by ligfietser on February 19, 2007 at 10:10 am

Is this website some Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on steroids, or are these guys for real? If the latter is the case, it's the ultimate evidence religion IS a virus of the mind. And it seems closely connected to conspiracy paranoia.

Other Comments by ligfietser

9. Comment #22486 by Mel Z on February 19, 2007 at 1:12 pm

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion,"

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time

Other Comments by Mel Z

10. Comment #22487 by thompjs on February 19, 2007 at 10:21 am

www.fixedearth.com is also impressive for it 1995 website layout.

Other Comments by thompjs

11. Comment #22488 by Arcturus on February 19, 2007 at 1:22 pm

There are stupid people and stupid people ... but these ones are beyond the limits of comprehension.

It makes me sick to the stomach to read that Fixed Earth website. These people belong in a mental institution. It wouldn't be a problem if they kept it to themselves, but idiocy is contagious and I'm afraid that the american southerner is an easy target.

I was just reading this book "Prophets, Cults and Madness" by Anthony Stevens and John Price. It makes so much more sense now :)

Other Comments by Arcturus

12. Comment #22489 by WalkingARazor on February 19, 2007 at 1:33 pm

These people run my country?

Other Comments by WalkingARazor

13. Comment #22490 by olly on February 19, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Mad, plain raving loopi doop mad

Other Comments by olly

14. Comment #22491 by atheisticism on February 19, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Soooo, evolution is an ancient religious belief but creationism is a science?? Not surprising really, theists always try to turn the tables by accusing science of whatever they get accused of [being irrational, having no evidence, being dogmatic, etc.] It's very much like the way small children respond to insults-"and same to you, so there" I guess that's all you can do when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Other Comments by atheisticism

15. Comment #22492 by MouthAlmighty on February 19, 2007 at 11:08 am

Stop the earth! I want to get... oh... hang on...

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

16. Comment #22494 by gimlibengloin on February 19, 2007 at 11:13 am

atheisticism (14)

"Soooo, evolution is an ancient religious belief but creationism is a science??"

He doesn't seem to be saying that, though. He seems to be saying that both evolution and creation should be taught but with 'warts and all'.
What he seems to be opposing is the stance that people like Dr Dawkins take which even other Darwinists find embarrasing. We see this in the God Delusion where Dawkins is quite adament about the folly of believing in a God we can't see, touch, or feel but is quite willing to state his belief in extraterrestrial civilisations.
People need to be more critical when reading Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

17. Comment #22495 by PaulJ on February 19, 2007 at 11:17 am

Well, I had a look at that 'fixed earth' site. It's obviously nonsense as there's no mention of turtles.

Other Comments by PaulJ

18. Comment #22496 by gimlibengloin on February 19, 2007 at 2:18 pm

"Soooo, evolution is an ancient religious belief but creationism is a science??"

But he doesn't seem to be arguing this. He seems to be saying that both evolution and creation should be taught but with 'warts and all'. What he seems to be opposing is the stance of someone like Dr Dawkins which even other Darwinists find embarrasing. This is seen in The God Delusion where Dawkins is so against the idea of believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch but is quite willing to believe in extraterrestrial civilisations which are also quite outside the boundaries of empirical science. Its this antitheistic bias with all its fundamentalist overtones that is being questioned.
Everybody needs to be more critical in their reading of Richard Dawkins

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

19. Comment #22499 by bitbutter on February 19, 2007 at 11:40 am

gimlibengloin:

What he seems to be opposing is the stance that people like Dr Dawkins take which even other Darwinists find embarrasing. We see this in the God Delusion where Dawkins is quite adament about the folly of believing in a God we can't see, touch, or feel but is quite willing to state his belief in extraterrestrial civilisations.

There are no reasons to suppose there might be a god. There are good reasons to suppose there might be alien life.

Other Comments by bitbutter

20. Comment #22502 by the great teapot on February 19, 2007 at 11:51 am

Get a grip gimlibengon.
The likelihood that other creatures ,in whatever form ,exist is infinitely greater than a god who has all the contradictory attributes of the God that we in our anthropomorphic attempts to make sense of our own existance have clearly invented.
I can't give evidence for the above, just use your bloody commonsense man.

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #22503 by Arcturus on February 19, 2007 at 11:54 am

gimlibengloin:
"This is seen in The God Delusion where Dawkins is so against the idea of believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch but is quite willing to believe in extraterrestrial civilisations which are also quite outside the boundaries of empirical science."
---

The existence of extraterestrial life, although as improbable as it is, does not require a supranatural explanation. What Dr. Dawkins argue is that the existence of God is HIGHLY improbable, the most improbable. Even a celestial teapot is more probable than God. It might have slipped out of a NASA spaceship.

Everybody needs to be critical about everything, I don't think Dr. Dawkins would mind critical insight.

Other Comments by Arcturus

22. Comment #22504 by Dogbreath on February 19, 2007 at 11:56 am

gimlibengloin...posting the same comment twice doesn't make it true. Here's my question to you. Do you think they are saying that evolution and creationism are epistemoligically the same?

And, there is nothing embarassing about scientists wanting to falsify the theory of evolution. It's just that this needs to be done through science, not witchcraft.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

23. Comment #22506 by Arcturus on February 19, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I wonder how these Fixed Earth people explain the Foucault pendulum, the cyclone rotation and the Coriolis force. What a bunch of idiots ...

I'm sorry to say this, but US has become a sad country. There is a HUGE distance between the excellent research that is being done there and the population which is being idiocracized by the religious figures.

Other Comments by Arcturus

24. Comment #22515 by Boogie on February 19, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I know it's been said many times before, but the great tragedy is that many scientists have to waste their time arguing with such people, when they could be doing something useful. To paraphrase John Cleese, the simple fact is that these people are operating at an extremely low level of mental health. As Lewis Black said in the fossils clip linked here a few days ago: "Evolution is a major thread in the larger tapestry that I like to call... REALITY!"

Other Comments by Boogie

25. Comment #22517 by Shuggy on February 19, 2007 at 4:16 pm

"So, Please Fasten Your Mental And Spiritual Seat Belts"

Spiritual Seat Belts, eh? I can't seem to make mine click.

Other Comments by Shuggy

26. Comment #22520 by Saiph on February 19, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Jesus what a weird site, got a headache with the changing fonts and colours. So the stars rotate the Earth every 24 hours!! I am still not convinced this is not a wind up it is just too bizzare. Maybe they will be teaching this is in the deep south in a few years.

Other Comments by Saiph

27. Comment #22521 by Shuggy on February 19, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Comment #22496 by gimlibengloin
"Dawkins is so against the idea of believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch"

I do get tired of this characterisation, like the Old Man With a Long Beard. Atheists aren't idiots: we believe in gazillions of things you can't see taste or touch, just like everyone else: air, electricity, protons, radio waves and so on.

Your God is far less tangible than that: S/He/It behaves exactly as if S/He/It isn't there. Atheists just draw the obvious conclusion.

"but is quite willing to believe in extraterrestrial civilisations"

I think you're confusing RD with Stephen Jay Gould, but both are fall well short of believing in them. Both just say they are not impossible.

"which are also quite outside the boundaries of empirical science."
Nonsense. That's what SETI is all about.

Other Comments by Shuggy

28. Comment #22522 by Katana on February 19, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Why do they always push to have it taught in science classes. Don't regular science textbooks go through a multi-stage process of peer-review and scrutiny before they are allowed into a public school curriculum? It seems the creationists want to get straight into the schools without the hassle of such a process.
I don't have a problem with it being taught a in religious education class, since that is what it should be taught in, but i'm not sure if they have those in america or not, which may be the problem.

Other Comments by Katana

29. Comment #22523 by RickM on February 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

"Watch this Rep. Warren Chisum nutjob play the part on the Texas house floor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUl6x1YXpg&eurl= "

Absolutely hilarious; it's against the law in Texas for a "prick to touch an ass-hole".

ROTF

Other Comments by RickM

30. Comment #22524 by jefferson on February 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Goblin, Mr. Dawkins never said he "believed" in the existence of intelligent alien civilizations like people believe in God. He said they were highly probable.

Other Comments by jefferson

31. Comment #22525 by neander on February 19, 2007 at 1:33 pm

gimlibengloin may not have completely understood RD. "Gods" have no evidence whatsoever, however, extraterrestrial life is possible howeverimprobable because we can already see that life does evolve from nothing (us).
As to US flatearthers/creationists, should we let them have their way then the country will collapse.

Other Comments by neander

32. Comment #22527 by atheisticism on February 19, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Sorry gim but i fail to see the comparison between alien life forms and the magical "spirit world" Who was it that said "the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike"?

Other Comments by atheisticism

33. Comment #22530 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Crap. No joke. This guy's serious and the site -- one verse short of the Flat Earth Society whackos -- looks entirely serious.

Can anyone find out if this is in anyway a hoax?

I'd think that people aren't this stupid ... but then, why are we arguing about evolution vs. creationism?

Other Comments by justme

34. Comment #22532 by Duff on February 19, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Gimmeltwat,
If you really think Darwinists are embarrassed by Dawkins you are a worse nutjob that even the people on this site think. You are irretrievably moronic. May your God help you. (Trust me, HE won't).

Other Comments by Duff

35. Comment #22539 by ScienceBreath on February 19, 2007 at 2:18 pm

gimlibengloin in Comment #22496 said

...believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch ...

Should I infer that some christians like to taste their god? Eew!

Other Comments by ScienceBreath

36. Comment #22545 by Saiph on February 19, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Alot of the fixed earth links are dead, surely it is a hoax ?

Other Comments by Saiph

37. Comment #22546 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm

gimlibengloin: "... Dawkins is so against the idea of believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch but is quite willing to believe in extraterrestrial civilisations which are also quite outside the boundaries of empirical science. ... Everybody needs to be more critical in their reading of Richard Dawkins."

While Dawkins does make mistakes -- Moore's Law is about transistor density and only indirectly about processing power -- this point is misunderstood.

He's not saying that extraterrestrial civilizations do indeed exist.

He is saying that supernatural-non-evolved-gods are unlikely at best.

Both, though, are scientific questions; Do gods exist? Do extraterrestrials exist?

On a personal note, because 'aliens' could come about by a natural process -- after all, we did -- it is not unreasonable at all to assume that there might be some out there. Looking for evidence of them is not at all unreasonable.

If in that search we find life in other places in our solar system -- even if only at the microbe or bacterial level -- we'd have evidence that life is not a rare one-shot-per-universe event.

In the case of gods, if we find or are found by 'god-like' creatures they are not automatically unnatural/'supernatural' just because we don't have ready explanations for what they are able to do. Occam's razor would apply; we have proven evolution, so a similar process must have occurred to explain the god-like aliens.

Other Comments by justme

38. Comment #22547 by gimlibengloin on February 19, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

39. Comment #22549 by gimlibengloin on February 19, 2007 at 2:51 pm

40. Comment #22550 by anotherclinton on February 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm

You guys are missing the best part of the story. They've asked Bridges for comment on his e-mail as well. His reply was (as reported in the Atlanta Journal Constitution)

"I agree with it [the sum of views purported by Marshall Hall] more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory," Bridges said. "I am convinced that rather than risk teaching a lie why teach anything?"

So the man agrees with Geocentric Theory more readily than he agrees with Heliocentric Theory. Wonderful.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

41. Comment #22551 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm

ScienceBreath: "Should I infer that some christians like to taste their god? Eew!"

Yes, Catholics.

Speaking as an ex-Catholic, God/Jesus kind of tastes like a rice cracker. Crunchy. A dab of jelly, or if He were coated in that yellow cheese puff coating and God would be a good snack food. Too boring otherwise. (Not a big rice cracker fan. You would think that God would taste 'unbelievably good'. Hmmm...)

Other Comments by justme

42. Comment #22553 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Saiph: "Alot of the fixed earth links are dead, surely it is a hoax ?"

To me, that lends credibility. After all, ideology and incompetence seem to be close cousins.

Other Comments by justme

43. Comment #22554 by gimlibengloin on February 19, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Duff (42)

"If you really think Darwinists are embarrassed by Dawkins you are a worse nutjob that even the people on this site think. You are irretrievably moronic. May your God help you. (Trust me, HE won't)."

Ooops, you've made a bit of a boo boo there, haven't you, Duff?
The American Darwinist, atheist, anticreationist, philosopher of science MICHAEL RUSE said this in 2005 concerning your guru Dr Dawkins,

"he is making it very difficult for those of us who care about evolution to put forward a reasonable face to the reasonable portion [of the public]in the middle".

www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/01/evolutionary_war/?page=3

Oh dear oh dear looks like you're wrong, Duff. And thats to say nothing about all the darwinists who subscribe to a theistic worldview as well eg McGrath.

And how embarrasing is the charge from Dr Ruse that Dawkins is failing to be "REASONable", eh?
As I said you really need to be more critical. And objective.

Er, not sure why RDnet has placed this post PRIOR to the one I'm responding to[??????]

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

44. Comment #22557 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm

anotherclinton: "You guys are missing the best part of the story. ... So the man agrees with Geocentric Theory more readily than he agrees with Heliocentric Theory. Wonderful."

Nope. Didn't miss it at all.

While the creationists are willfully ignorant, the flat/stationary earthers are in the twilight zone of kookiness.

That's why folks have been asking if the web site was a hoax or someone's idea of sarcasm.

Other Comments by justme

45. Comment #22559 by NormanDoering on February 19, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I blog on that here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/02/get-me-off-this-crazy-planet.html

And my fixed Earth link works, as well as my Panda's Thumb link.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

46. Comment #22562 by Richard Morgan on February 19, 2007 at 6:29 pm

This is another Argument in favour of the Existence of God. It's called "The Cringe argument by Embarrassment."
If what I claim is false, it would be embarrassingly false. Since I do not choose to be humiliated, I cannot believe anything that would be embarrassing.
Thus Creationism is the true explanation and God exists.
(And you won't find THAT one in the TGD. Naah!!!)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

47. Comment #22565 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 6:39 pm

gimlibengloin: "Er, not sure why RDnet has placed this post PRIOR to the one I'm responding to"

I don't know. It happened to me too.

[edited]

Ah ... I just figured it out!

Change your preferences so that you use GMT _not_ your own time zone. (For reference, I am at GMT+5 (EST - USA East Coast) and using GMT I see the current local (EST) time on the web page.)

Other Comments by justme

48. Comment #22567 by GMH on February 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm

"Speaking as an ex-Catholic, God/Jesus kind of tastes like a rice cracker. Crunchy."

I had that flashback too :-)

Interesting link on the subject (yes, the blogger in question is challenged by an unfortunate case of 'belief', but is actually an interesting read/view.

Communion wafer taste testing:
http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/819

Useful video series on how to read the bible on his site too.

Other Comments by GMH

49. Comment #22569 by k1mgy on February 19, 2007 at 6:57 pm

>>These people run my country?

It could happen again if the deepening insanity and paranoia gets the best of America.

Willard Mitt (fraud ex-Massachusetts governor) Romney, 19 February, 2007:

[Romney] showed poise when a heckler attacked him for being a Mormon: "You, sir, you are a pretender. You do not know the Lord.'' {translation by Mark Richards, "You, sir, are a fraud."}

The audience booed the heckler.

''One of the great things about this land is that we have people of different faiths and different religions, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country,'' he said, as the audience gave him a standing ovation.

And we all reached for a nearby wastebasket and upchucked.

Other Comments by k1mgy

50. Comment #22570 by MelM on February 19, 2007 at 4:00 pm