Arkansas House
Bill 2548 is a composite of anti-evolutionary sources
News 2001/03/23: HB2548 fails in House vote. 51 votes were needed for
approval; the bill received 45 "yes" votes, 36 "no" votes, and 19
abstentions. The bill could still be reintroduced by Rep. Holt in the
remaining three weeks of the legislative session, so be sure to let the
representatives know your position on this bill.
2001/03/26: Rep. Stovall "served notice" that reconsideration of
the vote which failed to pass HB2548 would occur within the time
allotted. Translation: The vote on 03/23 was not the final word.
Make sure to let the legislators know your opinion on this issue. See
the contact information section of this page.
2001/03/27: Rep. Jim Holt was reported to be preparing to
re-introduce HB2548 to the Arkansas House. In an article in the
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Holt was reported to say that Jonathan
Wells' "Icons of Evolution" was a source for his bill.
2001/03/30: Rep. Holt has scheduled
HB2548 for consideration again on 2001/04/02 at 1 PM. First, a vote
to expunge the earlier vote (2001/03/23) by which the bill failed,
and then (if that vote succeeds) a vote to send the bill back to
committee. It was reported by Seth Blomeley that Holt intended to
largely re-write HB2548 to say that textbooks should be reviewed
for accuracy.
Contents
A Modest Suggestion
One issue is avoided by HB2548 entirely: What about claims that
something is false that are themselves false or fraudulent? I will
suggest the following concept for inclusion as an amendment to
HB2548. Some legal eagle can put it into legal-speak.
Section 1 (e)(1)(A): No person shall, under the provisions of
this law, falsely label valid evidence or properly defined
theories as false or fraudulent.
Section 1 (e)(1)(B): State agencies, city, county, school
districts, or political subdivisions shall be guided by the
consensus of experts in the field specified by any putative
instance of an item to be included under Section 1 (d)(3) of
this law, for the purpose of determining whether each such
item shall be considered enforceable under Section 1 (d)(3) of
this law.
Section 1 (e)(1)(C): Because of the tentative nature of the
scientific process discussed in Section 1 (d)(1) and (2),
periodic re-evaluation of items enforced under Section 1 (d)(3)
shall occur such that any claims of false or fraudulent items
may be retracted as they themselves become false
Remember, the above items are NOT part of HB2548, but they or
something like them should be. Tell your representative.
A bill proposed in
2001 in the Arkansas legislature by Representative
Jim Holt would make it illegal
for the state or any of its agencies to use state funds to purchase materials that
contain false or fraudulent claims. A list of such claims is provided in the
text of House Bill 2548 (HB2548). What makes this so interesting is that much
of the text of those examples is either quoted verbatim from anti-evolutionary
sources or is a close paraphrase of such materials. The sources include a
cartoon booklet published by Jack Chick. Many of the "examples" selected are
themselves either false or misleading.
The full text of
HB2548 is available online here.
The status of HB2548 is available online here.
Below are items from Arkansas HB2548, links or references to the
apparent source of the quote or paraphrase (where identified),
critical summaries of the topic, and links to sources of information
either specifically addressing the claim or discussing the general
topic.
- Section 1 (a): "No state
agency, city, county, school district, or political subdivisions shall
use any public funds to provide instruction or purchase books,
documents or other written material which it knows or should have
known contain descriptions, conclusions, or pictures designed to
promote the false evidences setforth[sic] in subsection (d) of
this section."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: The bill's text assumes that knowledge
is static and absolute, as the reference to enumerated "false
evidences" implies. The use of "evidences" is indicative of a
background in apologetics, where it is commonly seen, and not in the
sciences, where it is exceedingly rare. Assessment: The bill sets up
its author as an absolutely reliable source of true knowledge, which
examination of the claims shows to be false.
- Section 1 (b): "State agencies, public school districts,
museums, zoos, and all political subdivisions of the state shall only
provide information that is as accurate as possible."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: The list of affected entities reveals
a bias in application of the law, and indicates its anti-evolutionary
motivation. Assessment: The bill's text is biased in application and
redundant in its direction to provide the most accurate information
possible.
- Section 1 (c)(1): "During classroom instruction
conducted by state agencies, museums, zoos, public schools, and
political subdivisions of the state, when any statement in
instructional material is identified by the instructor to be a false
evidence under subsection (d), the instructor shall instruct the class
to make a marginal notation that the statement is a false evidence
under this act."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: The instructor is given extraordinary
power here to make determinations of fact, with no provision for review
or criticism.
Assessment: The bill's text gives no guidance for how determinations
of fact will be made, and no provision for review of possibly
erroneous decisions made by instructors.
- Section 1 (c)(2): "During classroom instruction
conducted by state agencies, museums, zoos, public schools, and
political subdivisions of the state, when any statement in
instructional material is identified by the instructor to be a theory,
the instructor shall instruct the class to make a marginal notation
that the statement is a theory."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: This item suffers from the same biased
application as noted before, and the same uncritical reliance on the
discretion of individual instructors to make determinations of fact as
they relate to this bill.
Assessment: The bill is biased as would be expected of a specifically
anti-evolutionary rule. The bill's text gives no guidance for how
determinations of fact will be made, and no provision for review of
possibly erroneous decisions made by instructors.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(A): "Example[sic] of such
theories include, but shall not be limited to: (A) The theory of the
age of the earth;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: This is the first of several examples
which the bill seeks to contradistinguish from "fact". The age of the
Earth has been determined to be about 4.5 billion years; this is not
disputed within the scientific community. Unable to rebut this
finding, anti-evolutionists then seek to minimize the damage by
applying the label of "theory" to these results. Theory, it should be
noted, does not mean "hunch" or "guess" in scientific usage.
Assessment: The bill seeks to achieve by legislative fiat the
labelling of certain specific empirical findings as "theory" with
the implication that such labels indicate low confidence in the
empirical data which supports the theoretical concept.
This polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific
in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(B): "The theory of the origin of life;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: Abiogenesis is a discipline which
includes a multiplicity of theories. Significant empirical research
has been accomplished over the last few decades, which
anti-evolutionists find difficult to critique, and so they are reduced
to a campaign of obfuscation and deprecation aimed at these theories
and the data underlying them.
Assessment: This bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying
that the label of "theory" means that students should have low
confidence in the concepts and the empirical data which supports
those concepts. This polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific
in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(C): "The theory that homology in vertebrate limbs is evidence for common ancestry;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jonathan
Wells' "Icons of Evolution"
- Critical Summary: Anti-evolutionists seize upon
uncertainties in knowledge to minimize or distract from the empirical
data.
Assessment: This bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying
that the label of "theory" means that students should have low
confidence in the concepts and the empirical data which supports
those concepts. This polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific
in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(D): "The theory that the "geologic
column" accurately represents different time periods on earth. The
"geologic column" does not exist anywhere on the earth, except in
textbooks;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Sources: The Record of the
Rocks, Appendix
A, Dr. Hovind's
Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?, Dr. Hovind's
Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?
- Critical Summary: The accuracy of the empirical basis of
the "geologic column" is daily re-confirmed by its use in the
petroleum industry to actually produce tangible results. Since the
existence of a given layer in the geologic column depends on a
location being submerged during the corresponding time period, and the
layer not subsequently being eroded away, it is not surprising that
any given location would have only a limited number of layers. Thus,
the the column as a whole is constructed from data from many
locations. Nevertheless, there are locations which contain layers
representative of all major periods in the last 500 million years.
Furthermore, radiodating confirms the validity of the column.
Assessment: The bill makes claims which are false to fact. This
bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of
"theory" means that students should have low confidence in the
concepts and the empirical data which supports those concepts. This
polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(E): "The theory that fossils
represents[sic] missing links between life forms. It can not be
proven that any fossil had any offspring."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (Plenty of
anti-evolutionary sites deny transitional fossil sequences, but the
specific claim about offspring appears to be a rarity.)
- Critical Summary: Evolutionary biology concerns the
heritable changes in populations of organisms, so the reproductive
status of any particular individual is irrelevant. The empirical data
of paleontology shows that fine-grained transitional sequences linking
species and genera do exist. The objection about offspring is
ambiguous, for the fossil record does include examples of organisms
giving birth and seeds in seed pods. Whether a particular organism's
offspring became the basis for a successful derived descendent group
is not the issue.
Assessment: The bill asserts a claim which, under at least one
interpretation, is false to fact. This bill serves the
anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory" means
that students should have low confidence in the concepts and the
empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content
is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(F)(i): "Carbon, Radioisotope Dating;
(i) Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years
old;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Sources: Doesn't carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?,
The
Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods.
- Critical Summary: Carbon 14 (C14) radioisotope dating
was developed to test organic material which took its carbon from the
terrestrial carbon reservoir. The snails referenced in the
bill's text are marine and are now known to obtain their carbon
from sources already depleted in C14. Assessment: The bill's text
misleads by implying that scientists cannot reliably date materials
via C14 and other radioisotope methods, when in fact no such
conclusion has been shown to hold true. This bill serves the
anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory" means
that students should have low confidence in the concepts and the
empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content
is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(F)(ii): "One part of the
Vollosovitch Mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at
44,000 years;"
-
- Anti-evolutionary source:
Creation Science Evangelism
- Critical Summary: The bill's text credulously relies
upon a claim by Kent Hovind that certain C14 dates were taken from a
single specimen of mammoth and yielded discordant results. In fact,
an examination of the original paper cited by Hovind reveals that
there was no single specimen identified as "the Vollosovitch mammoth"
from which multiple dates were obtained, and that the specimens which
did yield the dates given by Hovind were collected by different people
at different locations at different times. Assessment: The bill
presents information about the primary literature that is false to
fact, and misleads by implying that C14 and other radioisotope dating
methods cannot be reliably employed. This bill serves the
anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory" means
that students should have low confidence in the concepts and the
empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content
is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Top Online Resource: Dr. Dino's
Fractured Fairy Tales of Science
- Critical Resource List.
- It should be noted that Kent Hovind was notified in
correspondence with Skip Evans that this example was invalid. Hovind
promised to check his source and correct the information on his web
pages. No such change to Hovind's web page has occurred as of
2001/03/28. Thus, Hovind is a possible source for a false or
fraudulent claim put into a bill which aims to outlaw false or
fraudulent claims, and Hovind testified to the Arkansas legislature in
support of the bill including that false or fraudulent claim after
having been informed of its falsity.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(G): "Potassium Argon Dating. Basalt
from Mount Kilauea Iki, Hawaii in 1959 gave a K-AR age of 8,500,000
years old."
-
- Anti-evolutionary source: Creation Science
Evangelism
- Critical Summary: Lava flows which incorporate older
rock increases the age derived from Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating.
Scientists are fully aware of the assumptions of K-Ar dating methods,
and have tested the technique against materials of known date (such
as the burial of Pompeii in an eruption of Vesuvius).
Assessment: The bill fails to note the extensive empirical testing
which K-Ar dating has undergone and fails to clarify how the supposed
counter-example could even possibly be considered to put that body of
work in doubt. The bill's text misleads by implying that scientists
cannot reliably date materials via K-Ar and other radioisotope methods,
when in fact no such conclusion has been shown to hold true. This
bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of
"theory" means that students should have low confidence in the
concepts and the empirical data which supports those concepts. This
polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (d)(1): "The General Assembly finds that: (1)
Science is a special way of knowing and understanding the physical
world that uses the "scientific method" to conduct rigorous
investigations into processes that are observable and repeatable;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: The bill's text, in the two sentences
of this item and the following item, attempts to define the
philosophical basis of science. This definition follows
anti-evolutionary sources closely, and is remarkably similar to
language proposed in legislation in New Mexico. It also has the
property of being, itself, false. One can easily find examples of
scientific research that do not comport with the definition given
here. Further, the characterization of science as employing some form
of naive falsificationism is a significant distortion of the more
complex reality of scientific research.
Assessment: The bill presents a view of science which is false to
fact. Its effect, if implemented, can only be to obfuscate and
confuse students attempting to learn what science is.
- Section 1 (d)(2): "Science is a discipline that
employs skeptical peer review and experiments attempting to falsify
ongoing and prior scientific work to ensure the validity and integrity
of results;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: Elements of this item are true:
science does operate via intersubjective criticism, and results are
tested over time, which has the effect of weeding out invalid work and
retaining valid work. However, the restriction of scientific process
to naive falsificationism is a significant distortion of the
complexity of the scientific process, and is false to fact concerning
how science actually operates. The philosophical debate over the
characteristics of science has been heated ever since Bacon and
Descartes. It is certain that HB2548 has not produced the denouement
of this intellectual imbroglio, and certainly not within the space of
two sentences of exceedingly dubious merit.
Assessment: The bill's characterization of science is suitable only
for fanciful cartoon filler. Adopting it as law would be profoundly
anti-scientific.
- Section 1 (d)(3): "Many ideas and evidences of prior
scientific work once believed to be true have been proven false or
even fraudulent in many cases, including, but not limited to the
following:"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: This item provides exceedingly broad
scope to obstructionists of all sorts, not merely anti-evolutionists.
The mere mention of a concept which has been superseded by more
complete or accurate concepts would, under a fair reading of this
item, be sufficient to bar the book or materials from consideration
for purchase by the state. No provision is made for cases where
instruction is furthered by introducing a false concept and leading
the student through the process of determining how people came to
discover that it was false. Either this bill would be inconsistently
applied, or virtually no pedagogical material at the secondary school
level could possibly be found to be suitable for purchase under this
stricture.
Assessment: The bill provides an opportunity for mischievous
effects as obstructionists are empowered to shut down the
purchase of materials found unsuitable separately to each narrow
agenda. The anti-evolutionary agenda of this bill is made clear
by the enumerated instances which follow.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(A)(i-ii): "Haeckel's Embryos; (ii)
Proven false in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His, Sr. Ernst Haeckel was
convicted of fraud for this in 1874. Human embryos never have gills"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jonathan
Wells' "Icons of Evolution"
- Critical Summary: A number of points need to be made.
The empirical evidence of embryology supports evolutionary
biology, and this is in no way dependent upon Ernst Haeckel's
illustrations. No anti-evolutionist has ever produced the slightest
substantiation for the claim that Haeckel was tried for fraud by
the Jena university court, much less that he was convicted. There
are similar structures in vertebrate embryos whose developmental
fate varies depending upon the taxon: in fish, these develop into
gills; in mammals, portions become the hyoid apparatus and tympanum
of the ear.
Assessment: The bill relies upon unsubstantiated hearsay, ignores
valid empirical work, and knocks down a strawman version of
evolutionary argument concerning embryological evidence.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(B)(i-ii): "(B)(i) The Miller - Urey
Experiment: (ii) Scientists have never proven that this test
represents the atmosphere at any time on earth."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Dr. Hovind's
Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?, Dr. Hovind's
Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?
- Critical Summary: The original Miller-Urey experiment
demonstrated that some of the molecules necessary for life could be
produced via non-life chemistry plausibly attributed to natural
processes, a fact not previously substantiated. While the conditions
of the original experiment do not match our current best understanding
of the earth's early atmosphere, variants of Miller-Urey processes
have been applied to these (more realistic) conditions and still
produce amino acids. In this instance, an experimental procedure is
being treated as false when the only issue raised is how well its
original conditions can be applied to early earth history, which is a
separate concern.
Assessment: The bill labels as false or fraudulent an experimental
procedure which has been replicated in many laboratories, and even
works under conditions matching our current best knowledge of the
early earth atmosphere. The bill's text seeks to set aside
empirical data via legislative fiat that it cannot hope to counter
in the domain of science.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(C)(i-ii): "Archaeopteryx as a missing
link; (ii) An X-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum
fossil showed that the material containing the feather impressions
differed significantly from the rest of the fossil slab."
-
- Anti-evolutionary
sources: Center
for Scientific Creation, What Was Archaeopteryx?
- Critical Summary: The bill's text reflects an
anti-evolutionary claim that the feather impressions of the London
specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica were added fraudulently
to a reptilian fossil. Claims of forgery have been investigated and
found baseless. Assessment: The bill's text makes an implied claim
about the evidence which has shown to be false or misleading.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(D)(i-ii): "(i) Peppered Moths; (ii) The
photographs used in current textbooks are fraudulent as the moths were
discovered to be dead and glued in place."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: A Critique of the Primary Evidence Used to Support the Theory of Evolution
- Critical Summary: There is a difference between a
staged photograph and a fraudulent photograph.
Textbooks commonly use staged photographs of peppered moths for the
purpose of illustrating crypsis (camouflage for hiding) in these
organisms. For this purpose, there is no fraud - the crypsis is a
real phenomenon. If a photograph made with dead moths were to be
represented as unstaged, that would be fraudulent. If a photograph
showing peppered moths in some location was represented to illustrate
a preferred resting place when in fact it wasn't, that would be
fraudulent. However, anti-evolutionists have not demonstrated that
either of the fraudulent uses have actually occurred.
Assessment: The bill fails to distinguish between photographs staged
for pedagogical purposes and actual fraudulent usage of photographs.
No substantiation of the claim that fraudulent use of photographs of
peppered moths has occurred is provided. As a precedent, the bill's
text would severely restrict the ability of textbook authors to
provide visual aids for their works.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(E)(i-ii): "(i) Fossil Horses; (ii) It
is fraudulent to state that modern horses descended from fossil horses
with four toes."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Biology
Textbook Fraud The Horse Series
- Critical Summary: The empirical data of fossil horses is
real, not fraudulent. Hyracotherium is known to have had four
toes on its forelegs. The bill's proclaims by fiat that it is
fraudulent to state that modern horses descended from precursors with
four toes, but no reason is adduced as to why this particular
inference should be considered fraudulent.
Assessment: The bill would exclude any textbook containing the
empirical data of fossil horses, which are unequivocally real.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(F)(i-ii): "Heidelberg Man; (ii) Built from a
jaw bone that was conceded to be quite human;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack
Chick's "Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: The genus Homo includes humans.
However, the "Heidelberg Man" fossil is readily distinguished on its
characters from modern Homo sapiens.
Assessment: The bill makes an implication concerning the evidence
that is false to fact.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(G)(i-ii): "Nebraska Man; (ii)
Scientifically built up from one tooth and later learned to be the
tooth of an extinct pig;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack
Chick's "Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: Nebraska Man was an incident of
misclassification. The actual fossil evidence is real, not
fraudulent. Only the original classification was false. Further,
the original classification was made on the basis of two teeth,
not one. The researchers who made the original classification
also did the field work leading to their re-classification of
the fossils.
Assessment: The bill's text makes claims that are false to fact. The
bill would make it infeasible to incorporate examples into textbooks
of the tentative nature of scientific practice and the efficacy of
peer review and follow-on research in self-correction of error, since
any such examples would necessarily mention concepts which are now
regarded as false.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(H)(i-ii): "Piltdown Man; (ii) The jawbone
actually belonged to a modern ape;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack
Chick's "Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Close paraphrase.)
- Critical Summary: Piltdown Man is an example of a hoax
which for four decades was regarded by many to be a genuine fossil
find. However, the status of Piltdown Man was never unequivocally
assented to, and as other fossil evidence was discovered, came to be
generally regarded as anomalous. Scientists discovered and published
the expose' of the hoax. Anti-evolutionists have been challenged to
produce a citation of any textbook written after 1953 which presents
Piltdown Man as a genuine fossil. No such citation has ever been
produced.
Assessment: The bill would exclude any textbook which mentions
Piltdown Man, ignoring the obvious pedagogical benefit of explaining
how the Piltdown Man hoax (and other examples of fraud in science)
shows that critical examination of claims is necessary to eliminate
error. The bill does not distinguish between fraudulent use (i.e.,
a claim in a textbook that Piltdown Man is a genuine fossil find) and
good pedagogical practice (i.e., that Piltdown Man was a hoax that
shows that critical evaluation of empirical data is necessary to
scientific practice).
- Section 1 (d)(3)(I)(i-ii): "Peking Man; (ii) Supposedly
500,000 years old. Ten humans were found with the "Peking
Man" along with crushed monkey skulls and tools.""
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack
Chick's "Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Paraphrase.)
- Critical Summary: Empirical evidence places these fossils
between 500,000 and 300,000 YBP. The modern human specimens alluded
to were found in the Upper Cave at Locality 1, while the Peking Man
fossils were found in the Lower Cave. The implication that Peking Man
was simply a ape-like prey item of modern humans does not withstand
scrutiny.
Assessment: The bill's text labels as false or fraudulent actual
fossil evidence which in no way has been shown to be false or
fraudulent.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(J)(i-ii): "Neanderthal Man; (ii) At the
International Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave said his
examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in
France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from
arthritis;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack
Chick's "Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: The fossil evidence of Neandertal Man
is unequivocally real, not false or fraudulent. The assertion that
Neandertal Man fossils are simply modern humans suffering from
arthritis or rickets is unsubstantiated and counter to the available
evidence.
Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil evidence
by legislative fiat. The bill promulgates as valid an assertion which
has been shown to be unsubstantiated.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(K)(i-ii): "(K)(i) Homo-erectus (originally
"Java Man" and later Pithecanthropus erectus) was made from a few
scraps of bone found in 1891. (ii) The skull cap came from an ape and
three teeth and thigh bone (50 feet away) came from a human. Two
normal human skulls were also found, but purposely hidden for 30
years."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Sources:
- Critical Summary: Homo erectus is not, as this implies,
known only from a handful of fossils. There are now many erectus
fossils known, including a complete skeleton (WT15000) and a complete
skull (ER 3733).
The "two normal skulls" (Wadjak Man) were in fact found about 100 km
away in totally unrelated and far more recent deposits.
Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil evidence
by legislative fiat.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(L)(i-ii): "(i) Cro-Magnon Man; (ii) One of
the earliest and best-established fossils is at least equal in
physique and brain capacity to modern man;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack
Chick's "Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: Since Cro-Magnon fossils have always
been identified as Homo sapiens, it is unsurprising that they
share various and sundry traits with modern humans. However, the
assertion that Cro-Magnon fossils specimens are among the "earliest"
known is ambiguous. Certainly the Cro-Magnon specimens are far more
recent in age than most fossil hominid species. If the objection
refers to the sequence of discovery of fossil evidence, it should be
made clear that is the case.
Assessment: The bill's text claims that certain fossil specimens of
Homo sapiens have been found to have characteristics of Homo
sapiens. There is no substantiation that the empirical fossil
evidence is false or fraudulent. The bill attempts to exclude valid
empirical fossil evidence by legislative fiat.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(M)(i-ii): "(i) "Lucy"; (ii) Charles
Oxnard studied 16 years and used computer multi-variant analysis and
concluded "Lucy" is not intermediate"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: EVOLUTION'S BLOOPERS
AND BLUNDERS
by
D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.. (Note the use of the erroneous phrase
"multi-variant".)
- Critical Summary: The empirical fossil evidence of "Lucy"
and other Australopithecus afarensis specimens is real, not
false or fraudulent. Oxnard's analysis has not been widely accepted.
The analytical technique is "multivariate analysis", not "multi-variant
analysis". Others utilizing computer technology have come to different
conclusions.
Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil evidence
by legislative fiat. The bill's text shows a basic unfamiliarity
with the evidence and techniques (cf. comment on "multi-variant"
above). There is no substantiation that any analysis by Oxnard or
anyone else has demonstrated the empirical fossil evidence to be
false or fraudulent.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(N)(i-ii): "(i) Vestigial Structures;
(ii) As science improves, our knowledge of the body has increased and
functions of parts formerly thought to be useless are becoming known;
and no proven vestigial structures exists[sic]. "
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: It is not necessary to prove that a supposed
vestigial feature has no function, if it has clearly lost the original
function - this is still evidence for evolution. Rudimentary hind legs in
whales are clearly vestigial and do not have any important function, since
most individual whales lack them.
Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical evidence
by legislative fiat.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(O)(i-ii): "(i) Lobe-fined[sic]
fish; (ii) Lobe-fined[sic] fish are "index fossils" for rock
325-410 million years old. These fish are still alive today.
"Coelacanth" was found in 1938 and still inhabits the Indian Ocean.
It is obvious that it cannot be an "index fossil" for any age rock."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: The empirical evidence of extinct and
extant lobe-finned fishes is real, not false or fraudulent. There is
no substantiation of the assertion that the modern coelacanth,
Latimeria spp., has ever been used as an index fossil.
Further, the species of the genus Latimeria are known only from
modern specimens, and no fossilized remains of these species have been
found. Modern species of Latimeria are distinguishable from
their extinct relatives, such that the closest affinities are no
closer than the genus level. A search of the GeoRef database,
covering 1785 to 2000, found no instance of a paper citing use of
Latimeria (or any other sarcopterygian fish, extant or extinct)
as an index fossil.
Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil
evidence by legislative fiat. The further claims concerning
"index fossils" are completely unsubstantiated.
The following list enumerates a number of serious problems which
HB2548 has. These are taken from the "Assessment" sections of the
"Critical Summary" items given above.
- The bill sets up
its author as an absolutely reliable source of true knowledge, which
examination of the claims shows to be false.
- The bill's text is biased in application and
redundant in its direction to provide the most accurate information
possible.
- The bill is biased as would be expected of a specifically
anti-evolutionary rule.
- The bill's text gives no guidance for how
determinations of fact will be made, and no provision for review of
possibly erroneous decisions made by instructors.
- This bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying
that the label of "theory" means that students should have low
confidence in the concepts and the empirical data which supports
those concepts. This polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific
in effect.
- The bill makes claims which are false to fact.
- The bill's text
misleads by implying that scientists cannot reliably date materials
via C14 and other radioisotope methods, when in fact no such
conclusion has been shown to hold true.
- The bill fails to note the extensive empirical testing
which K-Ar dating has undergone and fails to clarify how the supposed
counter-example could even possibly be considered to put that body of
work in doubt.
- The bill presents a view of science which is false to
fact. Its effect, if implemented, can only be to obfuscate and
confuse students attempting to learn what science is.
- The bill provides an opportunity for mischievous
effects as obstructionists are empowered to shut down the
purchase of materials found unsuitable separately to each narrow
agenda. The anti-evolutionary agenda of this bill is made clear
by the enumerated instances given.
- The bill relies upon unsubstantiated hearsay, ignores
valid empirical work, and knocks down a strawman version of
evolutionary argument concerning embryological evidence.
- The bill labels as false or fraudulent an experimental
procedure which has been replicated in many laboratories, and even
works under conditions matching our current best knowledge of the
early earth atmosphere.
- The bill's text seeks to set aside
empirical data via legislative fiat that it cannot hope to counter
in the domain of science.
- The bill's text makes an implied claim
about the evidence which has shown to be false or misleading.
- The bill fails to distinguish between photographs staged
for pedagogical purposes and actual fraudulent usage of photographs.
No substantiation of the claim that fraudulent use of photographs of
peppered moths has occurred is provided. As a precedent, the bill's
text would severely restrict the ability of textbook authors to
provide visual aids for their works.
- The bill would exclude any textbook containing the
empirical data of fossil horses, which are unequivocally real.
- The
bill would make it infeasible to incorporate examples into textbooks
of the tentative nature of scientific practice and the efficacy of
peer review and follow-on research in self-correction of error, since
any such examples would necessarily mention concepts which are now
regarded as false.
- The bill would exclude any textbook which mentions
Piltdown Man, ignoring the obvious pedagogical benefit of explaining
how the Piltdown Man hoax (and other examples of fraud in science)
shows that critical examination of claims is necessary to eliminate
error. The bill does not distinguish between fraudulent use (i.e.,
a claim in a textbook that Piltdown Man is a genuine fossil find) and
good pedagogical practice (i.e., that Piltdown Man was a hoax that
shows that critical evaluation of empirical data is necessary to
scientific practice).
- The bill's text labels as false or fraudulent actual
fossil evidence which in no way has been shown to be false or
fraudulent.
- The bill promulgates as valid assertions which
have been shown to be unsubstantiated.
- The bill's text claims that certain fossil specimens of
Homo sapiens have been found to have characteristics of Homo
sapiens, with the implication that this indicates that the
evidence is false or fraudulent.
- The bill's text shows a basic unfamiliarity
with the evidence and techniques (cf. comment on "multi-variant"
above). There is no substantiation that any analysis by Oxnard or
anyone else has demonstrated the empirical fossil evidence to be
false or fraudulent.
- The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical evidence
by legislative fiat.
- The bill makes claims concerning
"index fossils" which are completely unsubstantiated.
Arkansas House Bill
2548 extols the virtues of accurate information (Section 1 (b)), but the text
of the bill itself is taken in significant part from
unreliable and inaccurate sources.
The essentially misleading and disingenuous nature of the
"examples" provided by anti-evolutionist sources becomes clear when
one looks at the criticism that these have received. In the following
section, links are provided to online sources that deal with the
anti-evolutionary objections on various topics mentioned in HB2548.
In general, one should search the
Talk.Origins Archive
Talk.Origins Archive for
critiques of anti-evolutionary claims. The t.o. archive also
provides an extensive links page to other sites, including
anti-evolutionary ones.
- Archaeopteryx: [cf. AR HB S 1(d)(3)(C)] Anti-evolutionists
have found the existence of Archaeopteryx lithographica
exceedingly inconvenient, and have made a number of claims which
collapse upon examination.
-
- Fossil hominids: [cf. AR HB S
1(d)(3)(F-M)] The fossil record as it touches upon the descent of man
is an especially touchy subject for anti-evolutionists, who have
written much angry nonsense about it (cf. "Big Daddy", the source of
much of HB2548's discussion of fossil hominids).
-
- The Age of the Earth: [cf. AR HB S 1(c)(3)(A)] The
anti-evolutionary sources from which much of HB2548 derives take a
stance that the earth was created by God less than 20,000 years ago.
This is known as "young-earth creationism" (YEC). Because this puts
YEC in direct contention with scientific findings concerning the age
of the Earth and the universe, it is unsurprising that a great deal of
denial is engaged in by YEC advocates.
-
-
Age of the Earth
at the Talk.Origins archive.
-
Dating
with Icecores.
(Conclusion: Icecores provide evidence that the
Earth is at least 160,000 years old. This is well outside the
maximum figure that YEC advocates can tolerate.)
- The Geologic Colum: [cf. AR HB S 1(c)(3)(D)]
Anti-evolutionists have long denied the existence of the "geologic
column" as being seen in any one locale. Apparently, this is supposed
to cast doubt upon the entire enterprise of dating strata if not all
the strata are seen at a particular location. What they fail to
mention is that the geologic column was conceived of and documented by
creationists who used no evolutionary principles in their research.
Also, geologists know that one can find locations where the
entire geologic column is preserved.
-
- Transitional Fossils: [cf. AR HB S 1(c)(3)(E)] The issue isn't
whether particular animals had offspring in the past.
-
- Radioisotope Dating: [cf. AR HB S 1(c)(3)(F)] Some of the
confusion experienced by anti-evolutionists is reflected in the
heading of this section of HB2548: "Carbon, Radioisotope Dating".
Some anti-evolutionists seem to believe that carbon dating is
the method of radioisotope dating. It isn't. C14 dating is
restricted to recent times (<~55,000YBP) and terrestrial carbon
cycles. Other radioisotope methods are used to determine ages at
longer time scales.
-
- "Icons of Evolution": [cf. AR HB S 1(d)(3)(A,B,C,D,E)]
Various items in HB2548 are chapter topics in Jonathan Wells'
anti-evolutionary opus, "Icons of Evolution".
-
- Peppered Moths: [cf. HB2548
S 1 (d)(3)(D)(i-ii)] Recently, anti-evolutionists have seized upon
photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks as evidence of fraud in
evolutionary biology. Again, the anti-evolutionists distort the real
situation for political effect.
-
- Ian Musgrave's discussion of
the "peppered moth" item in HB2548.
- Industrial melanism
- A textbook author responds to criticisms of the peppered moth example.
- The Demonstration of Natural Selection.
- NMSR Debates
Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute
. Notable for the following excerpt:
Wells refers to researchers who found that the moths sometimes
preferred resting sites besides tree trunks, such as under branches
high in the canopy. Two points are important here. Point (1): "Do not
normally rest" is not the same as "never rest." Consider the following
numbers of moths found resting in various sites between 1964 and 1996
(Majerus 1998, Tables 6.1 and 6.2, page 123): In the wild, 32 peppered
moths were found on exposed trunks, unexposed trunks, and trunk/branch
joints, while 15 were found on branches alone. In the vicinity of
light traps, another 135 were found associated with trunks, and 20
with branches alone, for totals of 168 associated with trunks, and 35
with branches alone Clearly, Wells' implication (stated explicitly
elsewhere, for example the Detroit News, March 14, 1999) that peppered
moths do not rest on tree trunks is simply not supported by the
available data. Point (2): Majerus and others have performed new
experiments, in which moths were marked and released, allowed to rest
wherever they wanted (trunks or not), and then recaptured (if
possible). The numbers of moths recaptured were different in polluted
woods then in unpolluted woods, again supporting the differential bird
predation hypothesis, i.e. that moths that blend in better with
available backgrounds tend to have a better chance of survival.
- Abiogenesis: [cf. HB2548
S 1 (d)(3)(B)(i-ii)]
Anti-evolutionists like to confuse and conflate the discipline of
abiogenesis (or origin of life) research with evolutionary biology.
The two are separate. Further, statements such as those found in
HB2548 S 1 (d)(3)(B)(i-ii) ignore the fact that more work has been
done since Miller's mid-1950's experiment.
-
- Living Fossils: [cf. HB2548
S 1 (d)(3)(O)(i-ii)] Anti-evolutionists
tend to think that horseshoe crabs or coelacanths pose difficulties for
evolutionary biology. They don't.
-
- Mammoths: [cf. HB2548 S 1
(c)(3)(F)(ii)] YECs and other varieties of anti-evolutionists make
claims about mammoths that are not supported by a scrupulous
examination of the evidence.
-
- Ernst Haeckel: [cf. HB2548 S 1
(d)(3)(A)(i-ii)] Haeckel's embryological illustrations and dictum that
"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" are favorite targets of
anti-evolutionists.
-
- Haeckel's
Embryos. (There are many myths and misconceptions about Ernst
Haeckel and his embryo drawings [even amongst mainstream scientists]
and the evidence for evolution from comparative embryology; this page
address those contained in HB2548.)
- Haeckel
and his Embryos. (This page shows textbook authors working
quickly to correct inaccurate information. It also shows what
scientists do when such errors are discovered: they document what the
actual data show. I would challenge any proponent of YEC or
"intelligent design" to find and cite a case where YEC or ID
anti-evolutionists have ever done more than simply repeat
criticisms; where the anti-evolutionists actually do research that
substantially improves our knowledge of the topic in question. These
textbook authors did the hard work; the anti-evolutionists do not.)
AR HB2548 has other difficulties besides reliance upon
inaccurate or misleading sources.
Philosophy of Science: AR HB2548 S 1(d)(1-2) attempts to
define, in two sentences, the philosophical basis of science. This
definition follows anti-evolutionary sources closely, and is
remarkably similar to language proposed in legislation in New Mexico.
It also has the property of being, itself, false. One can find
examples of scientific research that do not comport with the
definition given by AR HB2548. For example, astronomers routinely
investigate phenomena, like supernovas, which are unrepeatable
events. In physiological research, it is often the case that the
quantities that are measured do not directly come from the process
of interest, but rather reflect by-products of such processes.
Further, the characterization of science as employing some form
of naive falsificationism is a significant distortion of the more
complex reality of scientific research.
While AR HB2548 S 1(d)(3) enumerates only purported "false" or
"fraudulent" examples from geology and biology, the broad language
of the bill will make it difficult to find any textbook of significant
scope that could even conceivably pass muster in any discipline that
covers empirical findings, and may prove to raise difficulties even
for arts and language topics. Textbooks generally lag the current
findings in any discipline by several years. Current findings tend
to revise or falsify prior concepts. This means that any person
determined to block the adoption or purchase of a particular
textbook in almost any discipline will be able to use AR HB2548 S 1(d)
as a legal bar to such adoption, since any example of a known
false concept within a textbook will disqualify it from consideration.
For example, most physics textbooks devote some pages to Newton's
laws of motion. However, relativistic physics has shown that there
are circumstances under which Newton's laws of motion yield false
results, and could thus be considered false. This would be enough
under a consistent reading of AR HB2548 to bar the purchase of any such
textbook.
Fixation on the labelling of "theories": AR HB2548 S 1(c)(2)
dichotomizes fact from theory, as if "theory" were just a "guess or
hunch" in science. This is not the case. The National Center for Science
Education has prepared a brief article
about the various problems with "theory not fact" type legislation.
Rep. Jim Holt relied upon Dr. Kent Hovind not only for directly
quoted material used in HB2548, but also called upon Hovind to testify
before the Arkansas legislature in support of HB2548. The following
online resources call into question the reliability of various of
Hovind's claims, and also delve into Hovind's background.
- Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind's Materials
- The following links go to Kent Hovind's web pages:
- On Hovind's $250,000 "challenge"
-
- On Hovind's "Debate" Challenges
-
- Hovind's Questions for Evolutionists, Answered
-
- Critiques of Items on Hovind's Web Pages or in Hovind's Seminars
-
- Kent Hovind's Educational Background
-
- Kent Hovind's Position on Payment of Income Tax
-
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells has, in contrast to Kent Hovind, a
real earned Ph.D. degree from a well-recognized academic institution,
the University of California at Berkeley. Wells is a Senior Fellow
with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture. The CRSC is notable for their promulgation of
the "wedge
strategy", which seeks nothing less than a complete philosophical
change in the basis of how science gets done.
Jim Holt claimed in an article appearing in the 2001/03/27
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution",
was the source for some of the items that he listed in HB2548.
Holt said he also used the book Icons of Evolution by Jonathan
Wells. He said Wells is an evolutionist but found numerous examples of
faulty evidence used to prove evolution. Holt includes these in his
bill.
How well does Holt know his sources? In this case, I believe
that Holt has seriously mischaracterized Wells, who is one of the
country's leading anti-evolutionists.
Wells apparently comes by his objections to certain evolutionary
topics via his religious background. Obviously, religious background
says nothing about the validity of any argument made, which must be
considered upon its merits or lack of same. However, Wells has
claimed in the past to have no theological predisposition that puts
him at odds with evolutionary concepts. This is at least
disingenuous, as Wells has written that by 1978, at the end of his
time in seminary, Wells and his religious advisor had plotted his
future career, which included seeking a Ph.D. degree in biology for
the purpose of "destroying Darwinism".
Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA
At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I
was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological
Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every
evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the
answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's
many talks to us, and through my studies. Father [the Rev. Sun Myung
Moon] encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great
things.
He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he
frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated
without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included
modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room
for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re-
interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of
human imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying
Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary
graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the
opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
- Darwinism:
Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
Wells has objected to this text being brought up, variously
claiming that it is an ad hominem argument or that it is an
example of "viewpoint discrimination". I bring it up here to
address a narrow point, which is whether theological issues do
or do not enter into Wells' anti-evolutionary activities. It
seems clear to me that they do. Wells has also objected that
his comments about "destroying Darwinism" only extend to Darwin's
mechanism of natural selection, and that he had no prior
objections to the theory of common descent. In fact, Jay Wesley
Richards, another DI CRSC Fellow, went so far as to claim that
Wells had "affirmed" the theory of common descent prior
to his coursework at UC Berkeley. I find Richards' claim and
Wells' protestations less than convincing. Wells has committed
his anti-evolutionary advocacy to various essays, linked from
here,
but I have tried in vain to find any evidence whatsoever of the
"affirmation" of common descent that Richards alluded to.
- Links to works by Jonathan Wells:
-
- Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution":
- Wells and HB2548:
-
It does not appear that Wells played any active role in the
promulgation or promotion of HB2548. A query to the Discovery
Institute got a response that the DI CRSC has not been involved
in this legislative activity.
An article by Seth Blomeley in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on
2001/04/02 stated that Jonathan Wells had termed Neandertal Man and
Homo erectus as fraudulent. Apparently, Jim Holt told
Blomeley that his list of items in HB2548 had come from Well's book.
While it is true that "Icons of Evolution" takes up the topic of human
evolution in one of its chapters, it does not appear that Wells made
these particular claims attributed to him. I wrote a letter to the editor to apprise him
of the error.
- Wells' topics:
-
- Peppered Moths
- Miller-Urey Experiments
- Haeckel's Embryos. (It is curious that
Wells, whose Ph.D. was obtained in the discipline of developmental
biology, did not put together an accurate visual comparison of embryos
across taxa, but rather has apparently settled for complaining about
the inaccuracies of Haeckel's drawings. Miller and Levine, the
authors of a textbook criticized for reliance upon Haeckel's
inaccurate drawings, collected photomicrographic evidence to produce a
new, accurate illustration of the similarities and differences that
are seen during embryological development. Whose interest in making
accurate information available is greater? In my opinion, score one
for the textbook authors.)
- Archaeopteryx
- Fossil Hominids
A page with the contact information for the members of the Arkansas
state legislature can be found
here. The listings below are taken from that page.
Arkansas State Representatives:
(HB2548 sponsors: Holt, Fite, Prater, Mack, Nichols, Adams,
M. Smith, Bennett, Duggar, Green, Altes)
Arkansas State Senate: Some of the senators have email, and those
with email are listed below:
(Bill sponsors: Critcher, Hunter, Baker)
Text of email from Wesley R. Elsberry
to various members of the Arkansas State Senate, 2001/03/23.
If you have information regarding the source of a part of HB2548,
a rebuttal or link to a rebuttal of a part of HB2548, or even just
want to make a comment about this page, use the form below to enter
it and press the "Submit" button.
Page history:
Page created by Wesley R. Elsberry,
2001/03/22
Page maintained by Troy Britain and Wesley R. Elsberry,
2001/03/22-present
We thank our many contributors, who include
Thomas J. Wheeler,
Ian Musgrave,
Michael S. Hopkins,
Paul Heinrich,
Barbara Forrest,
Jim Foley, and
Karen Bartelt.
Anti-Evolution
