Vander Plaats supports teaching intelligent design
"If we are going to teach evolution, there is another viewpoint and one that holds pretty good too (evolution) in regards to creation," Vander Plaats said. "I think that is something that I would want to visit further along with Jim Nussle in regards to 'Where are you at on that?' But my viewpoint is I would like to give both of these (time in the classroom)."
For those of you unfamiliar wth Iowa politics, Jim Nussle is the Republican candidate for governor, opposed by Democrat Chet Culver. Bob Vander Plaats, as noted, is Nussle's running mate.
More after the jump...
The question was raised by Rachel Smith, an ISU senior in agricultural biochemistry. Smith later spoke out against the candidate's response, arguing that intelligent design is not a scientific theory."It may be a theory in the way of being a concept, but it is definitely not a scientific theory," Smith told Vander Plaats. "Evolution is a scientific theory, and it is accepted very, very widely."
Vander Plaats responded that intelligent design is a "very real theory" that is widely accepted.
So many errors here. Most notably, of course, is that Smith (no relation) is correct: it's not a scientific theory, it's a half-assed idea that even ID supporters admit isn't well formulated and ain't ready for prime time. And that "wide acceptance" is a joke; the Discovery Institute's vaguely-worded, 600-signature document notwithstanding (but how many of them are named Steve?)
"I think from an educator point of view, I want to give the theories that have creditability weight in the classroom," he said. "There are some credible evidences on both sides, I think from an educator point of view as well as a full discourse to the students of 'Here's how people believe the world came to be.'
This "educator point of view" comes from Vander Plaats' experience as a teacher (business, not science) and school principal. And of course, his appeal to "both sides" and fairness in the classroom is one that reverberates with a lot of voters, but the fact remains that there's *is* no "credible evidence" of intelligent design. Additionally, he's making the common mistake of wrapping evolutionary theory together with abiogenesis and cosmology when he says that evolution and intelligent design are different ways that "people believe the world came to be."
The article ends with Vander Plaats' quote:
"I don't see where that can hurt."
Except to mislead Iowa's kids--rather a big issue with me, though apparently not to Vander Plaats.
Ironically, if you go to Nussle's campaign site, you'll see that his plan for achieving world-class education is at the top of his list:
Jim Nussle will energize Iowa's education system so our schools are held accountable for results and our students are prepared for the job opportunities of the 21st Century. To compete in today's global economy; Jim will encourage and entice students and teachers into the critical fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.
And yet his running mate is undermining this, by suggesting that a religious, non-scientific idea be taught alongside evolutionary theory, the cornerstone of biology. Perhaps Vander Plaats doesn't see the inherent contradiction in this; I don't know. But as a former principal, you'd think he'd at least be familiar with what an effort to insert intelligent design into a school curriculum can do to a school district--lawsuits, division among the community, etc. Just ask Dover, PA.
Finally, to be fair, Vander Plaats does say that he's not discussed his stance on the issue with Nussle, and having only lived here not yet two years, I'm still not that familiar with Nussle himself. However, according to this site, he's received campain money for Discovery Institute funder Howard Ahmanson Jr., but I've not seen any statements from Nussle directly addressing the topic. (If anyone out there knows of any, please, pass them along). I've also emailed both campaigns to see if they had an official position on the topic, but haven't heard back from those either. Stay tuned...
- Log in to post comments
Yet more evidence that the "Republican War on Science," to borrow a phrase, is simply the sell-out politician's war on intelligence. Ours and that of our kids...
Nussel should be ssked if he agrees with Ahmansons' Christian reconstructionist ideology.
Considering his eloquence, I would have thought his experience as an "educator" was as a high school wrestling coach or something similar.
Actually, he was the head basketball coach at a high school--close, though.
I attended most of junior high and high school in eastern Iowa in the late '60s and am eternally grateful for the high standards of Iowa public education, especially in the sciences. What a sad state of affairs. That Vander Plaats can sincerely espouse this "both sides"/pro-ID viewpoint is, IMHO, another illustration of the principle that even in Iowa, the teachers who are least competent at teaching end up in administration, such as in the position of school principal.
He almost has it right. Would he feel comfortable rephrasing as "The theory of evolution is the product of long and detailed scientific study; however, some people base their understanding of the origin of the universe and biological diversity on cultural mythologies passed down over several millennia."
"Intelligent Design" is surely not a developed, scientific theory, and perhaps can't be. However, it is game, logically appropriate, and useful to challenge with *questions* about how well atoms would randomly come together with what chance to form needed biomolecules, etc. Just as with questions like "If the universe formed from a big bang then how come..." etc., there should be challenges, not to be confused with how the best answers to such Socratic inquiry will turn out (or with the related political questions.)
"The article ends with Vander Plaats' quote: 'I don't see where that can hurt.'"
And of course, if he can't see the problem, it can't possibly be a real problem, can it now? (eyeroll)
Um, folks?
Instead of ridiculing him, why not try educating him as to why it would hurt? In most cases it's a waste of time, I know, but on rare occasions it can help.
One attempt only, though. If he throws it back in your face, then feel free to ridicule him all you want. :-)
Check out plank 3.4 in the Iowa Republican Party platform.
"3.4 We support the teaching of alternative theories on the origins of life including Darwinian Evolution, Creation Science or Intelligent Design, and that each should be given equal weight in presentation."
From the Iowa Democrats State Convention, June 17, 2006:
Line 431 We oppose:
Line 434 The teaching of "intelligent design" as science in public schools
There's a bunch of interesting items in the
Republican Party of Iowa State Platform:
Lots more items in there for anyone interested in theocracy, either to support or oppose it.
I don't see how. I can't think of any natural processes that could be accurately described as atoms randomly coming together.
After reading all of it, I think this is my favourite of the Republican policies:
11.7... We deplore extremist scare tactics not based on sound scientific evidence.
Andrew: Could you elaborate? What I meant was, the idea of the atoms getting together to make DNA, etc., with the randomness of course being a matter of movement distribution, given of course principles of likely interaction.
"6.13 We assert that the phrase, "the separation of church and state" as is commonly used, contradicts the original intent and practice of the Framers of the Constitution."
We obviously failed to protect these people from unneccesary lobotomies as children. Where was the staff of the Dept of Human Services? Probably obsessing over Shelby Duis or forcing sex offenders to drop off the radar.
Neil, no abiogenesis expert suggests that "atoms (got) together to make DNA." That would be like saying atoms got together to make mountains. It is misleading, and it ignores not only the numerous intermediate steps in the prevailing abiogenesis hypotheses, but the myriad natural forces that guided the interactions. To add in the phrase "randomly" to describe these interactions is silly. That's like me saying that sodium cations and chloride anions randomly come together to make table salt.
"Intelligent Design" is surely not a developed, scientific theory, and perhaps can't be. However, it is game, logically appropriate, and useful to challenge with *questions* about how well atoms would randomly come together with what chance to form needed biomolecules, etc. Just as with questions like "If the universe formed from a big bang then how come..." etc., there should be challenges, not to be confused with how the best answers to such Socratic inquiry will turn out (or with the related political questions.)
Posted by: Neil' | October 14, 2006 10:24 AM
I don't see how. I can't think of any natural processes that could be accurately described as atoms randomly coming together.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | October 14, 2006 04:01 PM
Andrew: Could you elaborate? What I meant was, the idea of the atoms getting together to make DNA, etc., with the randomness of course being a matter of movement distribution, given of course principles of likely interaction.
Posted by: Neil' | October 14, 2006 07:52 PM
Neil, no abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
expert suggests that "atoms (got) together to make DNA." That would be like saying atoms got together to make mountains. It is misleading, and it ignores not only the numerous intermediate steps in the prevailing abiogenesis hypotheses, but the myriad natural forces that guided the interactions. To add in the phrase "randomly" to describe these interactions is silly. That's like me saying that sodium cations and chloride anions randomly come together to make table salt.
Posted by: Shygetz | October 17, 2006 02:09 PM
Reply by jdach In Defense of Intelligent Design:
Darwin himself declined to speculate that at some point there may have existed an organism with no prior ancestor and that such an organism may have come into existence, formed from non-living molecules.
The study of science and the concept of "Intelligent Design" have more in common than you might think. For example, if you are walking on the beach and come across a functioning watch on the sand, would you assume that the watch was created by a watchmaker (William Paley) or would you assume the watch parts randomly self assembled on the beach? Science views the universe as a giant watch and tries to figure out how the parts work and where the parts came from. Science doesn't comment on who made the watch and leaves this question open. "Intelligent Design" picks up on this open question and says, "Look at how complex the watch is, perhaps there was a watchmaker." This scenario presupposes the perceptual ability to pose that question, and like all abilities or traits is not universally present in the population. Perceptual ability can be learned. To block the discussion of ID at school, in essense blocks the development of this type of perceptual abiltiy similar to the stifling of creativity, some crtics may point out.
Another objection is that the idea of Intelligent Design in the classroom will somehow undermine our country's enviable technologically advanced world position. This reveals how superficial popular thinking is about this issue. Unquestionably, science is very important for our national security and is the reason why we have weapons superiority over our adversaries. However, let me reassure you that our nation's atomic physics program will not be impaired by the human ability to look up at the starry night sky and wonder where it all came from.
Regards from www.drdach.com
Before anyone invests too much time in responding to drdach.com I'm going to channel quitter and say you're probably wasting your time with him.
He is also presently arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS at Hank's blog and at this google group:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/browse_frm/thread/34cfb…
I think this sentence from his contribution at Hanks pretty much sums it up"
"After weighing the arguments and style of the proponents of the two sides, I came away impressed with what seemed the higher moral and ethical standards of the AIDS rethinkers; their obviously much higher, scientific standards, and their inescapable, common sense credibility."
He seems to be, simply, a denier of reality on several fronts.
Now, ignoring my own advice, I'd like to ask drdach.com the same thing I tried to ask at Hank's blog.
Given your decades of experience as a physician, why are 90% or more of the patients represented in figure three of the Rodriguez paper suffering CD4 cell losses?
Yeah, a look at his site told me everything I needed to know.
The point I was leading to is that Intelligent Design and Science have more in common than one might think.
Intelligent Design is based on the observation that in the structure of both non-living and living things there is exquisitely complex order. Look at photosynthesis for example, which can be viewed as a series of chemical reactions transferring the energy of electromagnetic radiation from the sun to the leaf of the plant. This energy is then used to incorporate carbon based compounds from the environment in the form of CO2 into the plant structure, a process which provides food for animal life.
A modern day William Paley would look at photosynthesis and say, there must have been an "intelligence" which designed this process. It is too complex to have happened by chance or by human invention. It is certainly beyond the ability of even the most gifted biochemist to devise photosynthesis and present it to the earth. Human invention of this or any natural process is not even within question. The same could be said for the structure and function of DNA.
Even non-living things show levels of order which are quite breath-taking. Ask any astronomer about the structures seen through their instruments. Ask anyone with an electron microscope (scanning or transmission) about the intricacies of their world.
Non-living crystal structures reveal another form of order. Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics and relativity theory all describe orderly events in the physical world.
The point here is that scientific inquiry makes a very large assumption even before starting the very first observation. The assumption is that there is underlying order, and the role of the scientist is to find out what this order is. Quantum mechanics, it could be argued, is different, and explains why Einstein rejected it saying "God does not play dice with the universe". Yet even with the dice being thrown, there is still order in Quantum Mechanics. Actually the idea of quantum mechanics of alternating equally true energy states originated in Kaballistic thought (in Hebrew called "TzimZum" ) which describes the presence and the absence of free will at the same time in a paradoxical fashion.
If science did not contain within it the assumption of underlying order, then we would be spending our time describing how there are no universal laws of physics, only chaos. So, this leads us to the recognition that the process of scientific inquiry presupposes the "intelligent design" of the universe. The job of the scientist is to uncover and clarify and make understandable exactly what this intelligent design is. So when I read here or elsewhere opposition to the idea of intelligent design, this is merely opposition to the basic assumption of the scientific process, which of course if proposed by scientists, is a contradiction.
The argument that the discussion of ID in public school is actually a religious practice was proposed by the judge in the Pennsylvania school board ruling. To teach this idea is to teach religion in school which violates separation of church and state. I believe this line of reasoning is flawed and this will be the substance of the next sequel including a discussion of perceptual ability and ID, and the role of Darwin, etc.
regards from www.drdach.com
ummm... no.
But it really isn't interesting enough to waste time on.
So, back to Rodriguez.
Figure 3.
Where did everyone's CD4 cells disappear to?
from drdach:
Let's try a negotiation here. You post an intellectually good faith reply to my above comments on ID, and I will then reply to your off topic question.
regards from www.drdach.com
The only things Intelligent Design and science have in common are an s, i, e, n, and another e.
Science makes observations about the world and then proposes testable hypotheses to explain them then tests them with experiments. Intelligent Design's hypothesis, essentially, "God did it." is untestable. There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer nor any evidence that any living thing has been designed. Believe me, if they produce any evidence of an Intelligent Designer everyone's going to be interested in it. They haven't, so I'm not interested.
On your website you cite standard Creationist arguments like "gaps in the fossil record" that show you really don't know very much about evolution. Its possible arguing "irreducible complexity" with someone who understands some biochemistry could be entertaining but so far your comments on HIV do not reassure me you are such a person.
"If science did not contain within it the assumption of underlying order, then we would be spending our time describing how there are no universal laws of physics, only chaos. So, this leads us to the recognition that the process of scientific inquiry presupposes the "intelligent design" of the universe. The job of the scientist is to uncover and clarify and make understandable exactly what this intelligent design is."
Science does not contain an assumption of underlying order for all phenomena. Merely that if the same conditions are recreated then very similar results should occur. If this were not true, if there were "no universal laws of physics only chaos" then we wouldn't be here and nobody would have been around to come up with science. Scientific inquiry does no such thing as presuppose the "intelligent design" of the universe. This statement is absurd.
If you're really interested in talking about science vs. Intelligent Design and what all the flaws are in Intelligent Design, go here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
and wait for PZ to post something about Intelligent Design, Creationism, evolution, atheism,... you shouldn't have to wait long, he only posts on these topics four time a day or more. I doubt your argument is interesting enough to get PZ to respond, but many of his commenters will be happy to engage you.
Just do me one favor please, don't tell them I sent you.
drdach reply:
I would like to bring your attention to one of your statements which I believe most scientists would disagree with (below) and I would ask other readers who are scientists (if there are any) to comment on whether they agree or disagree with the following statement:
" Science does not contain an assumption of underlying order for all phenomena." Pharma Bawd
According to Mariano Artigas, (see reference below) general presuppositions are necessary conditions of the whole scientific enterprise. The entire scientific enterprise would be impossible without these presuppositions, which cannot be proved within science itself. There are, at least, four of them.
1)The first is the existence of a natural world with a consistency which is independent of our will.
2)Orderly character of this world.
3)Contingency of the natural order. Natural order includes patterns, systems, holism. But it also includes information. Genetic information is perhaps the most striking example.
4)Human ability to know this natural contingent order.
Mariano Artigas Communication presented in the Sixth European Conference on Science and Theology (ESSSAT VI), Cracovia (Poland), March 26-31, 1996
http://www.unav.es/cryf/articulatingsciencieandtheology.html
Another author, Hodgson, again states the same idea:
Natural order is a presupposition of science. Our ability of knowing this order is a presupposition. Today, scientists are aware of the existence of these presuppositions (Hodgson 1979).
Hodgson, P. 1979: "Presuppositions and Limits of Science", The Structure and Development of Science (eds. G. Radnitzky - G. Andersson), Dordrecht, 133-147.
Some Metaphysical Presuppositions of Science
Haig Khatchadourian Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul., 1955), pp. 194-204
Regarding your off topic about figure 3. The declines or the increases (for some) in CD4 count in Figure 3 was clearly not caused by HIV since R-2 was .04 indicating no correlation. The NIH spent 100B over 20 years in pursuit of this question. Why don't you ask Fauci ?
Regards from www.drdach.com
Testing
> Regarding your off topic about figure 3. The declines or the increases
> (for some) in CD4 count in Figure 3 was clearly not caused by HIV since
> R-2 was .04 indicating no correlation.
That noncorrelation is between viral load level and the rate of CD4 cell decline. The r-squared of .04 does not describe the relationship between HIV and whether or not CD4 cell loss occurred, which is the point of my question.
If we consider those two variables, 100% of these patients are infected with HIV and 90% (or more) are experiencing declines in CD4+ T cells. There is a strong correlation between HIV infection and subsequent CD4 cell loss.
Add to that the facts that HIV:
1) infects CD4+ T cells preferentially and,
2) that it kills CD4+ T cells in vitro,
and Anthony Fauci and I come up with the same answer: HIV is causing the depletion of CD-4+ T cells in HIV infected people.
Now, I repeat my question: Where do you think the CD-4+ T cells are going in all these HIV infected people?
Calculations based on the age of the universe and the structure of DNA show that 20 billion years simply wasn't enough time for the base pairs of DNA to have randomly formed into the genetic code.
This strawman is definitely singing "If I only had a brain".
" Science does not contain an assumption of underlying order for all phenomena." Pharma Bawd
I stand by that statement.
Of course there is an underlying order for many phenomena in the universe, and those tend to be the ones that get studied by science.
But there are many phenomena that truly are either random or arbitrary (like Brownian motion, van der Waal's interactions, nuclear decay,...) and there is no underlying assumption made by science that such phenomena have an underlying order. That does not mean that science cannot study some aspect of these random phenomena, like the contribution of van der Waal's forces to the stability of the DNA double helix, but the phenomenon itself is random.
If we assumed an underlying order in van der Waal's forces we'd be committing the same error as the fools who watch the "pattern" of black and red at the roulette table.
Now, as for whether phenomena that seem to produce an order have a guiding design of some sort that accounts for their ability to occur, consider the rocks, sand, and gravel in a stream. In curves in the stream these materials are going to settle out of the moving water and be arrayed by size. There is no intelligence or design involved, but there is order produced by the stream. We do not assume that someone came out and sorted the stones and sand in the stream, why should we for any other phenomenon? Particularly one like biological evolution where naturalistic explanations are so plausible and well supported by, for instance, the fossil record.
One of the reasons I don't like to argue philosophy, like Intelligent Design, is the need to constantly define terms to make sure we are talking about the same thing and not just understanding things based on the colloquial meaning of the words.
For instance, you should really look up the definition of "natural order" before using it again in an argument in favor of Intelligent Design.
natural order
n : the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws
http://dict.die.net/natural%20order/
I nominate this one for the non-sequitur/s of the year.
Unless you believe that the Designer was an alien from alpha centauri then the Designer is a supernatural being exists outside of any natural order.
Natural order does not imply the existence of a supernatural being.
Natural order does not imply the existence of a supernatural being.
Nor does intelligent design. The universe is not created by a superintelligent being, the universe is intelligence.
That's great jspreen. If you don't mind, just to keep things simple, I'm gonna keep calling it the universe.
And, by universe I mean everything that exists.
For my discussion of Sept 27 JAMA on Non-Correlation of HIV and Viral Load :
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/10/by_jeffrey_dach.html
For further discussion of any topic of interest including the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. The reader is invited to contact me on my web site contact page.
www.drdach.com
For further information about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis the, reader is directed to the book by Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998…
and the google video: HIV=AIDS FACT or Fraud
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=AIDS&hl=…
regards from www.drdach.com
When can we expect to read your or Darin Brown's critique in the pages of JAMA?
What are you waiting for?
If, as Darin claims, the "sub-group analysis" in the Rodriguez paper is flawed then why doesn't he write a letter to JAMA.
Does Darin understand what a subgroup analysis is?
I have to say drdach.com, that response (back to the very article you wrote, that I was asking about)was even weaker than I expected.
You'll notice that you never discussed what you think did cause the loss of CD4 T cells in HIV positive people, you just falsely (and in direct contradiction to the studys authors)
http://www.aidstruth.org/rodriguez-lederman.php
claimed that HIV couldn't be doing it.
90% of the HIV positive people in that study are losing CD4T-cells. None of them are on HIV/AIDS meds, and only 10-11% are IV drug users so it's more than a little difficult to take Duesberg's "Chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics" as a serious hypothesis. Do you really want that to be your final answer? You can phone a friend if you like.
So I guess we've learned at least two things from internet discussions of the Rodriguez paper:
1. Nick Bennett is no statistician.
2. Radiologists are not virologists, nor are they infectious disease specialists.
---terminology---compare--The word "science"---the word "conscience"--interpolate,or deterpolate--decrypt--
substantially an arguement of data system influence on meaning's---??