Posted on February 12 at 3 p.m.Suggest removal

"It sounds like you oppose this bill for fear your theory might be wrong. Let it stand up to criticism. If its as much of a fact as you say, then there shouldn't be a problem."

What criticism? Please name it.

Or do you mean quote unquote "criticism"? Where evolution is attacked with quotes that are out-of-context, out-of-date, or by non-scientists? Or maybe with outright false claims like "there are no transitional forms"? Or to present as "evolution" a strawman that no biologists believes but claim that is what dogma of the "evolutionists" is?

Go to http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/... and see what one creationist martyr (John Freshwater) taught his class. Anyone with _any_ understanding of evolutionary biology knows that he completely misrepresented what scientists think about evolution. Whether or not it was by deception or by incompetence, he had no right to do so. The bill in question would give him the right to spread falsehoods about evolution.

We don't allow Holocaust deniers special protection for their "criticism" of history. Why should it be any different for biology? If creationists have some evidence then let them present it to scientists and not try to get laws passes giving them the right to bypass science.

On

Posted on February 12 at 10:27 a.m.Suggest removal

"I'm inclined to think this bill is trying to wield freedom as a weapon."

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Randy Brogdon, is member of the John Birch Society (and indeed the top person listed in their Speaker's Bureau section on their website). They indeed use "freedom" the word as a weapon but are an anti-freedom organization. Indeed given that society's McCarthyite dogmas, I have a hard time believing that given a chance that they would fire most of OU's professors on ideological grounds--for having the wrong beliefs. Sally Kern is also associated with the Birchers as documented by last week's Oklahoma Gazette: http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/33...

Teachers are often afraid to bring up the E-word. This bill if it becomes law will make it worse as they will be under even greater pressure to include pseudoscience -- to say things they know are not true.

Originally evolution deniers tried to outlaw the teaching of evolution. The courts said no. So they tried equal time with creation science. The courts said no. They tried balanced treatment. The courts said no. They then changed from "creation science" to "intelligent design" with the final defeat of "creation science" at the Supreme Court. That failed politically and in the courts. So then came "teach the controversy" and now "academic freedom bill". Every time they are defeated they repackage what they say they want.

Meanwhile common descent remains completely uncontroversial in science. And there can be no bigger sign of what is quackery in science than when the proponents go to school boards and legislatures instead of professional scientists to promote their ideas.

On

Posted on February 12 at 9:53 a.m.Suggest removal

Your editorial "Professors show need for academic freedom bill" is dead wrong. The "strengths and weaknesses" the anti-evolutionists constantly talk about turn out to be distortions of science, out-of-context quotes, and outright falsehoods. Contrary to your claims, the bill is all about attacking evolution for purely religious reasons. The Daily's editorial staff is probably too young to remember the bills the creationists pushed on America in the 1980s so lets review. The arguments for them were the same as what you used . You cite Brogdon's bill's claim not to be about religion. The creationist laws struck down in the 1980s also explicitly claimed to be not about religion. These disingenuous disclaimers have been inserted into creationist-inspired legislation for decades.

You cite public opinion polls support your position. The polls likewise supported the creationist "balanced treatment" bills of the 1980s. And since when do we use polls to determine what is science?

That you share a common ancestor with an eagle and an oak tree is not controversial in science and the bill is an attempt to make kids think that it is. I oppose this bill for the same reason why I would oppose a bill demanding the strengths and weaknesses of the Holocaust or the germ theory of disease be taught.

On

Posted on December 11 at 10:50 a.m.Suggest removal

Donny Lowry tells us that "creationists do generally have a common knowledge of evolution" and promptly shows us that he does not. No scholar believes that "life miraculously sprung forth from the common elements on our planet...." I dare him to find a single biology or biochemistry professor at OU who does.

He also does not know what the word "theory" means in science. It doesn't mean speculation or unproven as it does in colloquial English. That creationists continue to use this word wrongly after being corrected countless times is telling about the competence and honesty of their movement. No one who reads pro-science writings could have possibly missed it. The scientific definition should have been covered by his freshmen science classes. I checked three dictionaries that I have at home and all three included both the scientific and popular definitions and one had a note on the difference.

Meanwhile could Mr. Lowry please explain why both he and a chimp can't synthesis vitamin C due to the exact same mutation? How he and a chimp could have the same retrovirus inserted in the exact same spot in their DNA? And why toothless whales develop teeth only to reabsorb them before they are born? Numerous similar questions could be easily offered.

On