Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Richard Littlemore has the latest on Tim Ball's antics. Check out this bit from Ball:
The point I made was with regard to the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. I posed the question about what happens to the water level when an ice cube is placed in a glass which is then filled to the brim and the ice melts. The correct answer is the water level drops because the space occupied by the ice is greater than that occupied by the water it contains. Water expands when it freezes.
But the ice is floating in the water. The extra space that the frozen water takes up is, by Archimedes principle, exactly the volume that sticks out of the water. So the water level doesn't change.
Politics
Comments
I've seen the "ice cube in water" argument trotted out as a reason why we shouldn't worry about ice melting on Greenland and Antarctica. Usually it helps to point out that the latter ice is on LAND, and when it melts, will roll downhill into the sea, raising sea level.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | January 18, 2008 2:00 PM
It's actually more nonsensical than that.
"I then applied that analogy to Antarctica and Greenland since a majority of that ice is already in the water. Lettinga identifies them as land-ice, which is technically correct, but they are grounded on the land below sea level for most of their area. His claim about portions of the ice slipping into the oceans and raising sea levels is speculative nonsense as is his claim there is already evidence this is happening."
My thorough grounding in physics courtesy of the Alberta School System tells me that what Ball is describing is ice which, if melted, will in fact raise the water level.
I believe the concept he is searching for is ice which is somehow trapped under a layer of rock which prevents it from floating.
Excuse me one second.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Thanks, I feel a bit better now.
Posted by: z | January 18, 2008 2:01 PM
Oh god, there's more:
"He then claims I said, "There is no evidence for the ozone hole (over Antarctica)." I hope his students are better at listening and recordingwhat is actually said. I never said that at all. I said there was no hole in the ozone because even at its thinnest the so-called hole is one third the average thickness of the ozone layer. The concept there is an actual hole with no ozone is simply incorrect. He then totally incorrectly defines the hole "as the area over Antarctica where stratospheric ozone is reduced by 50 per cent." First, it often extends well outside Antarctica and often doesn't even cover the continent; second, it varies in size and shape with atmospheric circulation, temperatures, and formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds among other factors, and third there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that these changes are caused by CFCs."
Once more:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
That didn't help as much as I had hoped this time.
Posted by: z | January 18, 2008 2:05 PM
Tim Ball is confused.
He's talking about 'melting ice' and 'ozone hole', when what he actually is trying to find is an 'ice hole.'
He needs a better mirror.
Posted by: Lee | January 18, 2008 2:38 PM
There actually is a complete lack of O3 at what normally would be the peak of the concentration (14-20 km as I recall) some remains above and below these altitudes. In that sense it is a hole.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 18, 2008 2:53 PM
"ice hole," hmm? To find that, I'd say he needs both hands and better enunciation. The mirror would be a help, though.
BTW, what TB may have been trying to refer to is that much of the GIS and most of the WAIS are grounded below sea level, and that melting/collapse of this ice would not in and of itself raise sea level. That's true enough, but neglects the fact that the vast majority of the ice in both cases is above sea level.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | January 18, 2008 2:54 PM
Pointless nitpick time: Tim L., you write "The extra space that the frozen water takes up is (...) exactly the volume that sticks out of the water." Is this a precise statement? I think the outcome (no change in water level) is correct, but isn't it better to say that the difference in level is equal to the water-equivalent (i.e. post-melt)volume of the above-water portion of the ice rather than the volume of the ice itself, IOW accounting for the change in density of the above-water portion as the ice melts?
Posted by: Steve Bloom | January 18, 2008 3:11 PM
No, it isn't. It means that melting of the ice won't raise sea level as much as ice that is grounded above sea level, but it will raise sea level more than melting of floating ice will (depending on how much of the grounded ice is above sea level). (There's still that pesky thermal expansion of seawater as the average temperature rises.)
Posted by: rfguy | January 18, 2008 3:20 PM
rfguy, I don't think we're disagreeing. I was trying to refer only to the below sea level portion of the ice as not contributing to sea level rise (ignoring minor effects). The key point is that all of that ice is overlaid with a far larger quantity that is above sea level.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | January 18, 2008 3:56 PM
Steve Bloom:
If the ice is floating (e.g. the Arctic polar cap), then NONE of it melting would contribute to a sea level rise. That's exactly what the Archimedes principle implies.
In order to float, in fact, a body must receive a "push up" exactly equivalent to its own weight; the Archimedes principle states that the amount of "push up" corresponds exactly to the weight of the water displaced by the body.
In other words, the weight of the Arctic polar cap corresponds exactly to the weight of the water displaced by it (i.e. a volume identical to the UNDERWATER ice). What happens when you melt the ice? Its weight does not change, so you have water weighing exactly as much as... the former underwater portion of the polar cap!
No change in sea level, period.
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | January 18, 2008 4:49 PM
As regards GIS and WAIS, Ball would have a point if and only if the underwater portions of these two ice sheets were to be exactly equivalent in volume to what they would be if the ice were floating.
If they were larger than that, good ol' Archimedes would make them float away...
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | January 18, 2008 4:55 PM
re 11, iced volumes. Actually, sea ice tends to be fresher than sea water, and therefore lower density, when melted.
In my good old familiar boat design units, fresh water is about 62.4 lbs/ft3, and sea water about 64 lbs/ft3.
The volume of sea water displaced is that necessary to balance the weight of the floating ice. The volume of fresh water released when the sea ice melts is slightly larger (because lower density) than the salt water displaced by the sea ice. Melting floating sea ice composed of lower-density fresher water will tend to cause a slight increase in sea level.
Posted by: Lee | January 18, 2008 5:02 PM
OK, so we all know the vast majority of Antarctic and Greenland is, uh, not in the water (currently). The Antarctic plateau is generally about 2km thick. That's lots of water, and if it ever starts melting, well, I for one will welcome our new watery overlords.
The big story in melting sea ice is not the (relatively) small change in sea level, but the significant change in the salinity in the top level of the water column, and the implications that has for biological cycles and the water column vertical stability. There is also the question of whether dramatic changes in sea ice serve as a warning for the stability of the 2 great ice sheets.
CFCs? Heh. Really not worth responding to. See also: google.
Posted by: markg | January 18, 2008 6:20 PM
The fact that most of Greenland is below sea-level directly contradicts claims that most of Greenland was vegetated during the MWP.
I'm sure Tim Ball will be sure to point that out to all his denialist mates.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 18, 2008 7:34 PM
Oh my, Tim Ball is even stupider than I thought. Lettinga should have an easy time picking his arguments apart. If they let him answer.
Posted by: Flavius C | January 18, 2008 8:12 PM
I was trying to refer only to the below sea level portion of the ice as not contributing to sea level rise (ignoring minor effects).
Off the top of my head, no.
Isostatic rebound.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | January 18, 2008 10:52 PM
Ice is less dense than fresh water, which is why bottles break when you freeze them. Ice structure is fascinating (click on the phases in the diagram to see the crystal structures) especially at high pressures. Then again, I am a Rabett.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 18, 2008 10:58 PM
Lee in #12 makes an excellent point that I was planning to make myself had he not done so.
However, there is yet another complication of the question. Everyone who has taken a freshman physics class learns what Lambert explains here: that the floating ice, with weight W, displaces a volume of water with weight W, so that when the ice itself becomes water, it occupies the same volume that the solid was displacing. This argument glosses over one fact, though: The volume of liquid water is not exactly constant, even though it is close enough for the demonstration with an ice cube in a glass to have no visible change in water level.
In fact, for temperatures above 4 degrees Celsius, water expands when heated and contracts when cooled. When ice melts in a body of water, the body of water becomes colder and thus contracts. So, when you let an ice cube melt in a glass of freshwater, the water level does drop, very slightly, until the water warms back up to the temperature it was before the ice melted.
Posted by: Edward | January 19, 2008 10:17 AM
17:
Ice nine is real and even Vonnegut is dead. Strange things lurk in the Rabbet hole.
Posted by: Boris | January 19, 2008 10:48 AM
Actually, Ball and Lambert are both wrong: the water level is lower, but that's because I usually drink most of the water by the time the ice-cube has melted.
Posted by: ben | January 19, 2008 6:49 PM
Worse, Tim Ball embraced Creationism, and rejected geology, not two weeks ago
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/01/tim-ball-denies-darwin.html#links
Yeah its traffic whoring. But its the good kind.
Posted by: bigcitylib | January 19, 2008 8:22 PM
What's wrong with creationism again?
Posted by: ben | January 19, 2008 11:34 PM
Lemme preface that... what is creationism, exactly?
Posted by: ben | January 19, 2008 11:38 PM
Ben, Creationism is the theory that you, Ben, didn't descend from an ape. Can you tell us the error in that theory?
Posted by: SG | January 20, 2008 1:20 AM
"Ben, Creationism is the theory that you, Ben, didn't descend from an ape. Can you tell us the error in that theory?"
Nope, I see nothing wrong with that proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact, as you call it.
Or did you mean that as a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena? If that is the case, then I don't see anything wrong with this theory, it is plausible, but I don't know that it is true either.
Posted by: ben | January 20, 2008 1:32 AM
Wait, darn it, I was answering the question "Ben, Evolution is the theory that you, Ben, descended from an ape. Can you tell us the error in that theory?"
Unfortunately I didn't read the question correctly and I answered a question that was not asked.
As to the question that was asked, I dunno. I suppose it's possible that I didn't descend from an ape, I never really thought about it, to be honest. I don't really see how it affects my life, nor anyone else's, any more than, say, what brand of toothpaste I choose at the supermarket. Maybe we're just all brains in vats, and an eeeevil scientist is making us think that there's evidence that we descended from apes. Or maybe we really did descend from apes. I used to think that I might have descended from an Orangutan, given that I'm somewhat hairy, and that my beard gets a few orange strands in it. But then I became allergic to bananas, so now I'm not so sure.
Posted by: ben | January 20, 2008 1:47 AM
Once again, Ben puts his amazing ignorance and absolute lack of curiousity about the world around him out on open display for all to see.
Posted by: dhogaza | January 20, 2008 3:38 AM
Even his example of triviality is stupid, given that which brand of toothpaste you buy can be quite important.
Posted by: dhogaza | January 20, 2008 3:41 AM
I still want to start a troll race theme, but in addition to jc's "pro" division i will have to include an "inadvertent troll" division. Maybe pro, amateur, and unrated/inadvertent. Because some trolling, even if it's meant to deceive, is so lame it's got to reflect ignorance of where the plausibility line is.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | January 20, 2008 4:52 AM
I think that the trolls are actually hibernating, or at least preparing to do so. I tried a bit of a tickle of them myself on the Open Thread to plumb the depths, but nary a whimper...
Posted by: Bernard J. | January 20, 2008 7:28 AM
Just for the record, humans and apes all evolved from a progenitor much more like a lemur than a primate.
Tim Ball and ben seem intent on disproving evolution by personal example.
Posted by: luminous beauty | January 20, 2008 10:04 AM
Troll? Maybe, but I don't think so. At least I'm polite, and I've learned some things here. Ball's thing about the water/ice was so dumb that there really wasn't much more to say about it. Just thought I'd liven up the back-slapping a little.
Yes, I was being a bit flip about evolution. Man's origins are interesting, but people sure get fired up about it. I just don't think it matters enough to get emotional over people who want to think that we didn't descend from apes, even though to the lay person, the evidence seems to support it. I've also read some interesting critiques of contemporary evolutionary theory which I haven't seen good answers to, but I haven't looked that hard either, so I simply don't have much of an opinion, since it doesn't really matter anyway.
See, we all have a limited amount of time to spend on things, and I'd rather spend my free time with my family, hunting, etc. than learning about evolutionary theory. I pick up a little here and there, but I'll never be an expert. A lot of people (not saying you guys here) who have even less expertise in evolutionary theory get a heck of a lot more fired up about it, which seems dumb to me.
Posted by: ben | January 20, 2008 10:54 AM
Ben,
There are two things about Tim Ball and Creationism. 1) This piece appeared in a Canadian on-line publication so far to the right that most mainstream Conservatives don't know it exits, and 2) Ball is speaking directly to the ID crowd, with all the standard ID talking points in place (like: the fact that ID is not talk in schools is OPPRESSIVE). The fact that his audience has dwindled to this tiny crowd, and that he must pander so hard to it, tells you alot about the state of the political debate over AGW in Canada (or at least I hope it does).
Posted by: bigcitylib | January 20, 2008 11:27 AM
Ban, if you did not evolve from an apelike creature, you would not have to worry about syphilis. But you did and therefore you do. Evolution and genetics go together.
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/jan19.html
Posted by: Holly Stick | January 20, 2008 1:03 PM
Read the Tim Ball article that mentions creationism.
I'm not sure if he's "embraced" creationism so much as he's embraced the talking points to frame his message. He's framed "Darwinism" as something akin to environmentalists who believe that slow change is natural where rapid change is unnatural. Of course, he creates a strawman because climate scientists, even those that support AGW, understand that rapid climate change can happen completely naturally.
Yes, Tim Ball is a turd. But I don't believe that he's a creationist. We'd have heard more about it by now. The IDiots would be using him as an expert to boost their cause if he was.
Posted by: Miguelito | January 20, 2008 3:07 PM
Miguelito, he claims that: 1) Darwinism is JUST a theory, 2) That alternative theories (Creationism) should be taught in school, and 3) that if these alternative theories are not taught, its because fearful scientists are trying suppress debate.
Dude, that is THE official ID position.
Posted by: bigcitylib | January 20, 2008 4:00 PM
"Ban, if you did not evolve from an apelike creature, you would not have to worry about syphilis."
I have to worry about syphilis? I better tell my wife :)
Posted by: ben | January 20, 2008 4:04 PM
No, he repeats creationist talking points that have been raised over and over and over again for the last few decades, though they've become more finely honed every time they lose a First Amendment court case.
Creationism all the way.
Not only creationism, but specifically YEC-ism.
Leaves out the troubling point that Lyell's principle of Uniformitarianism is based on observations in the physical world. It's not just a "philosophical view".
Which rather ignores obvious facts like I can watch loggers cut down trees, I can watch industrial plants spew crap into rivers, I can watch industrial plants spew crap into air, etc.
Posted by: dhogaza | January 20, 2008 4:07 PM
His ability on display.
He catches the big ones, over and over.
Rearranged Ben:
You all are on his trophy wall.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | January 20, 2008 4:10 PM
BigCityLib: He's framing the issue to speak to his audience. He's playing with semantics. Evolution is a theory. It's the best theory. It works from the bottom (chemistry) to the top (populations and environment). It's so good that there are no competitors. But it's still a theory and not Law. It's dirty, it's misleading, but he isn't wrong.
Is there any other evidence that he's a creationist?
Again, if he was one, IDiots would be championing this guy.
Posted by: Miguelito | January 20, 2008 5:38 PM
Ball is plainly worse than an idiot, missing basic Archimedes like this. But, hoping to move on from the "let's all laugh at the idiot" freak-show, I'll mention that the fact that the GIS and WAIS are grounded below sea-level (way below sea-level in the case of the central WAIS) does have important consequences for modelling ice-sheet melt, and therefore for forecasts of sea-level rise this century. In particular, the deep grounding raises some interesting questions about the possible mechanisms and rate of a catastrophic melt, and about the speed of the consequent rise in sea-level. Consider: during a melt the grounding line of (say) the WAIS at the boundary of the Ross ice shelf will move towards the interior. How fast? How gradually? What sort of momentum does that process have once it has begun? Does sea-water infiltrate under the ice? Consider: ice flows (glaciers, ice streams) are lubricated by meltwater from surface melt water which has penetrated through the ice (e.g. through moulins). But if an ice sheet is sitting in a bowl (as the GIS and WAIS both are), which way will it flow? Finally consider: any given cubic kilometre of ice sheet doesn't need to melt to add its full volume to sea level rise. It just needs to float.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | January 20, 2008 8:24 PM
was I being too subtle? I think Ben missed my point...
Posted by: SG | January 20, 2008 9:10 PM
mayhaps, SG.
Posted by: ben | January 20, 2008 10:04 PM
I was trying to call you an ape, Ben, and get you to admit to same. But your responses were so mealy-mouthed I couldn't tell if you agreed with me or not!
Posted by: SG | January 21, 2008 1:18 AM
How 'bout I just come out and do it: SG, you're an ape. There.
Me, I dunno. I look an awful lot like an ape, but I don't like bananas.
Posted by: ben | January 21, 2008 2:40 AM
At the risk of uselessly derailing the thread, evolution is an observed fact, and evolutionary theory our effort to account for that observation. "Does life evolve" is no longer a valid scientific question.
Evolution will never be a "law" in the scientific sense because it's far too complex a mechanism to be so expressed. The fact that it's a "theory" and not "law" in no way weakens it, as you and Ball seem to assume.
In particular his statement "Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed..." is a classic creationist strawman which assumes a hierarchy that does not, in science, exist.
It is a statement meant to cause the reader to think "oh, it's still JUST A THEORY! This means biologists have not found any real evidence to support it, because if they had, after 148 years, it would be a LAW!"
It's possible that Ball is simply ignorant of science, not strictly speaking a creationist, but the fact that he spouts creationist nonsense is not a good sign.
Let's just say that it's evidence supporting the hypothesis that he's a creationist. It certainly is not evidence supporting the hypothesis that he understands or agrees with evolutionary biology.
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2008 3:31 AM
"evolution is an observed fact"
At some level, this is true for certain. Life does evolve. This does not mean that all changes in life forms on earth were due only to evolution though. Maybe space aliens came down and tinkered at some point, who knows?
Posted by: ben | January 21, 2008 10:41 AM
"I just don't think it matters enough to get emotional over people who want to think that we didn't descend from apes" HOMONIDS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES. HOMONIDS, MONKEYS, AND APES SPLIT OFF FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. YOU FRICKIN' IDIOT.
Posted by: Laser Potato | January 21, 2008 12:53 PM
Well, sure, and it's equally true to state that perhaps an alien caused that apple to hit newton on the head, not gravity, and that it's really an alien manipulating electrons in your computer that makes it appear to you as though you're reading this post written by me.
Or that it's really aliens that hold up airplanes, and that your PhD is meaningless.
Sure, of course all of this is possible.
Believe what you want, dude.
There's a reason why Michael Behe, on the stand during the Dover trial, had to agree with the statement that if the definition of science were changed so that intelligent design creationism would meet it, then astrology would meet the definition as well.
If Behe and his friends were to succeed in so changing the definition of science, then you could invoke your aliens tweaking life on earth, or aliens holding up airplanes so they don't fall, as being part of "science".
Until, then, prate away but do realize it has nothing to do with science. It's simply mysticism and the denial of empirical evidence that no outside "alien" need be invoked to explain what's been observed in the real world.
But I'm not surprised to see you cozying up to the ID-creationism world view. Not at all.
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2008 1:12 PM
"HOMONIDS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES. HOMONIDS, MONKEYS, AND APES SPLIT OFF FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. YOU FRICKIN' IDIOT."
Way to get emotional, Potato. Are you calling my good buddy SG an idiot for claiming we descended from apes? That's mighty mean of you. I think all he meant was that we descended from ape-like creatures. Try to read between the lines next time.
"and that your PhD is meaningless."
Heh, that'd be the truth. At least at this point, with two months to go, the piece of paper is meaningless.
"Until, then, prate away but do realize it has nothing to do with science."
Um, duh.
"But I'm not surprised to see you cozying up to the ID-creationism world view. Not at all."
I am? That's like saying that Tim Lambert is "anti-gun". I'm not, and he's not. I'm just anti-give to much of a shit about evolution to get worked up about it.
Posted by: ben | January 21, 2008 1:56 PM
evolution is an observed fact
No, it isn't. Observed fact is a piece of datum. The average weight of a certain species of bird is an observed fact. The size of a skull found in an archeological dig is an observed fact. Evolution, like any scientific theory, is a model that attempts to account for those facts and make predictions about what other facts we can observe.
Posted by: Sarah | January 21, 2008 3:10 PM
By the way, I'm Ben's sister, and I am also a Christian who is about to get a Ph.D. in science (astrophysics). I'm curious what y'all think about something. One of the professional associations I belong to, the American Astronomical Society, is a member of the Coalition Against Intelligent Design, whose stated goal is to keep "science only in the science classroom." This is fine with me except that it seems to care only about promotion of biblical stuff in the classroom and not promotion of anti-theism. I asked them if it was their stance to oppose professors and teachers who make anti-theistic pronouncements in class, like a certain biology professor at my university who, during class, states unequivocally that science proves there is no God. They didn't have an answer for me, but promised to look into it. I'm curious whether any of you see this kind of thing as a violation of "science only in the science classroom." Would you oppose this as vigorously as you oppose ID in the classroom? Not trying to start an argument, I'm really just curious to know.
Posted by: Sarah | January 21, 2008 3:24 PM
I'd definitely see it as a violation of that. I wouldn't oppose it as vigorously, though, because that particular lobby doesn't have as deep pockets, as long a history, nor many adherents.
BTW, I think you're wrong about evolution. There is the fact of evolution (populations of living things change over time) and there are a variety of theories that attempt to describe how it happened. Theories of evolution are indeed theories, but that doesn't make the fact any less fact, just like theories of gravity don't make gravity non-factual.
Posted by: pough | January 21, 2008 3:47 PM
Uh, yes, it is.
But, please, don't go argue with me, go argue with those biologists who have actually observed evolution in action. Those who have generated the Holy Datums that you demand.
I'm amazed that you've progressed to the point of being "about to get a PhD" without understanding the context of "science only in the science classroom".This speaks to the teaching of science in public schools, not universities. The rules are different in universities. By law, you're required to go to public school through 12th grade, and you are required to take a certain number of science classes, including biology (in my state). You're not doing something of your own free will.
If a high school science teacher teaches that science disproves God, of course they should be made to stop. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God.
And if creationism is taught as science, same thing.
If a teacher happens to mention that she, personally, is an atheist when in a science class, that's not a problem. It's not a claim that this is SCIENCE, but one of personal belief.
Likewise, if a science teacher happens to mention that he's a christian, but doesn't say "science proves that the earth was created 6,000 years ago", no problem for me. Simply stating one's faith is not teaching religion AS THOUGH IT IS SCIENCE.
University is optional. You pay tuition. There is tax support for state universities but all but the worst have substantial private funding, too. No one forces you to take science. Academic freedom is a tradition in the university environment, but does not apply to K-12 teachers.
If the professor you mention is tenured, there's not much to be done. If he's not tenured, his statements might weigh against him when his Inquisition begins.
They same would be true if the professor stated that science proves that the world was created Last Tuesday.
Either is bullshit and a misrepresentation of science, but the legal, political, and (if you will) moral issues are a bit different than with K-12. Hard as it is for some of us older folk to believe, at 18 (which, for most, is the end of the K-12 period of life) we let kids do things as though they're not really kids. Vote. Go to war. Go to university where they might have their minds bent by hearing professors speak weird shit.
And given this response:
How does the conclusion that
"We'll look into it" means "we need to find out the facts here". As though "we won't kick this professor in the balls (if the professor happens to be male) simply on your say-so".
My guess is they'd say the same if you said that your professor was claiming that science proves the universe is only 6,000 years old and God gave Joey Smith a couple of tons of gold tablets with the True Gospel on it etc etc.
"we'd better check up on the facts before saying anything".
And, they may not have much to say, because first and foremost they're a professional organization, not an enforcement one.
Right?
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2008 3:52 PM
I wouldn't oppose it as vigorously, though, because that particular lobby doesn't have as deep pockets, as long a history, nor many adherents.
Interesting point, though I'm not sure I agree about the length of history. Here's the problem I see with your position. If you don't oppose anti-theism in the classroom as vigorously as you oppose ID, then organizations like the Coalition Against ID will almost certainly be perceived as anti-religious rather than pro-science, and will only firm the stance of the ID people even more. One of my colleagues commented that a particular survey shows that belief in creationism is actually on the rise in America, despite all the anti-theistic stuff being promoted by Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. What this shows is that devoutly religious people are not backing down, but are galvanized by these attacks. You want to see how deep the pockets of this lobby go? Let the attacks keep coming. The only hope of ever accomplishing "science only in the science classroom" is if people are sincere about this. Fair or unfair, this means folks will have to come down just as hard on anti-theism in the classroom.
As for fact vs. theory, maybe I just misunderstood the statement. I agree that it is an observed fact that "populations of living things change over time," but the theory that provides a mechanism for this is not fact. The latter is what I thought the statement referred to.
["Science only in the science classroom] speaks to the teaching of science in public schools, not universities.
Mostly, yes. Though it is contentious at the university level, as well. I have many more reports (which I document every year) from incoming freshmen who complain that their science teachers hijack a portion of the curriculum to promote anti-theistic ideas. This, too, I discussed with the AAS president. As for his response, I really don't care what they do with this particular professor. He is a sour, hateful old creature who is loathed by students, and so I'm sure the university will let him ride out his tenure until he retires and disappears. I didn't even name him during the discussion. What I asked was whether, presented with a situation like this, they would consider this a violation of "science only in the science classroom." In other words, I wanted them to elucidate their position. Thus far, their only concern has been addressing theology in the classroom. They are going to get back to me on what exactly their position is with respect to anti-theism in the classroom. Does this make things clearer?
Posted by: Sarah | January 21, 2008 4:30 PM
So you agree that ID isn't science, then?
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2008 4:41 PM
So which brand of christian creationist are you? YEC? OEC?
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2008 4:42 PM
In other words, what do you document as an "anti-theistic idea"?
That the earth might be billions of years old?
That abiogenesis is a possibility?
That humans and apes share a common primate answer?
Which parts of science are you labeling as being "anti-theistic"?
Or is it the scientific method itself you have a problem with (in which case you might consider a new career).
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2008 4:45 PM
Yeah, he's tenured, and they and you can't do anything.
Just as Lehigh University can't do anything about Michael Behe, their tenured creationist professor of biochemistry.
I don't see academics, no matter how much they despise Behe, suggesting he should be forced to shut up or suppressed, etc.
He's a buffoon, he's a fool, but he's also a tenured professor and like it or not, he and the professor you don't like are pretty much guaranteed a job for life.
I think the position of professional organizations is clear:
only science TAUGHT AS SCIENCE in the classroom.
You assume that this insistence extends to requiring professors to shut up about their personal beliefs as well.
It doesn't.
That's not the issue.
Since you are documenting "anti-christian" behavior by professors, could you at least take the time to understand what the issue really is?
WHAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN SCIENCE CLASS.
Not what people should say about their personal faith.
Got it, yet? How much damage to the innocent are you responsible thus far, BTW?
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2008 4:51 PM
So you agree that ID isn't science, then?
Nobody has defined for me what exactly ID is and says, so, in the spirit of your previous comments, I have to "look into it" and "get the facts" before I say anything about it. If you want to discuss my views on science and scripture, I'm happy to -- you can ask me directly. But that's not the point of my visit here.
My point here is that it has to go one way or the other in the classroom, and people have to be very clear about this. Either 1) God's existence is a question open to scientific scrutiny -- which means you can't stifle one side while letting the other have the say-so -- or 2) we remove ALL theological discussion from the classroom, including anti-theism. I really don't care which way it goes. But if a group is going to use a portion of my (substantial) membership dues to take up a position on this -- ostensibly option #2 -- then they are obligated to be very clear about what their position is and what they're doing.
Posted by: Sarah | January 21, 2008 5:06 PM
Wow, dhogaza. I'm starting to think you evolved from something a little feistier than an ape.
Posted by: ben | January 21, 2008 5:08 PM
dhogaza -- ??? Not sure what your problem with me is, but you're arguing against things I have not said. I never said anything against professors having or stating personal views. Re-read my comments.
I really don't care what a teacher or professor's personal views are. We have some excellent atheistic professors in my department, and I have no problem with them. I don't care if they announce their atheism in the classroom. Personal views are not in contention here. My point is that you cannot be on the side of "Science Only in the Science Classroom" (SOSC to make it easier) while at the same time ignoring professors or teachers who claim that science has a position on the existence of God. The professor in question said: "Science proves there is no God." The question was, do you see this as a violation of SOSC? It doesn't matter that it was a tenured prof who said this, because I have documented cases of high school teachers doing likewise. It serves as an example. Does it violate SOSC? I despair of getting a straight yes or no from you on this, so I'll move on and ask if anyone else has an opinion on this.
Posted by: Sarah | January 21, 2008 5:22 PM
Oops, I didn't see these questions...
So which brand of christian creationist are you? YEC? OEC?
It's not germane to this discussion, but I'll answer this anyway. I trust science and believe what the data and theory indicate, which is that the universe is somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that life has emerged and evolved on earth in that time. Whatever label that confers on me, I don't know, and frankly I don't care.
Which parts of science are you labeling as being "anti-theistic"?
It is not possible for science to be anti-theistic. Science is the pursuit of truth -- it says what it says impartially. People can be anti-theistic, and what I mean by that is telling students -- most of whom do not have the intellectual capacity to deal with this -- that science claims there is no God, or has rendered God's existence superfluous, or that they can't have their religious faith and believe science. I have one such case where a teacher outright told a student that she could not be Christian and believe in science. That is how I define anti-theistic.
Or is it the scientific method itself you have a problem with (in which case you might consider a new career).
Please, don't be patronizing. I could not have gotten to the position that I'm in if I had a "problem" with the scientific method.
Posted by: Sarah | January 21, 2008 5:49 PM
Sarah, you'd accept though that the more science can reasonably reliably explain, the smaller the space is that God can reasonably occupy? I'm using the word "reasonably" advisedly, because I think, having agreed that you accept that, that you might have to agree that it's reasonable for a scientist to believe that the space that the god you believe in can occupy is sufficiently small that he cannot exist in the form you believe him to have. This is not to say that your disagreement with him would be unreasonable.
Posted by: Dr Zen | January 21, 2008 6:27 PM
Well, then, you exceed expectations ...
Based on your bro's ignorance-based posts here on all sorts of subjects. Not your fault, but if you start posting with "oh, I'm Ben's brother", don't be too disappointed if I think that perhaps you share certain traits...i.e. lack of knowledge outside a very, very narrow set of interests.
Perhaps now, for instance, I'll assume that you wouldn't be so silly as to post that taxes in Canada are 3x higher than in the US, as your