evolution

On Michelle Obama's Relative Who Escaped From Zoo

“A prominent South Carolina Republican” needs lessons in evolutionary biology and damage control, as well as race relations:

A prominent South Carolina Republican killed his Facebook page Sunday after being caught likening the First Lady to an escaped gorilla.

Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, “I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors – probably harmless.”

Busted by South Carolina political blogger Will Folks on his FITNEWS blog, DePass told WIS-TV in Columbia, “I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest.”

Then he added, “The comment was hers, not mine,” claiming Michelle Obama made a recent remark about humans descending from apes. The Daily News could find no such comment.

His response is not very helpful, and isn’t even accurate with regards to evolution. I bet Michelle never said such a thing because she has a better understanding of modern science than DePass. Humans and apes have a common ancestor. Humans did not descend from apes such as modern gorillas.

Beyond that biological error, it is true that Michelle Obama is related to apes. Of course so am I  and so is DePass, along with every other human in the world. This makes it impossible not to wonder, of all the humans in the world, why DePass used Michelle Obama as an example.

Meteor Blades has more on DePass' non-apology apology:

Clearly in jest. Clearly. Surely. Only humorless, hypersensitive, politically correct people would make a stink over something so harmless. How could anybody be offended by a joke that DePass probably heard the first version of from his grandfather who heard it from his grandfather?

No surprise there. In fact, the ape reference in relation to African Americans has a long history. But it's not just history. Some Americans, especially those of us raised in the South, grew up with it as standard fare, even in the classroom. While the crudest depictions of black people as apes have disappeared from American culture, for many there remains a mental association of African Americans with apes.

Not only is it not a jest, it is also not harmless prejudice. According to six cognitive studies put together by a team of psychologists led by  Professor Philip Atiba Goff, "participants’ basic cognitive processes ... significantly alter[ed] their judgments in criminal justice contexts."

Included in the team's studies - published as "Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization, and Contemporary Consequences" - was an archival look at hundreds of articles published in the Philadelphia Inquirer from 1979-1999. They discovered that blacks convicted of capital crimes were four times more likely than convicted whites to be described with "ape-relevant" language, such as "barbaric," "beast," "brute," "savage" and "wild."[...]

Arriving in Los Angeles in the late 1980s, I went on dozens of ridealongs in police cruisers as part of an effort to get acquainted with the gang phenomenon in the part of the city that was then called South Central, then predominately African American. Officers constantly would refer to a call as an N.H.I. I soon discovered this meant No Humans Involved.

I suppose Rusty DePass would find that pretty funny, too.

 

Bobby Jindal Signs Law Allowing Intelligent Design in Louisiana Schools

Teachers can be permitted to supplement textbook discussion on evolution, global warming, human cloning

 

By Peter J. Smith

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana, June 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Louisiana public school teachers can now educate their students about the theory of intelligent design and scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary theory thanks to a new law signed this week by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. The Louisiana Science Education Act now allows teachers to supplement the state's curricula with additional scientific materials, but groups opposed to any debate over the "origin of the species" have warned that the new law will become the origin of the lawsuits if they believe it facilitates religion.

Lawmakers, however, were enthusiastically in favor of the Act signed by Jindal. The state Senate had passed the bill (SB733) with a unanimous vote, and the state House had approved it by a vote of 93-4.

The new law requires teachers to follow the standard curriculum, but allows a school district to permit a teacher to supplement his course with additional scientific evidence, analysis, and critiques regarding the scientific topics taught to his students.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062706.html

Teaching Evolution

Crossposted at Right Minds

One of the most controversial issues in public education is the question of whether or not to teach evolution in public schools. There are many who believe that evolution is only a theory, and that students should be exposed to all points of views and permitted to make their own decisions. Some of these people do not want evolution taught at all, others want equal time given to the intelligent design theory, and others want only a brief mention of intelligent design included in school textbooks. According to a 2005 Pew Research Center pollwatch, over two thirds of Americans want creationism taught in one form or another.
 
These partisans have been surprisingly effective. In the past decade, at least eight states have permitted the teaching of what is known as “intelligent design” in one form or another. (Exactly what “intelligent design” is is difficult to pin down, but it usually maintains that at least some natural processes are explainable only by the intervention of some supernatural agency). Intelligent design proponents (or creationists—there is a slight difference between the two groups, but it is negligible) have taken their effort to the state and local levels, which lets them fly under the radar until they actually achieve results, which sometimes get wider attention. The creationist movement has gotten significant support, both from common citizens and from such eminent individuals as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bobby Jindal. Most conservatives seem to agree that teaching intelligent design in schools is usually a good idea.
 
It isn’t. Creationism has no place in classrooms. One of the most common arguments for it goes something like this: evolution is just a theory, and we should present both sides to students and let them judge for themselves. This is based on two unbelievably wrong assumptions.
 
First, most people seem to think that a scientific theory is just a rough assumption that hasn’t been proven. It doesn’t work that way. Evolution is a theory, putting it in the same category as number theory, or atomic theory, or the theory of relativity. A theory is an “organized set of related ideas.” The fact that a scientific concept is considered a theory has nothing to do with whether or not it is true or false. Evolution is a theory, but has been tested experimentally and has not yet been found wanting.
 
Even if we assume that evolution is nothing more than a theory, does anyone think it makes sense to let high schoolers judge its validity? Teens are not allowed to drink, smoke, or (until sixteen) drive, but they are qualified to make judgments about evolution? What other scientific debates should we hand over to high schoolers? Quantum physics? Dark matter? Wormholes? The idea that students can “decide for themselves” is utterly absurd.
 
Anyhow, there is no scientific debate about evolution. There is literally not one reputable biologist who rejects the theory of natural selection. In fact, it is considered it so pivotal to our understanding of biology that some scientists believe that it should be considered a scientific principle; a law so pivotal that it is considered a cornerstone of biology.
 
If there were any biologists who believed that creationism was something more than pseudoscience, they could publish their thoughts in scientific journals. But they don’t—because there is no scientific basis for them.
 
There are some in the intelligent design fold who believe that there is some conspiracy within the scientific community to shut out creationists. This is nonsense, and unjust nonsense at that. There is absolutely no reason to assume that that the scientific community would deliberately cover up the truth. It is possible that occasionally intelligent design proponents are discriminated against by their peers. However, that is because they are often eccentric cranks, not because their colleagues are afraid that they will reveal some hidden truth.
 
Teaching evolution in public schools is a bad idea—not because it somehow violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, but because creationism is a stupid and unscientific idea. It has no business being taught in our public schools—or in schools of any kind. Conservatives should distance themselves from those who oppose the teaching of evolution.

 

Syndicate content