Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The more we see from those who are crusading against the new proposed science standards in Florida, the more obvious it is that those new standards are necessary to improve the state of science education in that state. Those who are campaigning against those standards have consistently displayed precisely the kind of rank ignorance of science that make those new standards crucial. A commenter left this transcript of what one man said during the public comment time on the new standards recently:
Now I have in my hand an orange. I was about to eat this orange yesterday, but before I did I sat down and read about this evolution stuff. I learned that this orange is actually my first cousin. I didn't want to eat the orange no more. So now I'm going to give it to you people on the committee, and you can eat it if you want. But if you do decide to eat it, it shows that you don't believe in this evolution either. And we shouldn't be teaching our kids something no one believes.
Stunningly stupid. But the leaders of organizations opposed to the new standards have done no better. Look at this quote found in a Worldnutdaily article, which demonstrates the latest absurd creationist meme. They're now comparing mainstream scientific consensus to the flat earth society.
Pastor Neal Ganzel Jr., of Ormond Beach, Fla., wasn't so restrained in his criticism of the emphasis the new standards place on evolutionary theory.He called Darwinian science the "reigning" theory of the day but said the committee members "arrogantly assume that this one theory is the final and only model for the explanation of the existence and variety of species..."
"People have made this kind of mistake before," he said. "May I remind us all that Alchemy was once the ruling theory of science? Newton and Galileo gave us one authoritative understanding of time, then came Einstein and relativity. The human family has been embarrassed many times by versions of the Flat Earth Society," he said.
Uh, no. Alchemy was never the "ruling theory in science." Alchemy was never a theory at all. And it has to be pointed out once again that these arguments are all examples of special pleading. Every single scientific theory that are mentioned in the science standards are taught in exactly the same way. They all represent the "reigning theories of the day." Yet only evolution is complained about. Why? Not because the evidence is any weaker for evolution but because evolution is the one that conflicts with their religious views.
And it gets worse:
John Stemberger, chief of the Florida Family Policy Council, told WND the "Neaderthals" are fighting hard to prevent the introduction of information into public schools that would contradict their belief in evolution."It's apparent that evolution has become almost like one of the prongs of the Apostles' Creed for the secular humanists. They guard it as if they were guarding a doctrinal truth," he said. "They're not open to discussion and debate and examination of evidence."
The statement triggering the protests would be mandated for all schools, teachers and students in Florida if the state board adopts the standards in a vote scheduled Feb. 19. It says, "Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."
That, Stemberger said, leaves those open to scientific debate "in the position that Galileo was in, when he was trying to establish an order of the day and come against the Flat Earth Society."
For crying out loud, Galileo didn't have a damn thing to do with the flat earth society, which did not exist at the time. Stemberger is confusing belief in a flat earth with belief in geocentricity, which are not the same thing. Again, he demonstrates perfectly the need for better science teaching in Florida public schools.
As for this ridiculous framing of the argument as Christians vs "secular humanists", this is pure balderdash. Every single scientific theory mentioned in those standards is atheistic in precisely the same manner; that is, every single scientist working on those theories adheres to methodological naturalism. That is every bit as true of the theory of gravity as it is the theory of evolution.
Why, then, is Stemberger not disparaging gravitational theory as "one of the prongs of the Apostles' Creed for the secular humanists"? Why isn't he complaining that the standards don't allow equal time for those who doubt gravity (and they do exist)? Again, it's because evolution conflicts with his religious beliefs. And that is the only reason. They will never apply their reasoning consistently because they know it will make them look absurd.
Here's maybe the dumbest public comment, left on a newspaper forum by Bob W and quoted by the Worldnutdaily:
"Evolution has never qualified as anything more than a theory. The theory caters to secular thought and the presupposition that man is the highest order of all beings. But the problem is that none of what the theory promotes has ever been observed, much less proved. No transitional forms, no new species and no new anything. ... Evolution is such a mass of mumbo (sixty billon years ago) jumbo (the mountain turned upside down), that most folks taught this stuff still have no idea of what it is. They have to replay their Jurassic Park DVD to refresh their memory. Think of the markets that feed off this nonsense and folk's pocketbooks. Well, gotta go. Two Yugos just wrecked outside my window and I want to see the new Caddies that resulted - that's evolution."
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. These ridiculous and ignorant statements are proof, beyond all rational doubt, of the need for better science education in Florida. The more those who are crusading against the new standards continue to make stupid claims like these, the more they duck into the punch and prove their opponents correct.
Comments
You can watch the hearing here. But the files are huge and slow. The orange guy probable appears near the end of the first part, I haven't gone through them.
Or you can just look at a picture of the guy addressing the panel, holding up his oranges, and preening like a peacock. This guy should be the new poster-child of bad science.
Posted by: Chris Bell | February 15, 2008 10:14 AM
It really is amazing how they cling to the 'no transitional fossils' idea. That always shows the ignorance in my mind along with the frequent misuse of the word 'theory'.
Posted by: GH | February 15, 2008 10:22 AM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | February 15, 2008 10:34 AM
I hope "WTF?" is an appropriate response here, because that's all I can muster. If this dude is related to oranges, he's got bigger issues than worrying about Florida's science standards.
Posted by: doug | February 15, 2008 10:42 AM
The stupidity people will utter, I mean *transparently* stupid, in order to attempt to discredit something they are told conflicts with their religion is truly mind boggling.
King of Ireland, wherever you are, you were never as bad as any of the people quoted here. I hope even you can see why these people, especially the "orange" guy and Bob W are full of shit.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | February 15, 2008 10:49 AM
> Now I have in my hand an orange. I was about to eat this
> orange yesterday, but before I did I sat down and read about
> this evolution stuff. I learned that this orange is actually
> my first cousin. I didn't want to eat the orange no more.
Sorry, smacks of being made up to me. No-one is *really* like this in the 21st century in the US, surely...?
Posted by: David Durant | February 15, 2008 10:49 AM
Standards in public education? When did that start happening?
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | February 15, 2008 10:50 AM
Evidently the orange got all the brains in that family...
Posted by: Vic | February 15, 2008 10:50 AM
The stupidity people will utter, I mean *transparently* stupid, in order to attempt to discredit something they are told conflicts with their religion is truly mind boggling.
King of Ireland, wherever you are, you were never as bad as any of the people quoted here. I hope even you can see why these people, especially the "orange" guy and Bob W are full of shit.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | February 15, 2008 11:06 AM
David:
No-one is *really* like this in the 21st century in the US, surely...?
Most are like this in the 21st century in the US, the superpower of our times. And many are deeply into guiding this superpower...
Posted by: stavros | February 15, 2008 11:28 AM
That was too funny Vic.
I think any place that adopts a 'teach the controversy' attitude should be taught the controversies/iconsistancies/flat out lies in their own bibles. Seriously. Start with the fundies.
Also, after living in the Buy-Bull belt for the last 6 or 7 years, I think I am going to start a "speeding is a sin" campaign... these people cannot even follow simple traffic laws.
Posted by: mr_p | February 15, 2008 11:30 AM
David, I've face-to-faced quite a number of these people over the years. They really are that idiotic. Apparently it's okay if the orange and he were both part of the "special creation," though.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | February 15, 2008 11:35 AM
It never ceases to amaze me what nonsense people spout out. On a side note, ducking into the punch is is a smart thing to do, as far as I understand it. It allows you to cut off the punch before it is allowed to extend to full power. Yeah, you'll take a hit, but not one as hard as you would have had you not moved at all. I think a better analogy is that these people are walking into the corner and slamming their heads into the turnbuckle.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | February 15, 2008 11:36 AM
And here I was picturing the creationist morons dunking their entire heads into a gigantic bowl full of bathtub gin.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 15, 2008 11:47 AM
"Evidently the orange got all the brains in that family..."
thanks vic. i just spit diet coke out of my nose and onto my laptop. funny stuff.
Posted by: JLS | February 15, 2008 11:57 AM
Yup, vic wins.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 15, 2008 12:05 PM
I wouldn't hold out much hope for better science education in Florida. I have a relative that teaches in Ft. Lauderdale who has informed me that since "Every Child Left Behind" and the subsequent standardized testing, she spends 85 - 90% of her classroom time teaching only math and reading. Granted she is teaching younger children, and I don't know if such percentages extend to higher grades (I hope not!), but nonetheless, things aren't looking good for public school children in Florida at present.
Posted by: Tribe | February 15, 2008 12:07 PM
The amount of projection going on in creationist attacks on evolution is downright pathetic. They can't open their mouths without calling evolution a "dogma" for the "religion" of science that's like the "flat earth society" and is trying to "indoctrinate" students with "unproven claims taken on faith" and "silence" their opponents.
It's like they just give a description of themselves and then slap the label "Darwinist" on it. Just one big immature "I know you are but what am I?" playground fallacy.
Posted by: Wes | February 15, 2008 12:18 PM
It's amusing (and a little sad) to watch these people as they spout nonsense which they fully believe is devastating to the case for evolution.
The truth? "Raise your toothpicks high, my fellow creationists, and together we shall reduce the mighty Himalayas to rubble... Er... Oh dear..."
Posted by: tacitus | February 15, 2008 12:38 PM
Well, it is and it isn't -- it all depends on which definition of "secular humanism" you're using.
I'm a "standard" secular humanist -- modern usage, member of CSH and AHA, etc : an atheist (or nontheist.) But the word "secular" in the broad sense relates to how you deal with the natural world, particularly with regard to science and politics. You can be an evangelical Christian and a "secularist" if you follow the NOMA principle in science and the separation of church and state principle in politics. Many do.
"Humanism" is also, broadly defined, about an approach which recognizes human limitations and focus, particularly in ethics. Religious people who see morals as involving how people are treated rather than obedience to commands could, technically, call themselves 'humanists.' If the terms are used loosely enough, then "secular humanistm" could include all sorts of religious folk, including Born Again Christians.
Of course, the trick in the quote above is that these people who frame the debate as "Christians vs. secular humanists" have no intention of making such fine analysis -- or probably the capability, either. The idea of a real, bona-fide Christian who is also a secularist (like Rev. Barry Lynn) and a humanist (like Erasmus) is simply unthinkable.
But I do think they slide between meanings, a bit, perhaps unconsciously. Their balderdash is seldom pure. They always seem to muck it up.
Posted by: Sastra | February 15, 2008 1:01 PM
Posted by: RBH | February 15, 2008 2:04 PM
Sadly, most of the people in the United States are swayed by this kind of thing.
They're also swayed by the 'evolution is only a theory' thing.
They (alright, less than 50% hopefully) also believe that just over 6000 years ago God flicked the cosmic light switch.
In my college classes, I've even overheard small groups talking about how 'absurd' the whole evolution and billions of years old earth is, and we get booths set up in the student union with giant lettering saying "Evolution contradicts science contradicts the bible" in all capital letters; no punctuation. This is a mid-west state secular university.
Posted by: Cye Stoner | February 15, 2008 2:42 PM
Oh, please, sir, I got one, I got one.
From The Times (UK):
Posted by: pedlar | February 15, 2008 2:53 PM
Let me get this straight. The argument for teaching religion as science is somehow supported by the fact that Galileo was opposed by religious authorities for upholding science in opposition to religious dogma. As Kelly Bundy used to say, "The mind wobbles."
Posted by: kehrsam | February 15, 2008 3:01 PM
One guy says that even bacteria is more successful than Microsoft. Since Microsoft is intelligently designed then bacteria must be intelligently designed.
To that I would add that dirt is more successful than bacteria, therefore dirt is intelligently designed. Everywhere we look there is abundant evidence for intelligent design because evrything is successful. Plus the stars are really really pretty too! Pretty colors!!
Posted by: 386sx | February 15, 2008 3:38 PM
A redneck who wouldn't eat his cousin? I don't buy it.
Posted by: Dr. X | February 15, 2008 3:58 PM
The orange dude thought he was saying something but was really making a bunch of noise, and someone shouted out a "amen" during his speech. The orange dude must be a preacher or an advanced theologian or something like that. That would be my guess.
Posted by: 386sx | February 15, 2008 4:05 PM
Bourgeois_Rage: Ducking into a punch is generally not a good idea since there will be two opposing forces acting upon your face and your opponents fist.
But these bozos have left the territory of mere punches a long time ago, they're ducking into bazookas.
Posted by: Hank | February 15, 2008 4:16 PM
Note to intelligent people:
You cannot argue with a fundamental creationist retard and you will not convince them of anything. It seems like you could - if only they would listen and absorb reality. But remember they don't live in reality. No matter how many times you try to explain something simple like the difference between 'theory' (hunch, guess, looks good to me) and "Theory" (science fact, waiting to be disproven, etc.) their eyes will glaze over and their heads will tilt slightly (like a confused pet). If you attempt this enough times you learn to recognize the extreme magnitude and density of the stupidity that occupies their feeble brains. Eventually you decide to give up because teaching a pig to dress himself is, at best, a pipe dream. The pig doesn't know why you're trying to put underwear on him, you'll get all muddy, and the pig likes it even though he doesn't know why.
It is good for a laugh and that's all it's good for. If you can't laugh (at them for being so dense and at yourself for the futility) then you must stop trying if for no other reason than to protect your sanity. And always remember that it is rude to kick retarded people.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 15, 2008 4:25 PM
WRMartin -
True, rare indeed is the Creationist that actually examines the real data and tries to come up with real testable models of his own. That way lies a crises of faith that few have the intellect and integrity to tread. But in addition to the amusement factor there are also the lurkers to consider. And I myself have learned lots of new things from my fellow science jockies.
But no, there are no expectations that Creationists will be convinced by the evidence. As Mark Twain said, and I'm paraphrasing here, you can't argue a man out of a corner using facts and logic when he didn't get there in the first place that way.
Posted by: Dave S. | February 15, 2008 4:32 PM
But it's never the creationists we have to worry about; it's the folks who don't know any better and are swayed by the creationists' prima facie reasonableness that we should be worrying about. You engage the creationists for THEIR sake.
Posted by: gwangung | February 15, 2008 5:24 PM
That this guy is related to oranges is an insult to the intelligence of oranges.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 15, 2008 6:37 PM
I've tried to post links, but my comments keep getting held up.
> Sorry, smacks of being made up to me.
Just run a Google search for "Orlando Florida Education Evolution Oranges". For me, the 2nd link comes from Orlando Sentinel. The title is "Evolution backers, opponents make points at Orlando hearing"
There is a picture of the guy holding up his oranges.
Posted by: Chris Bell | February 15, 2008 7:05 PM
You evolutionists never even allow for dissent, so how can you truly claim that evolution is science? Science is not science unless it allows room for evidence that might disprove accepted scientific "fact". Evolution is more religion than science; just look what happens to the university professor that attempts to present anything that contradicts evolutionary doctrine. Religion doesn't claim to have all the answers, that's why there is faith. Evolutionists claim that the debate is over - in other words they HAVE all the answers. In a universe as complex as ours, that sounds more like arrogant stupidity to me.
Posted by: mroberts | February 15, 2008 7:20 PM
No, mroberts, it sounds as if you don't know what science is. Science is a process that applies a model to some set of evidence, in order to achieve the best current explanation of the evidence. As the set of evidence changes -- that is, we gather facts -- sometimes the model can be improved; sometimes it even needs to be replaced. But this requires a better model than the one we are currently using, one which explains the available evidence better than evolution.
The problem the ID side faces is not that they are stonewalled by the Evolutionary Establishment. There are no Atheist Illuminati, although PZ would no doubt like that title. The problem is a complete lack of evidence that supports ID that does not at the same time support evolution better.
So come up with a way to make ID give testable predictions. Find a way to tie it to geology and cosmology and chemistry and physics the way that evolution is a connecting thread between all those fields. And then tell us about our disdain for your dissent. Because until you and ID can do those things, you don't have a dissent, you're just a whinging child who refuses to accept reality.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 15, 2008 7:41 PM
Somebody apparently already has the "Now I have in my hand an orange." video up on youtube apparently.
Posted by: 386sx | February 15, 2008 7:56 PM
I wonder what creationists would say if a scientist proposed to go to a Sunday School class with a Bible to "teach the controversy" to those impressionable young minds?
Posted by: Mr Ephemeris | February 15, 2008 8:02 PM
mroberts, evolution can't be disproven, any more than the sun can. It's a real thing that is. Once there were dinosaurs. They're gone now. Now there's a butterfly in the Hawaiian Islands that can feed on banana flowers, but a thousand years ago there weren't any bananas in Hawaii. The genetic makeup of the populations of living things in the world has changed over time. This is verifiable within the span of human history.
The theory that evolution occurs by descent with modification, however, is the easiest thing in the world to disprove. Find me a fossil rabbit in rock a billion years old. Show me a dog different by half its genome from a wolf. The problem is that genetic analysis, morphogenetic analysis, and the fossil record all agree on the same order of common descent, so these things that I've described will likely never be found.
Posted by: Glazius | February 15, 2008 8:44 PM
Sastra -
No shit. Most of the United Methodist church, is made up of humanists, many of them secular.
I actually find the assertion that humanism is some sort of religion, more amusing than the assertion that Atheism is a reigion. Of course, humanism, is really a code word for hedonistic, homosexualistic, atheistic, paganistic, Satanistic, lechoristic, evolutionistic, big fat poopyhead. Probably also albinoistic, midgetistic and four eye-istic as well. I am absolutely certain I have missed some istics there, but I believe that my pointless point is made.
mroberts -
Evolutionists claim that the debate is over - in other words they HAVE all the answers.
No, no they don't. What people who accept the theory claim, is that ID/creationism, need to supply some evidence if they want to engage in a debate.
Ultimately, the debate about evolution, are ongoing and many. Take any five evolutionary biologists, and they could probably debate for days, over interpretations of the current evidence. I daresay that millennia from now, if the human race is still around, scientists will still be debating the finer points of evolution.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 9:14 PM
Easy, head. Deep breath. Don't explode, head, please don't explode!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 15, 2008 11:29 PM
kehrsam quotes Kelly Bundy--I like him more and more all the time!
I was talking with a member of our Board of Trustees tonight, who lives in Florida, and we discussed the problems in their education system. She mentioned that teachers aren't making enough to buy homes, so in (I believe it was) Broward County, about 4,000 teaching jobs are going unfilled.
So, let's see, they're likely to get (a) qualified, or (b) unqualified people to fill those jobs?
Posted by: James Hanley | February 16, 2008 12:53 AM
One of the proofs that the teaching of science is abysmal in Florida (and in a lot of states, BTW) is the use of the general connotation of "theory" as equivalent to the technical scientific use. I suspect that's deliberate on the rare occasions it's not just sheer ignorance.
"Theory" is not science-speak for "best unsupported guess". "Theory" is from the same root as "theorem" in mathematics...and has the same force of evidence behind it. The Pythagorean Theorem is a perfect example: proven for Euclidean, false for non-Euclidean geometry. "Hypothesis" is the word they really mean. They should be disputing gravity and thermodynamics if they're going to throw out anything that's "just a 'theory'". I wonder if some of them believe in perpetual-motion machines, or Ptolemaic astronomy (since, after all, the sun "stood still" for one of Joshua's battles)!
And as far as "no transitional fossils"...well, tell that to the folks that have been digging up the fish with feet up in the Arctic, or the walking whales in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the creationist/ID folks then just move the goalposts and insist on something even more "transitional".
I suspect it's hopeless. People who supposedly read their own Holy Book and insist it's all literally true, without noticing that the accounts of the birth of Christ in Matthew and Luke contradict each other (if they're compared with known Roman history of the era), not to mention a ton of other stuff, are either so stupid or pig-ignorant that facts can't penetrate, or their imaginations are so limited that they "can't believe" something they can't visualize, like deep time of billions of years.
Or deep down inside, they're scared: they know that their faith is a "house built on sand"...that will utterly collapse if one minor point of it is proven to be false.
Posted by: mirrim | February 16, 2008 3:02 PM
Mirrim,
I agree with what you said about what a "theory" is. However, I would say that the average evolutionist considers evolution to be more than a "theory" - a term that accepts the future possibility of contradictory evidence, however remote a possibility that may be. Despite what they might say, it seems that evolutionists have elevated evolution to something beyond just theory to something closer to indisputable fact. To me, this sounds more like religious faith than science because there is NO WAY to definitively prove that the life currently on earth came about through the processes described by the theory of evolution. That would require going back in time to observe it in action. All scientists can do is draw conclusions based on the evidence observed, but they still must allow for the possibility that their conclusions may be dead wrong.
You all can cling to evolution all you want, I really couldn't care less. However, I just want to point out that you behave more like religious fanatics than true scientists. There are many very intelligent people (you wouldn't hear this from the average poster on this site; apparently all who disagree with evolution are automatically stupid) who dispute evolution and find it to be inadequate to explain observations in the real world - just as there are many people who dispute global warming. Yet the establishment does not allow room for debate on evolution OR global warming. The typical dissenter is usually demonized as being an idiot or stupid, ignorant, etc. If you need proof, just look at all the comments on this blog about people who disagree with evolution. Name-calling hardly constitutes legitimate scientific debate. Evolutionists don't even allow room for alternate points of view. Take a look at the whole controversy surrounding the stickers on high school textbooks. The evolution crowd went nuts over that even though the stickers were simply to affirm that evolution is merely theoretical. The anti-evolution crowd wanted those stickers because evolutionists teach evolution like it is a foregone conclusion! There is no way to irrefutably, absolutely PROVE that evolution is absolutely correct. We can only draw conclusions based on what is observed. The problem I have is that evolutionists appear to claim that evolution is a foregone conclusion and that the debate is over when there is NO WAY they can absolutely prove evolution to be true. I would not call that science, I would call it religion. Don't get me wrong, that is not a sleight against religion. I am religious and I hold my beliefs to be true even though I do not have irrefutable, empirical evidence for everything I believe. Faith essentially fills in the gaps. Call me an idiot for that if you wish, but I believe the average evolutionist is doing the same thing. They may not admit it, but their actions seem to indicate that they believe evolution is absolutely true even though it is impossible for them to definitively prove it. If that is the case, fine with me, but don't get on your high horse and claim the mantle of true science when your beliefs in the foregone conclusion of evolution take some measure of faith. Additionally, don't look down your noses at religious people because they have faith for what they believe. Even the average atheist (and there are a lot of atheists on this blog), who many times claims his beliefs are derived from reason and science, needs at least as much faith that there is no God as does the average Christian claiming there is a God. In fact, I would say the atheist must have even MORE faith because he is in the position of having to "prove" a negative. That's why I always find it amusing how atheists arrogantly look down on religious people and claim that their beliefs derive from true science. Maybe not all atheists claim that, but a great many do.
All I am asking is that those who push evolution at least be honest and acknowledge that they cannot possibly prove their theory once and for all. Mirrim, I found this statement interesting and equally applicable to those who believe in evolution:
>> Or deep down inside, they're scared: they know that their faith is a "house built on sand"...that will utterly collapse if one minor point of it is proven to be false.
If evolutionists are confident in their beliefs, they should have no issue allowing things like disclaimer stickers on textbooks or open debate in universities. Allow room for scrutiny - after all that is true science. Demonizing your opposition into submission by insulting their intelligence doesn't look like science to me. Until you do that, your belief system will look an awful lot more like a religion to which you are desperately clinging, afraid that if the debate is opened up, somebody will discover something that will prove it all wrong.
Posted by: mroberts | February 16, 2008 4:33 PM
MrRoberts: "Yet the establishment does not allow room for debate on heliocentrism OR the germ theory of disease. The typical dissenter is usually demonized as being an idiot or stupid, ignorant, etc."
Do you get it now?
Posted by: MH | February 16, 2008 5:01 PM
Evolutionists claim that the debate is over - in other words they HAVE all the answers.
I would say that evolution gives us some answers, and there are some evolution-related debates which are in fact over. For example, the debate is over on whether evolution provides the appropriate explanation for the origin and diversity of species, at least among all proposed alternatives. This debate is over because one side has a better argument than the other, and the other side has lost.
Creationists like to portray this situation as "the establishment does not allow room for debate". A more accurate representation of the situation would be that creationists demand that debates should never, ever be allowed to end-- that the rules of debate should be structured such that it is not possible for their side to lose. If their side is unable to win, then the debate just goes into overtime-- at no point is anyone allowed to draw conclusions and move on to other things.
You can claim a situation like this does not accept "the future possibility of contradictory evidence". Why not? Of course it does. Find some contradictory evidence, and then we'll talk. If you do, then the debate will be reopened. But you're not going to find any contradictory evidence. You're not even looking for any contradictory evidence. I mean, look at your post. You don't say one word explaining why evolution might not be right. You just say that there might hypothetically in some possible universe be contradictory evidence against global warming or evolution or whatever, and you claim that this is as good as the actual evidence which scientists have, so much so that there needs to be "debate" between science's actual evidence and your imaginary evidence. You don't even try to show that evolution is lacking; you just attack evolution on the generic grounds that anyone who tries to "draw conclusions based on what is observed" is engaging in "religion", and then you complain about atheists. This is not even an argument. It's just solipsism.
Posted by: Coin | February 16, 2008 5:28 PM
Bring some new evidence in, evidence that's BETTER EXPLAINED by another theory (with mechanisms and all) and you can reopen the debate.
Otherwise, no.
Posted by: gwangung | February 16, 2008 5:44 PM
mroberts: As Coin has ably restated my earlier response to you on the nature of science, I'll take up the related issue, the problem of epistemology, or "Hpw dp we know what we know?"
You stated:
and then repeated the mantra endlessly that we can't really prove evolution.First, you are correct! Theories cannot be proved, because theories are not facts: Theories are models we apply to facts in order to understand relationships. So no, evolution is not a fact -- but it is a valid explanation of many facts that has the additional benefit of making countless testable predictions. Fitting the known facts and making accurate predictions about future facts are signs of a successful scientific theory.
Or perhaps you mean that scientists can't prove evolution in the sense that we can never truly know anything. Perhaps you would say that my thinking the sun will rise in the east tomorrow is merely a belief, and that the inductive method is completely incapable of proving any such thing. I would have to concede that no, I can't even prove my own existence to you, much less the existence of the sun, or even of a concept termed, "east." It is all merely a matter of belief, and there is no particular reason to favor some beliefs above others, now is there?
But that is not how we live. We have levels of knowing in everyday life, from the less to the more certain. I am a Christian, and I share your belief in belief; this is a good thing. But it is not to be confused with a belief in evolution. Yes, there is some belief involved in that case, but it is more a belief that the model really fits the facts, rather than the abstract belief that Jesus is the Son of an equally abstract Creator.
So your argument is correct, but not to the extent you feel it is. When you argue against evolution, the onus is still on you to provide some facts that evolution does not explain better than any competing model.
For the record, the reason commenters here and at other pro-evolution sites call you ignorant is because most anti-evolution commenters repeat the same arguments that have been shot down over and over again. Believe me, if you had any evidence to present that would tend to disprove the theory of evolution, the whole world would have your attention.
Peace my friend.
Kurt Ehrsam
Posted by: kehrsam | February 16, 2008 8:43 PM
Actually there is lots of evidence of evolution.
My favorite is the worms that were placed into petri dishes containing bacteria that produce a toxin that kills the worms. Most worms died. But to the scientists suprise some survived.
They were descendants of individuals who had a mutation that prevented the toxin from entering the animal. But there was a price, it affected thier movement because they had brething difficulties. Had the mutation stopped ALL the toxins from entering at the exense of reducing oxygen transport too much they too would have died.
In a hostile environment the worms that fit the environment best survived, bred and thier offspring came to dominate the environment. That's called 'evolution'. (reported in Scientific American from Nature) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 16, 2008 10:03 PM
I'd like to put this out there again: evolution is real. During the span of recorded history, we have seen the formation of new species, the extinction of others, and the adaptation of species to new circumstances. This is evolution: the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.
The fact that there are theories concerning the mechanisms of evolution doesn't make evolution any less real, any more than John Dalton's atomic theory of matter somehow calls the reality of matter into question. Heck, even in the modern usage of the word "theory" this doesn't happen. If you're watching a crime drama and a detective "has a theory" about a murder, that doesn't somehow mean that there might not actually be a dead body, or that the other evidence the detective cites might not really exist.
Evolution is a real thing that is. The theory is that it has occurred by descent with modification, and this is such a predominant explanation, backed up by multiple lines of investigation over decades, that it is called THE theory of evolution.
Posted by: Glazius | February 17, 2008 12:30 PM
mroberts, you shouldn't confuse the determination to defend what is statistically a 100% (or 99.9999%, if you prefer) scientific consensus - against what are almost always unjustified and disingenuous attacks, based on false and often insidious notions - with anything other than what it is.
Imagine how you would feel, if say, a group of individuals started to spread information all over the internet about your line of work or even your own family, that you knew was utterly false, and you could show it as such, and even when you had showed them the evidence and repeatedly told them that it was false and unjustified, they continued to do so, poisoning the well with all of your friends and even your own children?
I simply don't believe that you, or anybody else, would take that lightly. While this analogy is incomplete, for sure, it essentially describes the kind of thing that people are fighting against. This isn't about disagreement between scientists (there is much of that), it is about the incessant and systemic behavior of those on the ID creationism side, which can either be categorized as willfully ignorant (the information is simply not difficult to find), or shamefully deceitful (there are literally thousands of examples of this, unfortunately). I am mainly talking about those who promote these ideas, by the way. Many of those in the general public are simply not equipped to understand these complex issues, and it makes me angry that they are being conned.
Now, the TOE is a framework (including mechanisms) that explains a large body of facts, as you have acknowledged. It both generates predictions which lead to further research, and is falsifiable (though it would take something quite spectacular, given the sheer volume of evidence). That life evolves is one of those observed facts. It has been observed in real-time in both the lab and in the natural world.
So, there is the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. Admittedly, many scientists believe that the evidence is so overwhelming that they also claim that the basic theory can also be considered as a fact, but that is simply a method of getting across just how well supported it is. It says nothing about whether it could still be falsified or not, or whether there are still many aspects that need to be understood and argued over.
While this may be true, I wonder how you feel about the fact that thousands of people have been executed in the United States using exactly the same methods (you only have to convince members of the public in a court of law, as opposed to experts in the field in science)? Would you describe the work that the Police do as a religious faith? I would suggest that it is far more serious that the state sanctions the death of members of the public, and yet, nobody was there when the crime took place, right?
I would hope that you would agree that it would be positively perverse if we didn't accept certain things as essentially true, even if it is possible that at some point we could be proven wrong? What is required is evidence to the contrary, otherwise you are supporting the idea that nothing can be thought of as true (even your own existence). In any case, science doesn't deal in proof - essentially, nothing is ever proven - only falsifiability. That is still the case with the TOE, regardless of how you view scientists.
This is quite interesting. I wonder what you would call people who blow up themselves, many innocent people, and abortion clinics; behead people, or otherwise believe that there should be laws which discriminate only for their own particular beliefs, if we can be compared to religious fanatics?
I would suggest that you have your definition wrong, personally. Don't mistake utter contempt for those who purposefully lie in an attempt to subvert the minds of young children - who at least deserve to be told what our very best estimation of the truth is - with what are genuine arguments based on genuine evidence. It is necessary to understand and accept the evidence, first and foremost, before you can legitimately argue against what should be taught to children.
You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that ID creationism is a legitimate and honest attempt to deal with the evidence. Here are the words of some of those who purport to be engaged in a legitimate exercise (and I won't even use the absurd YEC's, either):
The Wedge Strategy, leaked from the Discovery Institute:
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
"Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars."
Phillip Johnson, father of the ID movement:
Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message". Johnson emphasizes that "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion"; "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
William Dembski:
"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."
"ID is part of God's general revelation ... Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."
"I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."
"You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories."
Michael Behe:
"You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."
In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
He also said, under oath, that "stretching the definition of science to allow ID to be taught in the classroom, would also allow Astrology to be taught, as well."
Now, you tell me if any of this, said by perfectly intelligent individuals, and those who are at the very forefront of the ID creationism movement, sounds like a genuine attempt to engage in a scientific debate? I can only have utter contempt for such people, personally, because they are subverting the minds of a great many innocent people with such a dishonest campaign.
And, there is no way to irrefutably, absolutely PROVE that you exist, or that those who your country executes were irrefutably, absolutely guilty. I fail to see what a disclaimer would achieve in this case, to be honest. After all, the people are dead.
I wouldn't want to live in the world that you seem to be advocating.
Not quite. If there is no serious evidence that such a being exists, then it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say that they will not believe in such a thing until good evidence is presented. Otherwise, you would have to believe that everything that you can imagination is likely to exist.
That is a preposterous idea. Nobody is born believing that there is a God, so non-belief is the default position. Some people just accept the non-evidence more readily than others, that's all.
There may well be, and few atheists would say that it is conclusive that there is not. What we do know is that nothing about the universe either suggests that there is, or is necessary to explain by positing a God. Not if you are intellectually honest, anyway. It is quite some statement, given that most people then accept a whole range of other beliefs on top.
An atheist doesn't have to prove anything. Show me the evidence and I will consider it. The majesty of the universe - much of which has been explained by natural phenomena - is not evidence, as it could be due to literally anything; including a mindless, hateful being, dressed as a chicken, for all I know.
Firstly, placing stickers on textbooks is an entirely disingenuous request. Students are told that science doesn't deal in proof; about the scientific method, and how we come to accept consensus, until that consensus is overturned. At least they should be.
Are you advocating that we should place stickers on geography books that say that some people happen to believe that the earth is flat? How about history textbooks telling young children that some people deny that the holocaust ever happened, and that there is no way to irrefutably, absolutely PROVE that it did?
I submit to you, sir, that we are only likely to confuse young minds by not telling them what is the overwhelming consensus. In any case, nobody says that these things cannot be debated in Universities. Indeed, those who are arguing against evolution aren't concerned with university students, they want it to be taught to young school children, before they even have an idea about what science actually is. That's insane.
And, once again you seem to be confusing what are genuine debates within science with what are largely negative attacks on evolution by the utterly vacuous position of ID creationism. What you are in fact advocating is a world where nothing can be thought of as genuine, and to the best of our knowledge.
All ideas are not equal, I am afraid.
There is a process that must be adhered to if you want to overturn 150 years of stunning scientific finds. As the quotes by those who are at the forefront of ID creationism show, they are not even very interested - after several decades - of complying with the scientific enterprise. They want to sneak God back in to the classroom, in the (dishonest) guise of a genuine scientific controversy.
The fact that they haven't even done any research, and admit to such, as well as the fact that they have been less than explicit (dishonest, in other words) about their real intentions, should worry you greatly.
The fact that you don't already know most of this worries me greatly.
Posted by: Damian | February 17, 2008 1:48 PM
The word "evolution" used to refer to a universal theory proposed by Darwin and others to explain the process by which the origin and differentiation of all life came to pass on this planet.
When exactly did the word "evolution" come to MEAN "science"? It is a fact that the Florida's Sunshine State Standards for education now treat "evolution" as meaning "science." If you study science in k-12, you are studying "evolution." If you graduate from High School and believe you want to be a scientist, that will mean you want to be an neo-darwinian evolutionist.
So if a student or teacher or parent rejects the current "assured findings" of the science associated wih the evolutionary viewpoint (not to mention the metaphysical/moral/sociological/psychological/etc. implications regularly and passionately drawn and taught from this viewpoint) he or she will now be be running afoul of the clearly stated intentions of State Government.
So the teacher will be required to teach both macro and micro evolution in order to be employed as a "science" teacher; the student will have to describe science in only evolutionary terms in order to pass "science" tests.
Importantly, the parent will be required to pay taxes into a system which dogmatically catechizes all children under its governmental influence in only macro and micro evolutionary dogma, and which also advances in its life sciences curricula the various implications of this viewpoint touching every part of the both the human condition and its academy.
Parents will also, under penalty of law, be required to either send children into the "free" public education process, or have to pay to send the child into a private education system. The latter would not be so bad, but their property taxes will at the same time be paid into the public system which is now committed in Florida to eradicating the parent's alleged "scientific ignorance" (read non-evolutionary religious presuppositions) from the children of that state.
I predict that the evolutionary establishment will get the textbooks, curriculum, grant monies, tenured professorships, endowed chairs, and withall the state coersion they evidently so desparately need for the success of their enterprise, i.e. their academic establishment. But they will also provoke a reaction in the State and Federal courts which will quickly slap their avaricious hands.
We have spent the past 50 years or so making sure that no "establishment" has the right to utilize for its advancement any kind of minority-persecuting/marginalizing government action like taxation, voting laws, educational/vocational segregation, police dogs, Jim Crow laws, boards of education, etc.
It will now be time for the evolutionary establshment to be legally beaten back from forcing their viewpoint (dare say "religion"?)upon everyone. Someone will secure for dissenting teachers, parents and students the rights of conscience and freedom of religion which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
In this my friends in the evolutionary movement have traveled, I predict, a bridge too far. Many of them, upon sober reflection, will rue the day they decided to leave off debate, scientific research/publicaton, and the free expression of ideas in favor of hiring the Florida Department of Education to take care of the opposition.
Just wait.
Posted by: Pastor Neal Ganzel | March 1, 2008 10:33 PM
Pastor Ganzel...
I suggest that you actually study what evolution is. Generally, if you know what you're talking about, you can contribute fruitfully to the discussion, unlike what now.
Posted by: gwangung | March 2, 2008 2:56 AM
Well, evolution doesn't explain the origin of life on this planet, and Darwin did propose the original theory but still got many things wrong. Other than that, I suppose that's a reasonable explanation of the word, and it's not like that has changed.
Never. What the hell are you talking about?
That's not a fact at all. That's a bizarre delusion concocted by some crazed blowhard. You can tell it's not true because there are things other than evolution that are also covered under the Florida's science standards.
As one should be if one wants to have a good understanding of science. But this doesn't mean that evolution is all that you'll be studying.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. You could be an astronomer, a physicist, a chemist, an anthropologist, an archaeologist, or a practitioner of any number of different branches of science.
What on earth is the "evolutionary viewpoint", much less the "metaphysical/moral/sociological/psychological implications ... drawn and taught from this viewpoint"? Here's a hint: there are none (well, there might be sociological and psychological implications, according to evolutionary psychologists). Evolution is a scientific theory. It is descriptive, not prescriptive--there's no viewpoint involved.
And yes, the state government wants its children to learn and understand science, which includes understanding evolution. Why is it a problem that the government is mandating this, but not a problem that the government also intends for children to learn that the earth revolves around the sun (something also heretical to certain religious beliefs)?
There is no "macro" and "micro" evolution--there's just evolution.
And no, students will not have to "describe science in only evolutionary terms"--there are entire branches of science where evolution plays no part at all. I can assure you that they will not have to explain atomic theory, gravity, or chemistry in evolutionary terms.
But I suspect that by "evolutionary" terms and/or viewpoint you really mean "materialistic"--that is, excluding the supernatural. Well, yes, they will have to describe science without resorting to talking about fairies, because that's how science works. There is no room for magical thinking in science at all, and this is true of all science, not just evolution. There are no magical elves holding atoms together to form molecules, and angels don't press us down to the earth.
Again, there's no such thing as "macro" and "micro" evolution.
What implications are these? What "viewpoint" are you talking about?
Oh my god! The schools are trying to--*gasp*--educate kids! That even includes teaching them facts that their parents might not know! The dastards!
Evolution doesn't need to be established academically--it's already well-established, with over a hundred years worth of evidence piled up in its favor.
Like they did in Dover?
I'm on the edge of my seat to see how you think this has any relation to teaching evolution whatsoever.
You could dare to say it's a religion. You'd be completely, absolutely ludicrously wrong. But you could say it.
And which of these rights guarantee that you cannot be exposed to facts that you don't like?
Sure they have.
Yeah. I'm sure once Florida passed its standards, all biologists instantly abandoned their research, the scientific journals all closed shop, because they had figured everything out. That's probably exactly what happened.
Posted by: Skemono | March 2, 2008 3:02 AM