Dumb People

Alabama biology textbooks encourage students to question if evolution is true

The Alabama State Board of Education voted to have biology textbooks keep a one-page disclaimer on the theory of evolution. The disclaimer was first put into textbooks in April of 2015 at the behest of conservative Christians. Steve Ricks of the Alabama State Department of Education agreed, saying it “encourages students to question the theory [of evolution] and ask questions about it.”

Image via godofevolution.com

According to a report from AL.com, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to have biology textbooks keep a one-page disclaimer on the theory of evolution. 

The disclaimer was first put into textbooks in April of 2015 at the behest of conservative Christians. Steve Ricks of the Alabama State Department of Education agreed, saying it “encourages students to question the theory [of evolution] and ask questions about it.”

“The theory of evolution by natural selection is a controversial theory that is included in this textbook,” the disclaimer reads. “It is controversial because it states that natural selection provides the basis for the modern scientific explanation for the diversity of living things. Since natural selection has been observed to play a role in influencing small changes in a population, it is assumed that it produces large changes, even though this has not been directly observed.”

From Patheos:

“The only reason it’s there is not because there’s any scientific reason for it, but because ignorant Christians in the state want to discredit evolution in any way they can… Since the facts aren’t on their side, they’ll use politics to get their way. And the Board of Education, setting aside what’s best for students in the state, voted unanimously to keep the one-page disclaimer in there.”

This isn’t the first time religion was introduced into education through legislation. Last year, Republican state representative Mack Butler introduced legislation that would allow teachers to incorporate religion into their teaching. The legislation is supposed to “encourage debate if a student has a problem learning he came from a monkey rather than an intelligent design.”

We can probably expect more people like Mack Butler rising to power thanks to Alabama’s religious public education.

[Raw Story]

Facebook Comment
5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Tom

    March 21, 2016 at 11:22 am

    It is a wonderful things to question.

  2. Tom

    March 21, 2016 at 11:24 am

    This group certainly does not understand either Creation or Evolution. There are tremendous holes in evolution and Creation presents this. Why are these people afraid of questions such as, “How can life will to have DNA change?”

  3. Jeff

    March 23, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Tom, you clearly do not understand the thing you are trying to argue against, and it does not make for a very effective argument when you don’t.
    In animals, there is a significant difference between the direction of the nostrils in terms of function of the nose. In humans, nostrils to the side would cause the already poorly draining sinuses to be worse-off. Funny, isn’t it, that humans which you are claiming to be designed actually have sinuses that drain in the direction as if we were walking on all four legs with our faces pointing down. Why, almost as if they haven’t changed from some distant ancestor. Not sure why a designed would purposely design it that way, instead of the sinuses draining straight down when we are upright. It’s bits of medical and scientific information like that which anyone who proffesses to be interested or claim knowledge of evolution should know.
    Just because a mutation could happen, doesn’t mean it will, so there is nothing saying those three nostril noses have to have occurred.
    It is also being found in a very big way that a single gene doesn’t necessarily code for just one physical aspect. The genes which ultimately code for the shape of the nose may well be tied in with other important parts of the body, to the extent that much change causes detrimental effects elsewhere that greatly reduce survival chances. It now seems that very few genes work in isolation, so a mutation to a gene that produces a survival enhancing aspect may also alter another part of the species that has nothing to do directly with survival.
    And dark skin, really? You don’t even understand why skin colours tend to lighten the further one gets from the equator? You really don’t know much biology, you should read more actual science and less creationist BS. So, apart from darker skin being far less susceptible to skin cancer and burning, which is a survival trait in hot sunny climes, it also radiates heat more quickly and is able to produce much less vitamin đ from sunlight than light skin in weaker sunlight. To the point where vitamin đ deficiency is possible for dark skinned people in northern climates if they aren’t getting enough from other sources. In stone age and prior folk, these all add up to a survival advantage for certain skin colours in different climates. If you want to see how quickly that can lead to changes in a population, look up moths in industrial-age Europe and the effect soot deposition on trees had on their colouring. Or would you try to explain that away as some deity suddenly deciding to change their colour?

  4. Tom Moe

    March 24, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Jeff, you have a marvelous straw man argument. Now let’s go back to facts. Skin cancer seldom kills people in youth. Light skinned people would live in Equatorial areas long enough to breed before dying. Dark skinned people would not die in northern climates simply because they were slower to produce vitamin c.
    Now regarding facts you missed with the nose. I love your, argument that is tied together with, “may well be tied in with other.” “May” is not a definitive term. You have danced completely around the issues and then concluded with ad hominem as your point.
    Here is fact: if everything was based upon random mutation there would be much more diversity in life. There would have been mutation to one, two, and more nostrils as that has nothing to do with survival. There would be mutations of 4-7 fingers and toes as these, too, have nothing to do with survival. If everything were based upon survival there would be 500 species of lions and no rodents.
    The difference between us is not that we both read the sciences. You just only read the sciences and develop your narrow thinking.

  5. pax 3 dimensions

    June 26, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    532359 741062hi, your internet site is genuinely very good. I truly do appreciate your give very good outcomes 893051

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top