Transcript Unit 1 Ch. 1, 17, 18. WHAT IS BIOLOGY?

Science and Religion Since Darwin
The “Fairness” Issue
Voices from an American Community College
and
The Blogosphere
Paul A. Billeter and Danielle M. Quill
The College Of Southern Maryland
Saint Mary
Charles Calvert
3rd Lord Baltimore
Cecilius Calvert

2nd Lord Baltimore
The College Of Southern Maryland
 Open
Admission
 8,000 credit students






Mean age 26; Modal 19.4
64% Female
50% Transfer Track
24% Developmental
129 F/T Faculty (about 2x P/T)
4 Campuses




Charles, LaPlata
St. Mary’s
Calvert
Waldorf Center for Higher Education
The College Of Southern Maryland
Belize (formerly British Honduras)
San Salvador Isl, Galapagos
(formerly James Island)
The College Of
Southern Maryland
From the student newspaper, The Hawkeye, Dec 2001
“WHAT WAY DID YOU PREPARE FOR YOUR FINALS?”
“You don’t know it! You won’t know it!”
•“Pray for a miracle.”*
•“I memorize everything and do the best I can.”
•“The way I study is get a good sleep and pray!”*
•
*Recognition of a not-disinterested deity concerned with student exam grades
(and an alternative theory of “grade inflation. ) …and the 50% threshold
Gallup Poll
6-7 Feb. 2009
Based on 1,018 telephone interviews with national adults, aged 18 and older, 95%
confidence with maximum margin of sampling error is ±3%
Gallup Poll
6-7 Feb. 2009
Based on 1,018 telephone interviews with national adults, aged 18 and older,
95% confidence with maximum margin of sampling error is ±3%
E-mail from student’s mother to Biology
Department Chairman, Summer, 2006
I have a student who is attending the above mentioned
summer session class. The professor is Billeter. My child came
home concerned about the fact that many comments were
made regarding “faith” (Faith in God) and science and how the
professor’s relationship changed with his mother over his
knowledge of the sciences and implied a critical look at the
sciences would discount faith. With comments like these on
the first day of class, I am concerned that this class will be an
Anti-Faith in God approach to Zoology 1020. I am a Christian.
I don’t consider these comments and opinions appropriate for
a public college or used on impressionable minds. Please
address this issue in your department.
There is inherent risk in attempting to address these topics in biology class.
1. If it IS broke, don’t fix it. 2. Leave well enough alone. 3. Hippocrates 4.“Mokita”
Letter to editor, Maryland Independent, 9/06
“In her letter ‘Let Margaret Young Be Sad Someplace Else’
Barbara Allen accuses Margaret Young of pushing her own
beliefs in intelligent design as opposed to Darwinian Evolution.
Let me set the record straight.
Mrs. Young is not pushing her agenda, she’s pushing mine.
Who am I? I’m a Charles County taxpayer who voted for Mrs.
Young and happens to care what Charles County children
learn, especially my own. Darwin’s racist theory about superior
vs. inferior species is not only garbage, but can’t be talked
about at the human level without spawning hate-crime
legislation.
I am proud of those on the school board who have been willing
to stand up against those peddling their religion of secular
humanism along with all its racism, bigotry and immorality.
Darwinism can’t be defended and its racist implications
shouldn’t be tolerated.”
BIO 1020 Zoology
•
Non-majors
• Terminal, both first and last college science course
• 80% Female
• Problem-solving laboratory
“Black Box”
ENSI / SENSI
The Nobel Foundation. 1979. Ethics for Science
Policy--Report from a Nobel Symposium.
Pergamon Press, Elmsford, N.Y.
Dorothy Nelkin, Science as a Source of Political Conflict
“On similar grounds, fundamentalists take issue with the
teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools. They feel
that it intrudes on their religious beliefs and demand and that
schools provide “equal time” for creation theory. They are a
sufficiently powerful force that many educators, biologists, and
publishers view their demands as a serious threat to science
education.
Even fundamentalists who seek to have the Biblical account of
creation taught in the public schools, present themselves as
scientists and claim that “creation theory” is a scientific
alternative to “evolution theory.”
The Nobel Foundation. 1979. Ethics for Science
Policy—Report from a Nobel Symposium.
Pergamon Press, Elmsford, N.Y.
Question #5
Some people argue that the religious concept of
special creation (the account of creation presented in
the Book of Genesis of the Judeo-Christian Bible)
should be taught in biology classes as an alternative
to the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution. Many
people agree that this seems “fair.” Take a different
approach to this debate: Discuss whether you think
the concept of Darwinian evolution should be taught
in churches.
Among other things…
an inherently First
Amendment question
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.
Results
No=61%
N=64
Yes=38%
?=1%
Danielle’s preliminary interpretation of two classes…
Class 2
But further mining of the data…….
Student Results
No=61%
N=64
Yes=38%
?=1%
Occasional kernels of Falwell, Huxley, Hitchens, Chesterton, Pascal, and Homer (Simpson)
Collectively the students expressed the range of arguments associated with this debate.
The Outlier
 Personal



Undistrust
I personally do not think it matters, it’s a private matter
of personal belief, and although people are aware that
there are several possibilities of evolution, none of
them are proven 100% true.
Some people may think that scientific theories are
pointless…
Undistrust is a negative trust, but insufficient to make definite conclusions in the reasoning
process. (a version of Darwinian caveat emptor) “Why do you guys make such a big deal
over this?”
Devout Rejection:
“I do not think that Darwinian evolution should be
taught in churches. I also do not think it should be
taught in schools. Darwinian evolution should be
discussed in churches so that people will be aware
of what is being taught to those who are in school
and those who do not believe in God, but it should
not be taught in any church of the Lord.”
Do NOT teach Darwin anywhere, except perhaps for the purpose of warning parishioners
what the schools are up to. This illustrates the conspiracy theory opinion.
Devout Rejection*
Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, kingdom halls and
other places of worship are “houses of god.” Those are
supposed to be sacred places to worship truth and god. We do
not go to these places to learn about unfaiths, or things we do
not believe in. Genesis teaches that God created the earth, the
heavens, everything that lives on earth in the sea and in
heaven. Going to places of worship is to build faith and to learn
more about God. It is not a place to learn things you do not
believe or have faith in. In a place of worship you do learn or
take in knowledge of some of the things in the world so you can
be guarded against them but you don’t study them as if that’s
what you’re trying to become. Darwinism is the complete
opposite than what the bible teaches and states there is no
god. No it should not be taught in a place of worship.
*This student is a late twenties early thirties year old CARPENTER !

OP at ACOC: Many biblical literalists insist that creationism be
taught in biology classes in the USA. In that everyone already
knows the Genesis creation account, I propose, as a matter of
fairness, that Darwinian evolution, which most Americans DO
NOT understand, be required to be taught and studied in all
American churches?
For the sake of this discussion, disregard the application of the
First Amendment's "Establishment" and "Free Exercise"
clauses.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The chat room milieu tended to be livelier
For example…

Regarding Richard Dawkins: Who the hell is this idiot and
why does he deserve all these posts. Hell, the Pope didn't get
all these posts and even when he admitted that he smoked
dope. Or was that just Ringo? Anyway, what the hell?

Regarding an editorial by Patrick Buchannan:
Nothing new here, same fundamentalist crap.
.
In keeping with the moronic theme of guilt by association put
forth in the article: pat buchanan wrote this article. Pat
buchanan is a Jew hater. Therefore whoever agrees with this
article is obviously a Jew hater.
.
You bigots!
Debate format
 Both passion and logic are common
 Rancor, ridicule and “flaming” not uncommon
 Topic moderated by a bright Catholic gent
 Who locked it after 8 days and 147 posts
 Reasons for locking not stated; posts became
quite ad hominem

`

Darwiniacs, The A-Team, Presumptuous Prick, *F* off, racist.
 Sarcasm is an appropriate response to absurdity.
 Pearls before swine. Pagan.
 Origin Of Species thumpers
 This is a joke right?? Probably involved handling snakes and
drinking poison.
 "disregard the scientific method and the fact that evolution has
never been observed...“
 this Darwin monster is in Hell so here is what he said and you
can decide to join him if you wish
 My church discussed and accepted evolution from the pulpit.


Unitarian?
Satanic.
Devout Rejection and Conspiracy

Windfall: To wipe all "religion" from the public
community is to establish Atheism as a state religion.


The consequence of overzealous application of the Establishment Clause to
exclude creationism would be establishment of Atheism as the state religion.
“Darwinism =Atheism” therefore teaching Darwinism = Establishment .
Matt: I think you've just hit upon the real agenda here.

Matt is the ACOC “grassy knollist.” He frequently equates Darwinism with
Atheism and is among many who imply that biologists are engaged in a
conspiracy to destroy religion.
Devout Rejection
Marcus: So let's ignore the fact that it would
be illegal? That's almost as intellectually
honest as most other discussions on evolution,
which are usually prefaced with "disregard the
scientific method and the fact that evolution
has never been observed...“
SweetPea: “simple, just say [in church that] this
Darwin monster is in Hell so here is what he
said and you can decide to join him if you
wish
I can teach that”
Each In Its Place
Student: Sure! Well really, actually as much as I would like it
to be taught in churches, no. I don’t think it should be. Just as
I believe creationism (or any other religious belief-system
creation story) should have no place in a science classroom.
Church is a place to practice and celebrate a certain type of
ritual belief and knowledge. It is something most people
partake by choice and there should be no reason to force
teaching on them in their place of worship that doesn’t jive
with their creation story. Church isn’t really a place for
empirical thought anyway.
There is a certain level of politeness and craving for conflict resolution expressed
by many students. The anonymity of ACOC and the debate format often causes a
devolution into “flaming.”
•Yes, why don't we just focus on Hoyle. But not with you. You're a moron.
And you keep saying you know philosophy, so why should i explain Aristotle?
•Would
you like me to explain why 2 plus 2 equals 4, as well?
Now, you're being an ass-hat. I laid out the entire argument with numbers and you
•mumbled
some unsupported generalizations. If you think that long post was "duh,
that's crazy talk," then go play with yourself. You sound crazier by the post. If you
can't man up, then shut up.
•I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume you are serious and
intellectually honest.
Oh that's real generous since you've been dangling on the top branch of the stupidtree since the thread started.

Getting back to "establishment" we would need to know
what it means to "establish" a religion. Our forefathers came
from Britain which had a history of religious persecution
(Bloody Mary et al) and this clause was to expressly prohibit
those things from happening. Not to say that every state
office should state that there is no God.
To wipe all "religion" from the public community is to
establish Atheism as a state religion.
Sarcasm and Ridicule are Frequent at ACOC
Cephei: On one condition, I think we should start with
where all matter and energy come from, perhaps starting
with electroweak baryogenesis first.
Then...we could move on to parallel universes...oh yeah,
perhaps dive into the physics behind string theory on
Wednesday night after choir rehearsal.
SweetPea: just kill God and be done with it.............we are
all accidents and here by chance
Zach: Religious fanatics do a fine job of killing their own
God without our help.

Getting back to "establishment" we would need to know
what it means to "establish" a religion. Our forefathers came
from Britain which had a history of religious persecution
(Bloody Mary et al) and this clause was to expressly prohibit
those things from happening. Not to say that every state
office should state that there is no God.
To wipe all "religion" from the public community is to
establish Atheism as a state religion.
Reply to Conspiracy Theory

Zach: Although there are a lot of unknowns about abiogenesis, there are a
lot of knowns. It is not a vacant, empty field of science where no progress
can be made, hypotheses formed, and tested, at least to a degree.
The problem is, you won't get that information here. It's lengthy and
complicated, and full of big words. The work of scientists in the field of
abiogenesis is kept secret and is hidden in books.

The Beginnings of Life, Bastian, H
Die Hypotheses Uber Der Ursprung Des Lebens, Pryer, W.T.
Les Bases Physiques De La Vie, Leduc, S.
The Origin and Evolution of Life, Osborn, H
Proishkhozhddenie Zhisni, Oparin, A
The Origin of Life, Haldane, J.
The Physical Basis of Life, Bernal, J. D.
The Origin of Life, Oparin, A.
The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology, Luigi Luisi, Pier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zach probably a biologist. He is also an atheist. He posts huge replies with citations to web
and text sources. They are largely ignored and ridiculed.
Windfall: Your still missing the point.
Churches can preach whatever they want. That's the whole
purpose of having a church.
The government is the one literally forcing the theory of
evolution on the children of America.
Do you think the government should be allowed to force
churches to preach other things they don't believe as well?
How about forcing churches to "teach" about "man made
global warming" while you are at it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------School is mandatory, church is optional.
Matt: Children are required by law to attend school.
They are not required to attend church. This is
fallacious logic. Using the same twisted logic: If
California teaches six year olds about perverted
sexual practices under the guise of sex education
we should also teach How to be a Homo 101 in six
grade Sunday School class. No. Notta.
--------------------------------------------------------School is mandatory, church is optional embellished with an analogy
Zach: You are not applying the same standard.
There is empirical evidence for evolution.
There is no empirical evidence for God.
None that the earth is 6,000 years old.
None that all life was created within six 24 hour days.
None that it was all wiped out in a global flood.
None that it radiated outward after that flood from the Ararat Mountains.
None that any of the miracles described in the bible ever actually occurred.
None that miracles happen today.
If the only evidence for evolution was unverifiable personal
testimony, I would be equally skeptical of the theory.
“If evolution were what creationists think it is, I would not believe it either.”
Dawkins???
Elvis: I'm all for it. Origin Of Species thumpers don't do well when directly
challenged, thus their insistence that other views be made illegal. I assume that
when we allow you into our churches you will reciprocate in the public schools?
On a side note, I doubt that the "Many biblical literalists insist that creationism be
taught in biology classes" aspect of your challenge is even true. I've not heard of
anyone insisting that Genesis be taught as fact in public schools. I have heard
people asking that alternative theories be discussed. What'samatta, you afraid
ideas?
Willis: And what, pray tell, do you think the alternative theories might be?? You
know, list two or three.
Elvis: I can't list two or three but there are a growing number of secular
ID/Darwin skeptic scientists that Darwinists have not been able to answer.
Elvis: I answered your OP and suddenly I'm obligated to take whatever quiz
you assign me? How bout you make a list of shut the hell up?
illustrates the argument that I.D. is not really the Christian God, wink, wink, but might be aliens from outer space.
Windfall: I know this is mostly in jest, however, forcing schools to present
alternate theories that can't be disproven isn't such a bad thing.
1. Children are forced to go to school by the state.
2. Schools are forced to teach evolution as a theory for the diversity of life.
3. As evolution is one possible theory, alternate theories are presented.
A. No one is forced to go to any church by the state.
B. Churches teach specific religions where it is unnecessary to teach all
religions.
on edit: I think most Christians object to evolution being taught as a theory
for the CREATION of life, which scientifically it doesn't cover. Although it
assumes random beginnings.
Windfall understands the difference between evolution and biogenesis and Big Bang. Many posters on the Creationism side
conflate the three. Sometimes this is an extension of the strategy to divert the argument from well established scientific ideas
to less well established ones. Macro v micro; Freidrich Wohler…
A Voice of reason…

Finally, and perhaps most astonishingly,
Genesis doesn't say how God created life. So
who's to say that God didn't use so-called
evolution processes to create life? Indeed, the
ongoing evolution v. creationism feud seems to
be a modern day version of the infamous,
mindless Hatfield-McCoy feud.
The College Of Southern Maryland
Belize (formerly British Honduras)
San Salvador Isl, Galapagos
(formerly James Island)
Verhey’s Study

Group 1:




Group 2:


Icons of Evolution by Wells: Attacks evolution and is sympathetic to ID
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins: Supports evolution.
Icons of Obfuscation by Tamzek: An Online refutation of Wells and the
Process of science
Read and Discussed The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature:
An evolutionary exploration of sexual selection an sexuality
61% in Group 1reported some change in their beliefs; most of these
students were initially sympathetic to creationist explanations and moved
toward greater acceptance of evolution. Only 21% of students in Group 2
reported change in their beliefs.
Active Learning

The constructivist, active learning approach has been
tested and shown to produce significant change in
problem-solving abilities and sophistication of thought.

If students attack the controversy head on the gains are
measurably increased.

Discussing Creationism/I.D. may be best way to achieve
desired outcomes, i.e. expanded abilities of
sophisticated problem solving.
And that’s what college is all about.
Active Learning
 SOTL
 ENSI
/ SENSI
 Verhey’s Study
 Nelson’s Editorial
Another forum drifted into the realm of Dr. Seuss illustrating
that some questions simply have no suitable answers

Poster A: The goat is the greatest of all time. Goat.

Poster B: Demi wrote a goat gloat. weird?
I would not read it in a boat; I would not read it in a
moat; I will not speak it thru my throat; I will not write it
in a note; I would not read it while eating an orange...
Your turn.