Cabin John Backs Down
We fight over a sex-ed curriculum. Sometimes we tell reporters it's just one little part of the big culture war. And it is: there are several other fronts in this war. One that we kind of keep an eye on is the fight over evolution. The other side in our sex-ed fight pretends that it's not a conflict of religion with science by carefully not quoting scripture in their public statements. Same in the evolution controversy. The religious extremists pretend that Intelligent Design is something different from creationism, by carefully not mentioning any Creator by name. Like oh yeah, it might be Paul Bunyon.
This morning's Post had something that sort of jumped out at me. Marc Fisher wrote about some teachers at Cabin John Middle School, over in Bethesda, who gave eighth-grade students a list of the 100 top books that have been banned, and asked them to read one of them.
Now, that is pretty nervy, though obviously there's a point they're trying to make. It's about censorship, and the fact that The Man has tried to shut down some great literature. But of course it turns out that there are people who actually favor censorship. Apparently a couple of them called the school -- the school won't say how many, except that it was "less than five." Naturally the school backed down and retracted this great, challenging assignment.
There were a couple on the list that maybe you really wouldn't want your kid to read, but most of the books are just fine -- see the American Library Association's list HERE. As October is Banned Book Month, it seemed like an appropriate assignment.
So what do you think it means, when a couple hundred parents think an assignment is ok, but "less than five" complain, and get their way? Is this sounding familiar? --It's exactly what we have with the health curriculum.
Anyway, one section of Fisher's column, in particular, jumped out at me. He wrote:
So there it is ... trying to avoid another court battle. In this whole school, this columnist was able to find two parents who didn't like some of the books on the list. But that's all it takes.
My first thought was that this lockdown over at Cabin John was a direct consequence of the lawsuit over the sex-education curriculum earlier this year. The CRC and PFOX took tens of thousands of the school district's money, wasted hundreds of hours of people's time, drew negative national attention to Montgomery County, and now the schools are afraid to try anything that might be controversial by anybody's standards.
At the same time, I could just hear CRC's lawyer John Garza whining at the school board, saying "Send us a curriculum that's not offensive." Right, a curriculum that's not offensive to anyone, sure thing. If two or three people can totally undermine a teacher's brilliant idea, then oh yeah, we're on our way to not offending anyone. And what kind of watered-down education could ever meet that standard? I shudder to think.
This morning's Post had something that sort of jumped out at me. Marc Fisher wrote about some teachers at Cabin John Middle School, over in Bethesda, who gave eighth-grade students a list of the 100 top books that have been banned, and asked them to read one of them.
Now, that is pretty nervy, though obviously there's a point they're trying to make. It's about censorship, and the fact that The Man has tried to shut down some great literature. But of course it turns out that there are people who actually favor censorship. Apparently a couple of them called the school -- the school won't say how many, except that it was "less than five." Naturally the school backed down and retracted this great, challenging assignment.
There were a couple on the list that maybe you really wouldn't want your kid to read, but most of the books are just fine -- see the American Library Association's list HERE. As October is Banned Book Month, it seemed like an appropriate assignment.
So what do you think it means, when a couple hundred parents think an assignment is ok, but "less than five" complain, and get their way? Is this sounding familiar? --It's exactly what we have with the health curriculum.
Anyway, one section of Fisher's column, in particular, jumped out at me. He wrote:
"The parents flunked the assignment," says parent Chris Rigaux. "I don't blame Montgomery County for trying to avoid another court battle, but this was a chance to use books like [Hinton's] 'The Outsiders' to teach about very different lifestyles than we have here in Bethesda, Maryland."
Rigaux's and Strang's sons went ahead and read banned novels and discussed them at home. But Strang is left with a question: "How can I build a resilient child in this world when this is how schools react to pressure?" Views of the Few Send a School Into Retreat
So there it is ... trying to avoid another court battle. In this whole school, this columnist was able to find two parents who didn't like some of the books on the list. But that's all it takes.
My first thought was that this lockdown over at Cabin John was a direct consequence of the lawsuit over the sex-education curriculum earlier this year. The CRC and PFOX took tens of thousands of the school district's money, wasted hundreds of hours of people's time, drew negative national attention to Montgomery County, and now the schools are afraid to try anything that might be controversial by anybody's standards.
At the same time, I could just hear CRC's lawyer John Garza whining at the school board, saying "Send us a curriculum that's not offensive." Right, a curriculum that's not offensive to anyone, sure thing. If two or three people can totally undermine a teacher's brilliant idea, then oh yeah, we're on our way to not offending anyone. And what kind of watered-down education could ever meet that standard? I shudder to think.
posted by JimK at 3:31 PM
39 Comments:
Wow. That's quite a list. I would not read the books by Madonna and Howard Stern. I would actively incourage my kids to read many of the others, with more encouragement as they grow up. My husband and I have read many of these books to our kids. We talk about them, too.
This bring up lots of questions:
Who are these parents who could not find a single book they liked on this list?
What are they afraid of?
Why is the girls' edition of "What's Happening to My Body" 21% more objectionable than the boys' edition?
What are they afraid of?
What's not to love about Katherine Patterson? (Patterson trivia: her husband was the minister at the Takoma Park Presbyterian Church on Tulip Avenue. She set "The Great Gilly Hopkins" in Takoma Park. She never named the town but if you knew Takoma Park in the 70s, you'll recognize it.)
And finally, what ARE these people afraid of?
It is certainly okay for one to parent their own children.....but not everyone else's children.
There were plenty of books to choose from. Do not tell me the minority parents could not find one for their children or suggest a substitute for them to read in alternative.
The school administration should not be catering to the minority.
Uh, oh, Harry Potter- we know where that leads- to more reading! Catcher in the Rye!- that book is so old-we had it as assigned reading in public school back in 1968. Reading is dangerous - it leads to more reading and ideas and uh, no- questions!
It is amazingly pathetic that a small number(1-4) of parents could have this whole assignment rescinded. Of course, there are small-minded parents- but shame on the principal for giving in to this. The principal is supposed to be the lead educator in a school- what message has she sent?
"The religious extremists pretend that Intelligent Design is something different from creationism, by carefully not mentioning any Creator by name."
The problem is, Jim, our soon-to-be-corrected Supreme Court declared teaching creationism to be an unconstitutional religious feature in public schools. That only makes sense if the creator is identified. As we have seen, intelligent design is subscribed to by people who have all sorts of ideas- and some with none at all- about who the creator may be. The evidence, which virtually all scientists agree exist, suggests that universe was set up to produce a certain result. Many scientists disagree with that interpretation of those facts but the nature of evidence and proof is the forte of philosophers, who increasingly agree that intelligent design ideas have merit.
Check out this week's cover story in Time magazine where several experts are asked to make predictions about "what's next?" There are interesting comments from one of the experts who predicts that intelligent design will soon become commonly accepted wisdom.
Sorry. The previous terrific post should have been signed by "Lightning".
I remember reading "The Outsiders" at Herbert Hoover Middle School in class.
I actually really liked that book. I thought it was very good.
I don't see what the big problem is.
(Pardon me if I misread something)
LM,
If the utter nonsense known as ID becomes routine in schools, you should begin making plans to visit your grandchildren in India and China, because the US will be a third-rate country economically by then.
One of the more ludicrous contentions of Dr. Behe is that a flagellum could not have evolved; it must have arisen de novo. There appear to be specific research groups working on the evolution of the flagellum as I write. What will the good Dr. say when he wakes up one day and has to eat his words? This childishness was promoted regarding the evolution of the eye several decades ago, until the research was done there as well.
The plan of the IDers is to find pockets of science where there are significant querstions and gaps (never a hard thing to do)and then claim, "Eureka!" Behe even testified to the effect that if the world of eminent scientists doesn't have an answer to a question, it implies there is a designer. Is that philosophy, or stupidity?
This list was handed out to the kids to bring home and discuss with their parents.
The list included this title :
"The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein"
So the kids were exposed to the fact that a book with this title existed WITHOUT any parental permission.
Now, if parents have to sign a permission slip to allow their kids to participate in a class that discusses homosexuality, why is it okay for a teacher to hand kids who are 12 and 13 a list including this title ?
It's NOT OKAY - clearly, which is why the principal got an earful.
"If the utter nonsense known as ID becomes routine in schools, you should begin making plans to visit your grandchildren in India and China, because the US will be a third-rate country economically by then."
You ought to read journalist David Aikman's book, "Jesus in Bejing", detailing the strength of the Christian underground movement in China. A former bureau chief in Bejing for Time magazine, he predicts that China will in the near future become the first nation since Rome to change the state religion to Christianity. He shows how China's leaders, who in the 80s thought capitalism was the secret of America's strength, have now concluded that it is Christianity. Guess that will leave India to reap the windfall from all those practical economic applications of evolution.
"One of the more ludicrous contentions of Dr. Behe is that a flagellum could not have evolved; it must have arisen de novo. There appear to be specific research groups working on the evolution of the flagellum as I write. What will the good Dr. say when he wakes up one day and has to eat his words? This childishness was promoted regarding the evolution of the eye several decades ago, until the research was done there as well."
Could you reference the research that you say has been concluded?
"The plan of the IDers is to find pockets of science where there are significant questions and gaps (never a hard thing to do)and then claim, "Eureka!""
So if they point out problems with evolution, they have a dastardly scheme but if you point out probems with ID, your intentions are only noble. This shows how evolutionary theory has become a religion. You think it is sacred and beyond criticism. ID theorists aren't attacking "pockets of science", they're trying to de-mythologize the role of evolution in the vast variety of speciation on our planet.
"Behe even testified to the effect that if the world of eminent scientists doesn't have an answer to a question, it implies there is a designer. Is that philosophy, or stupidity?"
If he said that he's wrong but could you provide the exact quote? The truth is there appears to be a designer because there appears to be a design.
Lightning
One of the tasks of the educator is to select material that is edifying. Teachers are accountable to parents for how well they have done the job. This criticism is often called censorship or book-banning by teachers but that's self-serving rhetoric. Adults in America are free to read anything they want. Parents are entrusted with protecting kids from particularly confusing or seductive works before they are ready to handle them. Middle school is an especially confusing time in a child's life, requiring parental attention to influences.
Of course, I hope everyone recognizes Jim' hypocrisy in this post. He thinks the parents in Cabin John are out of line but fully supports the parents in Pennsylvania who have sued to remove the mere mention of Dean Kenyon's book, "Of Pandas and People" which teaches about both evolution and ID. It appears he would like everything mentioned in school that he wants mentioned in school.
Lightning
"I remember reading "The Outsiders" at Herbert Hoover Middle School in class.
I actually really liked that book. I thought it was very good.
I don't see what the big problem is."
Alex, the problem was with the whole list and the self-serving way the teacher was trying to redefine book-banning.
What are you so scared about? You obviously know nothing about science or the scientific method. I'm all for discussing the impact of religion in American history, and world history, in the schools. I even think a course on comparative religion would be a valuable elective. It's just not science.
The Chinese are not rolling up patents, LM, because they believe in Jesus.
I never said the research on the flagellum had been concluded. I said it is ongoing. See, that's how science works. With sufficient funding, scientists get to tackle problems that are interesting. A man of limited imagination and curiosity, such as Dr. Behe, looks at the cell, sees God, and closes the book. End of science. How many examples do you need? Galileo builds his telescope, sees the planets, says, "Hallelujah!" and dismantles his telescope?
This battle has been going on for as long as modern science has been in existence. The only reason you push this is because you question your own faith, and become scared. Do you really want to live in a world without science? Do you really believe research is done by seeing Mary in the structure of a mitochondrion? This is absolutely nonsensical. And you risk losing your religious freedom by pushing to insinuate it into places it does not belong.
Of course there are holes in evolution. There are holes in cosmology, and particle physics as well. Medicine is full of holes. How do you propose we fill those holes? Faith in Jesus?
You are free to find your morality wherever you choose. You are not free to dismantle the science programs of this country with know-nothingism.
Theresa,
Again you've got it wrong. The list is called "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000." I take that as a fact-based list. I presume the classroom challenge was to get kids engaged in a discussion of the explosive issue of censorship. Why is it you and your friends always go the books on sex, and particularly homosexuality? There are plenty of books on that list I would not care to read. How about "The Anarchist's Cookbook"? (For all I know it's about recipes for chili, not bombs).
The point was to get kids thinking. If it turns out that over the next decade "Of Pandas and People" makes the list, then it, too, would be subject for consideration in this type of class. Not science class, but censorship class. Personally I would prefer students read it and reach their own conclusions about its worth (or lack of worth).
Don't be so afraid. And if you want to become active on an issue of sexuality, go after the general sexualization of our culture, promulgated by the capitalists who run Fox, Madison Avenue, Hollywood and the White House.
Dana -
I find the title of the book "the new joy of gay sex" offensive and something I would not want my twelve year old exposed to without my permission - which is EXACTLY what Cabin John did - stepped ALL OVER the parents rights by handing a printed list of books including this title to the kids.
My job as a mother is to make sure my kids aren't exposed to concepts that may be harmful to them while I feel they are still too young to deal with them. I understand that includes monitoring thier TV, the movies they watch, AS WELL as what the school seems to be trying to teach them that I feel is inappropriate.
So I have two questions for the TTF'ers "
1) do you believe a parent has the right and responsibility to restrict what their child is exposed to ?
2) at what age do you believe that it would be okay for a child to hear the words "anal sex" ? We have established you thought that age ten was okay in a classroom setting... at what age is it not okay ? 6 ? 5 ? 3 ? Or is any age okay ?
Just curious if you believe in any boundaries at all....
Theresa
Do you think your twelve year old has never heard the word "gay?"
I appreciate the fact that you are expressing yourself here, and hope that at some point we can all arrive at some sort of understanding, and maybe even think of ways to overcome these chasms that divide us.
But ... It will not be possible for a parent to screen every perceptual stimulus that impinges on their child's senses. Your hope that the world will be cleansed of all mention of sex is simply going to be disappointed. Most people in this world enjoy sex, and hardly anybody waits till marriage to engage in it. So it seems you will want to interfere with everybody else's lives, while they are doing things that are not wrong by a reasonable standard, in order to filter what your child sees.
But you must know ... your kid is finding out stuff. In muy opinion, all you've done is to create a situation where he can't talk with you about these things that are probably very important to him at this age.
JimK
Hearing the word "gay" (which I know my almost twelve year old daughter has hear and my almost ten year old son has heard) is clearly not something I can prevent - nor would I care to at this age.
However, the title of the book "the new joys of gay sex" is going to invoke all sorts of questions in my eleven year old daughter's mind that I don't necessarily want her thinking about yet....
You didn't answer my question, though, Jim - what age do you believe is too young for a child to hear the words anal sex ?
Theresa....no answer would suit you it appears. Who would exactly have the answer for that? Each parent would believe a different thing as it relates to their own children. Each parent should parent their own children but not dictate to everyone else which is why folks have such a problem with CRC'rs.
My question is why are you not participating in the CRC message board more where like-minded would be there for you?
"Anon free"
Theresa, this might seem strange to you, but I don't see an age-limit for a term like "anal sex." Tell you the truth, I think little kids think all sex is anal, like, the man puts his pee-pee in the lady's butt. As the kid gets older, they pick up stuff on the playground, in health class, and from their parents, and eventually get a picture close to what actually happens. By 10 or 12 they should know that there's another place on the woman's body where babies come out and where sperm goes in.
But don't they realize that there is a range of sexual behaviors? Like kissing, they understand that kissing has something to do with sex. Touching a girl's breasts is a major taboo, even those these wonderful things have suddenly appeared and are causing a stir in the boy community -- you can't touch them, and it's even rude to talk about them. And it has something to do with sex. And wet dreams and all that goes with it, embarrassing erections -- they're going to wonder about all this.
So all these things are happening in their world. Sex is everywhere, not just commercial sexualization but personal emotions and observations. And it will be like that for the rest of their lives. They will hear about oral sex, anal sex, gay sex, masturbation, sex toys and one-night stands, and they will need to learn about the varieties of ways that people exploit innocence sexually. So a 10-year-old, or an 8-year-old, hears the phrase "anal sex." What happens? Either they forget it, or maybe they try to find out more about it. And then what? They might learn that some people do that -- you don't think that really sounds appealing to a kid, do you? It's just a piece of knowledge they can store away as they try to understand this huge thing.
I know I've gone on too long (I'm avoiding a stack of bills), but to summarize: I don't think knowledge is harmful. I also think sex is natural and good, and that it is extremely powerful and can only be managed, at the personal level, by accurate knowledge.
JimK
"Theresa, this might seem strange to you, but I don't see an age-limit for a term like "anal sex.""
Thanks for conceding this, Jim. That will be very helpful.
I don't believe there was any "concession." I didn't really realize that Theresa wanted an answer to that question, but she asked again so I told her what I think. And remember, we're just talking about saying a word here.
Sadly, I halfway expect the CRC to publish something saying "Teach the Facts member advocates anal sex for 10-year-olds." I'm not playing that game; I'll say what I mean, you twist it how you want, we'll let the people sort it out.
JimK
From Stanford Professor Russell Fernald -- this is a good introduciton to the evolution of the eye. I apologize but this blog would not take the diagrams and graphs.
The Evolution of Eyes
Light is the ultimate source of earth's energy and serves as the premier source of information for many species. Indeed, since the beginning of biological evolution over 5 billion years ago, sunlight has fueled all organic life and defined biological time on earth. Light and the light/dark cycle have probably been the most important selective forces ever to act on biological organisms. One of the most remarkable consequences of light on earth has been the evolution of eyes that has made vision possible. At present, we do not know whether eyes arose once or many times, and, in fact, many features of eye evolution are still puzzling.
How did eyes evolve? Darwin, the great English naturalist who first brought the systematic explanatory power of evolution to bear on the bewildering biological complexity of our planet, felt that eyes offered a special challenge to evolutionary thinking because they are such '...organs of extreme perfection and complication...' (1859). He was quite explicit on this point, saying '...that the eye....could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree'. More than a century later, with new insights that reach from molecular to macroscopic levels of analysis, new mysteries reinforce Darwin's prescient writing. We still have much to learn from the evolution of eyes, both about the existing eyes as well as the processes of evolution that produced them.
Current interest and excitement about eye evolution comes from discoveries at both ends of the full spectrum of biological investigation. Molecular biologists who seek fundamental similarities among organisms have found some genes implicated in eye development that are conserved in eyes from animals across a large phylogenetic distance. Evolutionary biologists interested in understanding why organisms and their parts are so different have found new types of eyes, both in the fossil record and in living animals. What do these different approaches to the evolution of eyes tell us? Together they offer complementary views of eye evolution and possibly the beginnings of a clear story. This article will examine features of eyes for clues about their origins.
Why Do We See What We See?
All eyes are sensitive to a common, rather narrow range of wavelengths within the broad spectrum of energy produced by the sun. Why is this? Why can't we see more of this spectrum? The most likely explanation is that eyes first evolved in animals living in water, and, water, due to its fundamental nature, filters out all but two quite narrow ranges of electromagnetic (EM) radiation [1, 2]. As shown in figure 1, the range of EM radiation 'visible' for most organisms is a narrow, sharply defined band, ranging from the very short wavelengths we think of as having a blue color to longer wavelengths we identify as red. It is particularly narrow when compared with the full range of EM radiation produced by the sun. In our language, we divide this narrow range of perceived wavelengths into seven names (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet), also called spectral colors. As is clear from the figure, in this very narrow band, EM radiation penetrates water better than the adjacent wavelengths by about 6 orders of magnitude. So, since our ultimate ancestors existed in a watery slime, the only radiation to penetrate water must have been the primary selective force. As we see now, this early selection for the narrow spectrum ultimately drove the evolution of biochemical mechanisms sensitive to these colors of light. This is true both for perception of light by animals and for photosynthesis by plants. Now, five billion years later, though many animal species have moved onto land where the sun's full spectrum is available, eyes remain sensitive only to this narrow region. That limit comes now, not from the filtering properties of water but rather from the biochemical mechanisms that evolved in response to the limited wavelengths penetrating the original slime. Once selection started organisms down that path, mechanisms that evolved limited future options.
It is true that many insect species as well as some species of fish and birds can 'see' in the ultraviolet, or very short wavelength end of the visible spectrum. However, they do so with slight modifications of the same biochemical system that the rest of us use to see, not with new mechanisms. This particular exploitation is remarkable because the energy in photons at the short wavelengths is very high.
As seen in figure 1, EM radiation penetrates water quite well at the very low frequency end of the spectrum (<103 Hz) explaining why it is dangerous to put power wires into water, among other things. This range of wavelengths is actually used by some organisms to gather sensory information. For example, weakly electric fish evolved independently in both Africa and South America, and species from both groups use low frequencies to signal conspecifics about reproduction and other important things in murky water where normal vision is not much use.
How Do Eyes Work and How Did They Evolve?
To be useful to their owners, eyes must collect light from the environment, resolve it into images, and then capture and forward those images to the brain. Despite decades of research, we still have only limited understanding of how vision actually works. It remains a deep puzzle how a seamless representation of the world is knitted together by the brain from visual snapshots. The functioning of the eye itself, however, is fairly well understood. This is, in part, because the evolution of eyes has been strictly constrained by the physical properties of light. Light travels in straight lines, can be reflected, and varies in wavelength (subjective hue or color) and intensity (subjective brightness). Many of the structural principles and even apparent flaws we find in existing eyes result from constraints due to the physical properties of light.
By the time of the Cambrian period (570–500 million years ago), eyes were present in the form of very simple eyecups, useful for detecting light but not for processing directional information. Although the causes are unknown, explosive speciation, or the 'Big Bang' of animal evolution happened during the Cambrian [3]. Existing eye types improved radically, coincident with the appearance of carnivory and predation. The evolution of ocular structures has proceeded in two stages (fig. 2) [4]. First was the production of simple eye spots which are found in nearly all the major animal groups and contain a small number of receptors in an open cup of screening pigment [4]. Such detectors cannot play a role in recognizing patterns but are useful for distinguishing light from dark. The second stage in eye evolution is the addition of an optical system that can produce an image. Image-forming eyes occur in 96% of known species distributed among 6 phyla [4]. Among the known eye types are at least eleven distinct optical methods of producing images, the most recently described is a telephoto lens, identified in the chameleon in 1995. Indeed, six of the optical mechanisms have only been discovered in the past 25 years.
Since camera-type eyes are demonstrably superior in several respects [5], why don't all animals have them? Certainly, camera-type eyes require big heads and bodies to hold them which may have restricted the number of animals that have followed this evolutionary path. Also, it is likely that having evolved one eye type, conversion to another type requires intermediate stages that are much worse or useless compared with the existing design. This would make a switch essentially lethal to animals that depend on sight. Although this argument makes sense intuitively, some existing cases of novel optical combinations suggest this is probably not the whole story.
Textbooks tend to group animal eyes into two groups, the camera-type or 'simple' eyes and the compound eyes. Although this dichotomy reflects a real and fundamental difference in optical mechanisms, it conceals a remarkable diversity of optical systems subsumed under each heading [4, 5].
In 1994, Nilsson and Modlin described a mysid shrimp (Dioptromysis paucispinous) that has a combined simple and compound eye: partly compound with multiple facets exactly like the eye of an insect, and partly simple with a single lens focusing an image on a sheet of receptors like that of a human. The shrimp are about 5 mm long with nearly spherical eyes at the ends of stalks. In addition to the facets (ca. 800–900) there is a single giant facet facing the shrimp's tail, which the shrimp frequently rotates forward probably to get a better look at something since it has ca. 5 times the acuity (but much lower sensitivity) than the rest of the eye. It is as if the shrimp is carrying a pair of binoculars for the occasional detailed look at something ahead of it. The discovery that simple and compound eye types can be found in a single animal raises the question of how a developmental program could produce this outcome.
How Do Eyes Capture Photons?
Visual information from the environment is detected by specialized cells called photoreceptors located in a sheet covering the back of the eye. These cells are part of the retina, a thin (ca. 100 µm) layer of cells that is responsible for getting visual information to the brain. Photoreceptors contain two molecules that act together to collect photons. One, opsin, is a protein that sits in a membrane in close association with the other, a visual pigment or chromophore (11-cis-retinal), which is surrounded and held by opsin (fig. 3). When a photon is absorbed by the chromophore, it lengthens by 5 Å by rotating around a double bond. Through this slight transformation, the chromophore makes opsin enzymatically active, ultimately causing, via an amplifying cascade, a decrease in current flow across the outer segment membrane. The main result of this interaction is that the photon energy is transduced into electrical energy which can be interpreted by the nervous system.
The opsins have a family history that precedes eyes as evidenced by comparisons of their DNA. They consist of seven transmembrane helices with short loops on both sides of the membrane. The chromo-phore, retinal, is attached covalently to opsin at a site in the seventh transmembrane domain. These features are common to all metazoan opsins and, based on comparison of the DNA sequences, they must share a common ancestry. In particular, several regions of the molecule show close similarity among opsins from vertebrates, insects and Octopus, whose ancestries diverged in the Cambrian [4]. This homology suggests that the molecule responsible for the initial absorption of photons has been exquisitely tuned over evolutionary time. In addition, the high level of conservation has allowed relatively easy recovery of the cDNAs that encode opsin from the eyes of many different species, giving us a remarkable amount of information on its evolutionary history.
One source of evolutionary information has been the evolution of color vision. There are many selective advantages for animals having color vision including improved detection of food, mates and enemies. To see colors, animals must have photoreceptors sensitive to different wavelengths of light. This is possible through the evolution of slight variants in the opsin molecule through which subtle differences in the amino acids at particular sites 'tune' the chromophore to a particular peak absorbance wavelength. The discovery and clarification of a direct causal link between a molecular structure and its importance for a perceptual process is remarkable in its own right, but also because these features are common to all metazoan opsins. These evolutionary experiments have allowed detailed phylogenetic comparisons, suggesting that vertebrate visual pigments have evolved along at least five lines and diverged from an ancestral type before teleost fish diverged from other vertebrates.
Although metazoan opsins appear to have evolved along several separate lines from a common ancient ancestor, what happened earlier is not clear. Bacteriorhodopsin, from Halobacterium does not show significant amino acid similarity with cattle rhodopsin. Moreover, it is the double bond 13 of the chromophore, rather than 11 that is altered by light. Nonetheless, like metazoan opsins, bacteriorhodopsin belongs to a large superfamily of proteins, all of which have seven transmembrane helices and operate by activating second-messenger cascades. This family of proteins includes neurotransmitter and peptide receptors as well as the family of odorant receptor molecules. Whether similarities within the superfamily result from a very ancient common ancestry or a more recent recruitment is not yet known.
Eyes: Convergence or Homology?
Have the structural similarities among eyes resulted from evolutionary convergence due to similar selective pressures (analogous) or from descent from a common ancestor (homologous)? This distinction is particularly hard to draw when comparing eyes because the physical laws governing light greatly restrict the construction of eyes. Similar eye structures may have arisen in unrelated animals simply because of constraints imposed by light.
The most commonly cited example of evolutionary convergence are the eyes of squids and fish. Both of these are 'camera-type' eyes, in which an image is formed on the photosensitive retinal layer at the back. Moreover, both have evolved a spherical lens with an exquisitely constructed gradient of refractive index that allows good focus despite their spherical shape. In addition, both types of eyes use the same light-sensitive molecule, opsin, to convert photons into neural energy. However, the fish retina is inverted, meaning the light-sensing cells are at the very back of the eye (inverse) while those in squid are at the front of the retina (everse). Moreover, the parts of the eyes of fish and squid arise from very different embryological sources during development, suggesting different origins for these eye types.
Paired eyes in the three major phyla, vertebrates, arthropods and mollusks (fig. 4), have long been considered to be classic examples of evolutionary convergence. At the macroscopic level, this must be true since they arise from different tissues and have evolved radically different solutions to the common problem of collecting and focusing light. However, as discussed above, opsin has a significant DNA sequence homology across all phyla. Remarkably, recent work by Gehring and Ikeo [9] has shown that features of ocular development in different phyla can be coordinated by a homologous 'master' gene, Pax-6. That a single gene could trigger construction of an animal's eye in diverse species led to their proposal that eyes are monophyletic, i.e. evolved only once. This is an interesting hypothesis that goes against all the previous suggestions of multiple (i.e. polyphyletic) origins for eyes. There are several reasons why this hypothesis seems difficult to support. It is well known that Pax-6 organizes other structures besides eyes and is even necessary for the onset of various actions outside the nervous system. Also, other genes can cause development of eyes [reviewed in 10]. Whether eyes are monophyletic or not, the work of Gehring and his colleagues has stimulated a great deal of new work on eye evolution, which is a good thing in itself.
Clearly, eyes have common molecular constituents whether they be opsins, Pax-6, or others. Yet, homology at the molecular level of organization does not predict homology at the organ or organismic level. Molecules are not eyes.
Conclusions
Eyes exist in a variety of shapes, sizes, optical designs and locations on the body, but they all provide similar information about wavelength and intensity of light to their owners. Different tissues have been recruited to build lenses and retinas across the phyla. In contrast, all eyes share the same mechanism of absorbing photons, i.e. the opsin-chromophore combination has been conserved across phylogeny. Despite new findings yielded by powerful molecular techniques, all evidence still suggests that eyes have a polyphyletic origin, with the caveat that they contain homologous molecules responsible for many structural, functional and even developmental features (fig. 5). Given a growing list of homologous gene sequences amongst molecules in the eye across vast phylogenetic distances, the challenge is now to discover what makes the eyes of Drosophila, squid and mouse so different. Since strictly homologous developmental processes must produce homologous structures, key elements responsible for the development of nonhomologous eyes remain missing. Understanding what makes eyes different may be a bigger challenge than finding what they have in common.
References
1 Fernald RD: Aquatic Adaptations in Fish Eyes. New York, Springer, 1988.
2 Fernald RD: The evolution of eyes. Brain Behav Evol 1997;50:253-259.
3 Conway-Morris S.: The Crucible of Creation. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.
4 Land MF, Fernald RD: The evolution of eyes. Annu Rev Neurosci 1992;15:1-29.
5 Nilsson DE: Vision optics and evolution. Bioscience 1989;39:298-307.
6 Graw J: Genetic aspects of embryonic eye development in vertebrates. Dev Gen 1996;18:181-197.
7 Halder G, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ: Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science 1995;267:1788-1792.
8 Doolittle RF: More molecular opportunism. Nature 1988;336:18.
9 Gehring WJ, Ikeo K: Pax 6: Mastering eye morphogenesis and eye evolution. Trends Genet 1999;15:371-377.
10 Fernald RD: Evolution of eyes. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2000;10:444-450.
Biography
Russell D. Fernald is Benjamin Scott Crocker Professor of Human Biology and Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, California. His research is focused on understanding how the vertebrate visual system develops and how vision influences the behavior of animals. Dr. Fernald is an editorial board member of the Karger journal Brain Behavior and Evolution.
Russell D. Fernald, Ph.D
Benjamin Scott Crocker Professor of Human Biology
Neuroscience Program and
Dept. of Psychology, Bldg. 420
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-2130 (USA)
E-mail: russ@psych.stanford.edu
Homepage: http://www.stanford.edu/group/fernaldlab
Theresa,
I am pretty sure, as I said before, that any kid who wants to ask about anal sex in class(even if it is just to get oohs and giggles) is saying it in the school yard, on the bus and at lunch. So your kid is hearing it. Sadly, I wonder if your kids already know there are things they can't ask you. I didn't want there to be anything at any age my kids couldn't ask me so I could give them an answer. I know from my own ancient experience growing up that what parents won't answer- or knowing that parents won't talk about certain things- it makes kids go to other kids- where the answers are likely to be wrong and possibly dangerous. I think that is why we hear so many kids think oral and anal sex isn't sex- because you can't get pregnant and you are "still a virgin" seems to be the reason why-and they have heard it from their peers before their parents speak to them.
As to books- my son started to read at 3 1/2 and I have only removed one book from his hands- when he was 5. It was a book on AIDs with rather graphic sexual descriptions. He would wander around the library to pick out books and he was in his disease and disaster stage then.
MCPS uses the William and Mary program for honors English and banned books is one of the sections. What I find surprising is that you think your kid(an 8th grader) has not heard about gay sex or that the purpose of this was to suggest any student- after discussing it with a parent-should read Sex by Madonna or the Anarchist cookbook. As to "protecting" your kids from the world- I suggest you keep them out of Giant, 7-11 or anywhere else that sells magazines- and I don't mean Playboy. I am not sure even Family Circle is exempt from the current practice of cover stories on improving your sex life or cover models who need some cover. I do not approve of mostly naked cover models - who appear to be younger every year(fashion magazines often use young teens- the public wouldn't want anyone who looked "old")- but we discuss this. My kids know I think it is inappropriate as is the "requirement" to have a story on sexual activities in many magazines which formerly were about fashion or health or even household matters.
Andrea
Theresa,
I just got back in so I missed your question.
Firstly, I don't think a list of banned books is a big issue. The point of this list is that the books have been "banned," not because their content is particularly important or of interest to many people. If a ten-year-old sees that list, what do you think they'll do with it? If they bother to pick one book, do you really think they would choose a book about gay sex? And if they opened such a book, what do you think their reaction would be, besides "Yuck!" (whether they turn out stright or gay)?
I think what underlies your concern is the belief that if your children are exposed to anything having to do with sex they will be tempted and seduced. A ten-year-old will not, unless pubertally precocious, be tempted. A 13-year-old will be engaged and curious about sex in general, and will, in all probability, discover much of the options for himself. I seem to recall that back in the agrarian days bestiality was pretty popular with the adolescent boys.
So wouldn't it be better if your children learned the facts about sex? I don't recall health class being sexually stimulating. I would imagine even for a class of high school students most would be turned off by anal sex. But acknowledging that it happens, why it happens, and its risks, is an important aspect of being a parent. I don't believe you can absolutely protect your children from sex, even if you want to, so I think you're making their lives more difficult, rather than easier.
And even though I disagree with your approach, I will say that the most important thing for them is to have an open relationship with you so you can discuss it calmly. If all you want to say is, "I don't think we should be discussing that," that's better than nothing. Or you can say it's something people do, but I don't approve and it's particularly dangerous. The important thing is that you talk about it.
As for the age issue, I don't think it will be at all relevant to the average child until 12-13, so I wouldn't discuss it until then. And if it came up, and I were the teacher, I would tell elementary school kids that it is something adults do on occasion and it's not important for them right now. Telling a six-year-old about anal sex is as meaningful as discussing Newton's Laws of Motion with them. The answer in general is to be there with facts when the child is old enough to ask a rational question.
"What are you so scared about?"
Nothing. I'd be happy to see the issue of evolution vs. ID discussed in the school. Your side is the one afraid of having kids hear about ID.
"You obviously know nothing about science or the scientific method."
What is it that you think I don't know?
"I'm all for discussing the impact of religion in American history, and world history, in the schools. I even think a course on comparative religion would be a valuable elective."
Me too. I think we've got a match.
"It's just not science."
It is based on observation of the physical world and drawing conclusions from those observations. Just like Darwin in the Galapagos except that it's right. Why isn't that science?
"he Chinese are not rolling up patents, LM, because they believe in Jesus."
The United States, which long believed in Jesus, has changed the world with its technological marvels. Now, as faith wanes, our science is beginning to fall behind.
" never said the research on the flagellum had been concluded. I said it is ongoing."
I was talking about the eye research that you said disproved ID "decades" ago.
"that's how science works. With sufficient funding, scientists get to tackle problems that are interesting. A man of limited imagination and curiosity, such as Dr. Behe, looks at the cell, sees God, and closes the book. End of science. How many examples do you need? Galileo builds his telescope, sees the planets, says, "Hallelujah!" and dismantles his telescope?""
ID research is ongoing. Review the activities of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Behe's book is a major feat of ideation. He also has displayed courage in staring down the mainstream science establishment, much like Galileo. The telescopes are intact.
"his battle has been going on for as long as modern science has been in existence."
Yes, it has. That's why mainstream science has developed its bias.
"he only reason you push this is because you question your own faith, and become scared."
What do you base that on?
"Do you want to live in a world without science?"
One interesting point of the NOVA special on Einstein a couple of weeks ago is that many of the scientists who have made major discoveries were inspired to explore "God's creation." Acknowledging his existence won't end science, it will revitalize it.
"ou really believe research is done by seeing Mary in the structure of a mitochondrion?"
i'm not Roman catholic and I'm sceptical of visions of Mary.
"And you risk losing religious freedom by pushing to insinuate it into places it does not belong."
I never doubted it. I've read Revelation.Compartmentalizing belief in God into places it belongs is the definition of hypocrisy.
"f course there are holes in evolution. There are holes in cosmology, and particle physics as well. Medicine is full of holes. How do you propose we fill those holes? Faith in Jesus?"
We should fill them with the simplest explanation that seems reasonable. Evolution's not sacred. It's holes are actually uncomfortable facts that don't make sense.
"ou are free to find your morality wherever you choose. You are not free to dismantle the science programs of this country with know-nothingism."
Yes I am but that's not a correct characterization of my views.
Dana
You seem to have responded to my post before it appeared. I thought I had posted it before but it doesn't appear. This blog is getting spooky as Halloween approaches. Anyway, thanks for the article. It will take a while to digest.
Jim K said...
Sadly, I halfway expect the CRC to publish something saying "Teach the Facts member advocates anal sex for 10-year-olds." I'm not playing that game; I'll say what I mean, you twist it how you want, we'll let the people sort it out.
*****************
Well Theresa is a CRC'r afterall who thought nothing of their use of school families' PTA private directory information. Would you expect anything less than a CRC'r misrepresenting anything?
Sex is a dirty word to them and homosexuals, etc., just scare them to death. They are afraid it may rub off on them as if it is something to be feared and dirty. Nevermind there are probably CRC'rs who have anal sex on occasion or are closeted homosexuals.
It is just matter of how fast she does it or how fast we see Michelle Turner ranting aboout TTF in her less than stellar BOE testimony rantings.
Sometimes you might need to refresh your screen to see the latest post. This seems to happen especially when it was your own post that came last. I refresh on the main page, then select comments, and then refresh that, too. Sometimes I have to do it a couple of times to see stuff. Amazing what shows up sometimes.
JimK
Anon said, "I'd be happy to see the issue of evolution vs. ID discussed in the school."
Yes, obviously, that's what you, the Discovery Institute, some slick Madison Avenue marketing types, and a couple of hundred scientists worldwide are all about; attempting to force an unscientific theory that supports your chosen religion into our public school curricula. Of course you'd be "happy to see" that happen! Thank you for your honesty!
I'd be appalled! And so would the rest of the world's tens of thousands of scientists along with the majority of folks in Montgomery County who know that ID is creationism in scientists' clothing and as such does not belong in the classroom.
You can keep repeating that ID is some scientific theory based on observation all you want. Repeating a false statement, no matter how many times you repeat it, will not make it true.
ID is repackaged creationism.
ID's textbook -- Of Pandas and People --is a rewrite of a book on creationism as noted here: (http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/10/early-drafts-shed-light-on-controversy.html#comments).
You think we're afraid to have ID in our schools? We don't fear any one religion; instead we agree that all religious instruction belongs in houses of worship, not in our public schools. There are a couple of US Supreme Court precedents that support that view.
We are secure in our faiths. Yes, faiths -- plural. We understand reason and how important it is for scientific advancement. We say what we mean. We see no sense in wasting time discussing any being who cannot be known by any of the 5 senses but is *believed* to be responsible for many natural phenomena because "there's no other explanation for it!" ID doesn't pass the laugh test.
The public's been hearing lots of lies from the radical right lately and maybe in your social circles people believe them, but trust me, the progressive majority here in Montgomery County "ain't buyin' what they're sellin'," as my Daddy used to say.
And that reminds me. Your attempts to proselytize in the guise of discussing your faith as if it was a scientific theory isn't getting you too far with this crowd either.
Aunt Bea
Anon,
Rather than respond point by point, I'd like to discuss my personal experience. It may help elucidate some larger points.
I grew up in a Conservative Jewish family, but I was educated in a fundamentalist Jewish day school, a yeshiva. It was classified then as "modern orthodox." The pinnacle of the modern orthodox movement in Europe and the U.S. is Yeshiva University, where one can be ordained as an orthodox rabbi as well as receiving a BA degree from one of the world's foremost secular universities. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists have nothing that approaches its scholarship in the secular fields.
So I grew up learning fundamentalist religion, having orthodox friends, staying at their homes, being immersed in the culture. I lived an orthodox life. Many of my friends from those days are still my friends, whatever their religious persuasion today.
And while I learned my religion as well as any other fundamentalist may learn hers, if not better, I was always impressed with the underlying decency of the creed. One aspect in particular, "pikuach nefesh," saving a life, resonated with me. Professor Nuland recently wrote an essay in, I believe, The New Republic, trying to elucidate the incredible prevalence of Jewish doctors in America. And he traced it back, in simple terms, to that one moral value, "pikuach nefesh." (Not "My son, the doctor." Sorry.)
What is its significance? It means that one is commanded to override all of the 613 mitzvot, or commandments, of the Torah to save a life. Except one -- murder. (And even that's problematic at times).
So from a very early age I was taught to view the value of a human life as primary, certainly more important than not driving on shabbat or eating kosher food, etc. It was one of the values that propelled me, like many others, into medicine.
No one in my religious studies ever attempted to interfere in the study of science. No rabbi ever tried to dissuade me from pursuing a career in science. On the contrary, they encouraged it. And they encouraged the quality of thought and analysis and inquiry that is essential to science. They never once attempted to explain a scientific problem by pointing to God, or blaming God. On the contrary -- they used science to buttress their faith. As one example, I remember the discussions about the Big Bang when the theory began to percolate into the middle school, and how excited so many were that the Big Bang was a perfect metaphor for the iconic description of creation in the Torah, "Let there be light."
Now, while I was a believer, and orthodox, I was also an outsider, because I was trans. My community didn't know what to make of me; I didn't know what to make of me. But as the years have passed, first the Reconstructionists, then the Reform, then a segment of the orthodox, and now the Conservatives, have recognized the concept of gender identity, the existence of transsexualism, and the validity and value of gender reassignment. Suffice it to say I'm proud to be a Jew.
Now all these groups are different in their approaches. The orthodox studied the texts for years to tease out the threads that could be used to understand this phenomenon, and then to ascertain whether genital reconstruction was kosher, so to speak. The Reconstructionists and Reform leaned more heavily on the science and the moral values of fairness and equality. But they have all come to the same conclusion. Pretty remarkable.
In Iran there are even some Muslim fundamentalists who have learned about this condition and accepted it. It's a start. And while the Catholic Church used to be accepting, now, thanks to Professor Paul McHugh and the Pope, they've betrayed their co-religionists. And, finally, to the issue at hand, Protestant extremists in this country appear completely unable to work through their obsessions about sex and grapple with this particular human condition. None of this group is capable of debating or discussing the issue with me intelligently; all they do is show up at the BoE and spew hatred. It's pretty pathetic.
When you align yourselves with some of the most intolerant people on this planet, be it Peter Sprigg who seems to concur with his colleagues that gays were responsible for the Holocaust, or the Muslim fundamentalists who view all women as less than chattel, you have a real problem.
You might want to take the time to evaluate how your parent religion deals with such issues, and learn a little tolerance. At a minimum it will allow you to lead a more pleasant life.
Now for the specifics:
Anonymous said...
"What are you so scared about?"
Nothing. I'd be happy to see the issue of evolution vs. ID discussed in the school. Your side is the one afraid of having kids hear about ID.
>> As I've said, we can have this discussion in American History class (Scopes), or Comparative Religion, or Philosophy. And I wouldn't care if a science teacher used ID to teach what the scientific method is. As a matter of fact, I think that's a pretty good idea. But you won't find more than a handful of science teachers in the states outside the Confederacy who would equate it with science, or say it's valid science. It's just not going to happen, even if it's the law in some benighted district. <<
"You obviously know nothing about science or the scientific method."
What is it that you think I don't know?
>> If you think ID is about the scientific method just because some believer looks at a cell (which counts as "observation" to you) and proclaims God's handiwork, then you don't understand the fundamental precepts of the scientific method. <<
"I'm all for discussing the impact of religion in American history, and world history, in the schools. I even think a course on comparative religion would be a valuable elective."
Me too. I think we've got a match.
"It's just not science."
It is based on observation of the physical world and drawing conclusions from those observations. Just like Darwin in the Galapagos except that it's right. Why isn't that science?
>> What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like self-righteous hubris to me. Just because "it's right?" Darwin took a tour, observed, recorded, went home and examined the evidence, eventually coming up with a theory. Had his theory been, "Wow, the world is a wonderfully diverse place and exemplifies God's handiwork, and left it at that, there's have been nothing about which we could argue. <<
"The Chinese are not rolling up patents, LM, because they believe in Jesus."
The United States, which long believed in Jesus, has changed the world with its technological marvels. Now, as faith wanes, our science is beginning to fall behind.
>>That's quite a leap. On many levels. By all data that I've seen, the U.S. is one of the most religious places on the planet. So your argument fails right there. And, again, when Americans believed in Jesus and left their faith outside the lab, progress was made. And, just to get the diction correct, the "United States" never believed in Jesus. Christian Americans may have, and certainly all didn't, including a few of the Founding Fathers. <<
" never said the research on the flagellum had been concluded. I said it is ongoing."
I was talking about the eye research that you said disproved ID "decades" ago.
>>See my other post on the evolution of the eye. <<
"that's how science works. With sufficient funding, scientists get to tackle problems that are interesting. A man of limited imagination and curiosity, such as Dr. Behe, looks at the cell, sees God, and closes the book. End of science. How many examples do you need? Galileo builds his telescope, sees the planets, says, "Hallelujah!" and dismantles his telescope?""
ID research is ongoing. Review the activities of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Behe's book is a major feat of ideation. He also has displayed courage in staring down the mainstream science establishment, much like Galileo. The telescopes are intact.
>>Actually, that's not true. There is no ongoing research. There never has been research. There can't possibly be any research, by definition, since ID is not a falsifiable hypothesis. <<
"his battle has been going on for as long as modern science has been in existence."
Yes, it has. That's why mainstream science has developed its bias.
>>That makes no sense to me. <<
"he only reason you push this is because you question your own faith, and become scared."
What do you base that on?
>> Observation. Not science. <<
"Do you want to live in a world without science?"
One interesting point of the NOVA special on Einstein a couple of weeks ago is that many of the scientists who have made major discoveries were inspired to explore "God's creation." Acknowledging his existence won't end science, it will revitalize it.
>> As I've pointed out, religion may very well be inspirational to people, including scientists. And that's as far as it goes, for Einstein and all the others. <<
"ou really believe research is done by seeing Mary in the structure of a mitochondrion?"
i'm not Roman catholic and I'm sceptical of visions of Mary.
>> That was said tongue-in-cheek. It's not a pun about Catholics. <<
"And you risk losing religious freedom by pushing to insinuate it into places it does not belong."
I never doubted it. I've read Revelation.Compartmentalizing belief in God into places it belongs is the definition of hypocrisy.
"f course there are holes in evolution. There are holes in cosmology, and particle physics as well. Medicine is full of holes. How do you propose we fill those holes? Faith in Jesus?"
We should fill them with the simplest explanation that seems reasonable. Evolution's not sacred. It's holes are actually uncomfortable facts that don't make sense.
>>They make perfect sense, and the simplest explanation, scientifically, can never be God. <<
"ou are free to find your morality wherever you choose. You are not free to dismantle the science programs of this country with know-nothingism."
Yes I am but that's not a correct characterization of my views.
>> I stand corrected. You may try, but you won't succeed. <<
5:59 PM
>> As I've said, we can have this discussion in American History class (Scopes), or Comparative Religion, or Philosophy. And I wouldn't care if a science teacher used ID to teach what the scientific method is. As a matter of fact, I think that's a pretty good idea. But you won't find more than a handful of science teachers in the states outside the Confederacy who would equate it with science, or say it's valid science. It's just not going to happen, even if it's the law in some benighted district. <<
Well, you said I was scared. Sounds like you are. It's like a horror flick: Biology class mentions design features of living things! Help, I won't know what to say!
>> If you think ID is about the scientific method just because some believer looks at a cell (which counts as "observation" to you) and proclaims God's handiwork, then you don't understand the fundamental precepts of the scientific method. <<
The scientist observes specific correlations and notes they are unlikely to be random. It's a valid observation. It's not just glancing at a cell, it's making measurements and studying how it works.
>> What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like self-righteous hubris to me. Just because "it's right?" Darwin took a tour, observed, recorded, went home and examined the evidence, eventually coming up with a theory. Had his theory been, "Wow, the world is a wonderfully diverse place and exemplifies God's handiwork, and left it at that, there's have been nothing about which we could argue. <<
The design argument is more sophisticated than your parody of it.
>>That's quite a leap. On many levels. By all data that I've seen, the U.S. is one of the most religious places on the planet. So your argument fails right there. And, again, when Americans believed in Jesus and left their faith outside the lab, progress was made. And, just to get the diction correct, the "United States" never believed in Jesus. Christian Americans may have, and certainly all didn't, including a few of the Founding Fathers. <<
You're the one the brought the topic up. Religious faith and recognizing God's role in creation has not and never will impede science.
>>Actually, that's not true. There is no ongoing research. There never has been research. There can't possibly be any research, by definition, since ID is not a falsifiable hypothesis. <<
You can test the specific data supporting design. As you said, your people are on the case right now.
>>That makes no sense to me. <<
That's because you're one of the biased individuals.
>> As I've pointed out, religion may very well be inspirational to people, including scientists. And that's as far as it goes, for Einstein and all the others. <<
Scripture only gives the faintest of details. Still, what it says is true. Recognizing that doesn't, as you say, mean the end of science- there is much to fill in. Here's one from the book of Proverbs: "It is the glory of God to conceal things, and the glory of kings to seek things out."
>>They make perfect sense, <<
No, they don't. Assuming things are as evolutionists say, the fossil record shows most of the big evolving took place over a relatively short period of time. Might be that there's a simpler solution.
>> I stand corrected.<<
Get used to it.
Oh, nasty nasty. And I was going to praise you and others on your side at the BoE tonight.
You keep misrepresnting the issue. I never said that being religious in any way needs to impede scientific inquiry. Priests do science, rabbis do science. Maybe there's even a mullah somewhere who does science. But violating the scientific method doesn't move science forward, and it is not science. And there is no way the supernatural could ever be part of a scientific experiment. By definition, if there is something supernatural, it is not science. And if can be scientifically proven, it can't be supernatural. And saying God can make anything appear any way he likes is just superstitious nonsense. My opinion.
The bottom line is that I do not fear doubt, or contradiction, or questions. My life has been full of it. I am very happy to have four hundred years of scientific inquiry on my side, libraries of research and theorizing and disputation behind my back, while you have your Bible and the Discovery Institute.
You seem to believe you need God to accept science, and that Scripture is all true, whatever that means. That's fine.
"Oh, nasty nasty. And I was going to praise you and others on your side at the BoE tonight."
You're going tonight? Me, too. Let's get together for a coupla brewskis after the theatrics.
lightnin'
You need to introduce yourself if you're interested. I'm sure not going to approach strange men and ask, "Are you the Lightning Man?"
darn, I blew it again. I thought you'd recognize my Harry Potter glasses and lightning scar on my forehead. oh well, next month.
Maybe Cabin John backed down but
it's good to see that MCPS
realizes that reading is good for
kids, even reading about things
they don't learn at home.
Check it out here:
http://coldfusion.mcps.k12.md.us/press/index.cfm?page=showrelease&id=1754
The 1938 restored movie of banned
book Number 84 on the banned book
list will be shown at AFI and 1500
MCPS students will have the
opportunity to see it.
Yea!!!
Ma
All Jim's personalities are posting.
Yeah!
In this discussion, I have posted as JimK and only JimK. If you think any of these others are me, you're wrong.
JimK
The Cabin John list was not pulled for Harry Potter. It was pulled because it included such works as Final Exit which contains detailed instructions on how to commit suicide. It was pulled for The Anarchists Cookbook which does contain instructions on bombmaking and home brewed drugs. It was pulled for works portraying extreme violence as a means to sexual gratification. A responsible teacher would distance himself/herself from such works, not include them on a classroom reading list. Almost no guidance was given to these children. The assignment sheet did not include any instuctions to show the list to parents, much less any instructions to discuss the list with them. To have given this list out without prior parental consent, especially at the beginning of school when the teacher could not possibly have known about the mental or emotional status, or life situations of her pupils is rank irresponsibility and should by all rights have lead to the teacher's dismissal from her employment with the school system.
Post a Comment
<< Home