Dispatches from the Creation Wars

1

If she's going to claim that those students and teachers who object to evolution have a right to teach something other than the approved curriculum, then every single student and teacher who disagrees with any scientific theory has an equal right to teach what they believe to be true.

And why stop at science? Let's allow anyone's viewpoint to be taught in history, mathematics, social studies, literature, art, you name it! It'll be great! Students will be completely unable to discriminate between a good idea and a bad idea, between a fact and a lie. We'll teach Holocaust denial as history, pyramid schemes as ethical business strategies, Scientology as an alternative to psychiatry, and Time Cube as math (and, of course, Christian Nationalism as law). Rather than proven economic theories, why not Marxist dialectical materialism? And why not include sorcery, conjuring and astrology in the curriculum? Dennis Feyerabend would be proud.

I don't think anyone in the world actually believes this "Everyone's viewpoint is equivalent" horseshit. It's just a crutch used to prop up falsehoods and nonsense.

Posted by: Wes | March 28, 2008 9:49 AM

3

And of course the legislators and DI hacks make sure that it's not them that's at risk of being sued, it's the sad-sack teacher or school administer who takes this legislation to heart.

So, this legislation is not designed to let teachers teach for instance safe-sex practices or teach that gays are families too. No, those teachers don't deserve "academic freedom". In fact, the legislation make it explicit the only "acedemic freedom" they are interested in is the freedom for teachers to teach whatever they please with regards to evolution.

Hey, good luck to those students who want to go on to university and actually study science. But...but...my teacher taught us this stuff was science. How can you fail me now??? That's discrimination! I demand my academic freedom and you must accept whatever I decide as correct!

Posted by: Dave S. | March 28, 2008 10:11 AM

5

Have these people never heard of Dover?

Posted by: David Durant | March 28, 2008 10:44 AM

7

I thought I heard the original bill would have included holocaust denial as a protected "freedom", but it was removed when another senator convinced the author that it would have no prayer of passing that way.

Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 28, 2008 12:14 PM

9

I've heard it said before that one of the benefits of this legislation is that it will allow science teachers to teach the scientific basis of homosexuality without intervention from the schools, and scientific alternatives to abstinence-only sexual education.

So even if it is passed, it would only take a couple brave teachers to bring this house of cards down around ID supporters.

Posted by: Dave Gundrson | March 28, 2008 2:04 PM

11

This is excellent news for us Pastafarians!!!

Posted by: Invigilator | March 28, 2008 2:35 PM

13

I see no problem with a law that says teachers may "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins."

As creationism is not science there is no scientific information about it, so if a teacher teaches creationism in the classroom, they should be sued for violating not only the constitutional rights of the students, but this law as well, because it is not "scientific information".

In fact, the law could even permit teachers to present information about why creationism is not science: that would be scientific information, because it is about the scientific method and how it is applied to creationism.

Posted by: Tom Farrell | March 28, 2008 2:46 PM

15

I'm sure we all know this is just another hopefull creationist attempt to find a favorable judge up for re-election. If they did win, they will all crow and point at Florida as "the way forward". Damm the legal costs to the local schools, damm the education of children. Only legalizing their insane sky god matters to the American Talaban.

Posted by: RAM | March 28, 2008 3:08 PM

17

America, land of the brave. Stupid is apparently the new brave. Anyway, these idiots aren't going to go away anytime soon, it's a political movement, not a religious one. They're just hiding behind the american Jesus myth, which itself is hiding behind any number of other Christ saviour mythologies.

We are fUx0r3d.

Posted by: Jacques | March 28, 2008 3:52 PM

19

ED, your last paragraph is dead on. What's funny about the big bang theory is that it was proposed by a catholic priest/scientist, and is "consistent" with the bible, so it has "everyone's" (the only people who are offended by opposition to there beliefs, jk lol) support. There are actually atheist astrophysicists who don't believe in the big bang, although they are a very small minority.

Posted by: shoeless | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

21

'Given that I've had many a discussion with creationists that seems to think that evolutionary theory covers everything from the origin of life on earth to the origin of the universe and physics, it might be more of a case of ignorance rather than special pleading. Then again, when it comes to debates over evolution, it is sometimes hard to tell who is dishonest and who is simply uneducated or misinformed."

Big issue I agree. Look at me. Look at the Biology chapter in the book "A Battle for Truth" by david Noebel. He divides into Secular Humanism, Marxism, Cosmic Humanism and Christian. He does exactly what you say. It is wrong. If people want to know why there is so much venmom on this you have to read these books.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 4:36 PM

23

I am going to state this again many weeks later based on Jeremy's comment about all the ignorance:

If ID does get into the cirriculum in places(I am not for that at least not they way they are trying to do it for sure) it will be for one reason and one reason only: Total arrogance. You guys are gonna get killed in the PR. Why? It comes off as arrogant when you use the word ignorant. Misinformed is better. SO many here get pissed when people do not get the jargon or complexities. They attack and ridicule instead of inform.

I am not sure why it is but this is a fact. I might not know about Science but I do know about communicating to people. I have done it as a teacher and preacher cross culturally. I have been able to reach people others could not because I broke words and concepts down to where they could understand it. I learned this teaching kids that were years behind. Small bites and simple language works better than jargon throw at someone all at once. You know who you guys remind me of? Born again Christians who use lingo no one understands and then gets made when people say forget this and move on.

Now with that said, there have been people who are patient and explain things out so someone who is not educated in this can understand. I still have no clue what evolution is really saying in general. But I do know enough now to read into it in the correct way.

The first thing I am going to do is look into a HS biology textbook. If it conflates the argument for evolution and couples abiogensis with natural selection and common ancestor then I will know why so many people are confused. Many here want to disprove God through Science. That is fine. But in American you cannot use the schools to do it. If you do not stop you will be labeled a religion sooner or later and open up the Biology classroom to all kinds of crap. Progress will be hurt when this happens and you will not be able to blame the Christians.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I think Ed is right about a lot of this but no one would ever know it because it is not explained right by so many.(Though I think he does pretty good) You all want me to learn the lingo and all that goes with this culture here to be taken seriously. I have tried. I challenge you to do the same and learn how to make your message relevant in this culture. It is not. Why? It is not understood. I say all this to help not to hurt. God help us all if we return to the Dark Ages of dogmatic religion.

I guess what I am saying is what I had to say to all the Christians who sat on a mountain side in Colorado and wondered why no one wanted to come: Get out of your bubble and relate to the culture around you. There is a disconnect I am telling you. It is scary how similar both groups are really.

So call me anti elitist or whatever people said months ago when I brought this up but I hope people listen to what I am saying here and really think about it. I have found out many times you can be so right you are wrong and alienate people who would otherwise agree with you and help you. I learned the hard way most times.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 6:10 PM

25

The KOI school of Reverse Logic
"Many here want to disprove God through Science."
Not at all true, you have not been listening. Science does not care about god(s).
"But in American you cannot use the schools to do it."
Again, you have not been listening, fundies are the ones trying to subvert science classes to insert their version of god, and when it does not work, they are now using a publicity campaign to include their god into science, "teach both sides" bullcrap, when there are not two sides and never were. So Christians ARE doing this, not promoters of science. Creationists have already lost court cases in the past, and will lose in the future, because it's not real. They may win a few, but ultimately, truth and reality with win, because it has to.
Bottom line, very sorry fact does not fit old testiment stories and myths. But fact and real science cannot be warped to fit stone age creation stories, sadly, that thought process went away during the "Enlightenment", which fundies would now like to change. Some would say the bible has a bunch af great stories or parables on living life, but the factual details are not any more real than the Greek myths, and just as valid. I, and many like me, do not wish to life in a world of your false imposed myths, I find them disgusting and reprehensible.

Posted by: RAM | March 28, 2008 6:50 PM

27

Seeing my post, I remember the difference in slang from here to there. When you say "Shot" here, it is slang for (something like) "good shot" in sports, but has carried over to other communication. just in case it was not clear (I have been here so long I can't keep track).

Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | March 28, 2008 7:50 PM

29

I hate christianity as much as the next guy, but the church of atheism is just perverting evolution to recruit people. Their revision of Earth's history is ridiculous by any standard, and they rely on their belief that anything can be right as long as christianity is wrong.

Posted by: Zareste | March 28, 2008 8:43 PM

31

Florida Toilet Paper Bill Passes Senate Committee
MyFoxOrlando.com, FL -
The bill (SB 386) was approved Tuesday by the Senate Regulated Industries Committee. It has two more Senate committee stops to go, and if it doesn't get ...

Droopy drawers bill passes Florida Senate, heads to House committee
MyFoxOrlando.com, FL -
The bill (SB 302) passed 28-11. A similar measure (HB 335) is going through the House committee process. No one debated against the measure Thursday but on ...

Florida House Committee Passes Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
Medical News Today (press release), UK -
A Florida House committee on Thursday passed a measure (HB 513) that bill that defines life as beginning at conception for the purpose of prosecuting ...

Tuition-Education amendment passes in Senate, House next
Florida Times-Union, FL -
We do that all the time." The amendment (SJR 2308) passed 33-4. A similar measure (HJR 7025) is going through the committee process in the House. ...

Florida House Committee Passes So-Called Human Life Legislation
Ms. Magazine, CA -
A Florida House of Representatives Committee passed a bill on Thursday that defines life as beginning at conception. According to the Daily Women's Health ...

House Passes 'Guns-At-Work' Bill
Local6.com, FL -
David Daniel, a vice president with the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said he was disappointed with the vote and hopes the bill will not pass the Senate. ...

Panel weighs caps on government revenue
MiamiHerald.com, FL -
Hogan modeled his original version after the controversial Taxpayer's Bill of Rights Colorado passed in 1992 and suspended in 2005. ...

Senate passes plan to de-emphasize FCAT
Sun-Sentinel.com, FL -
The Florida Senate passed a plan to use multiple factors, not just FCAT results to determine a high school's grade. What do you think? Great! ...

Legislative briefs: Droopy draws and more
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL -
The Business Regulation Committee voted 8-4 against her bill (HB 437) Thursday. That makes it unlikely the House would pass Crist's version (SB 386), ...

Bill Calling for Ultrasounds Before Abortions Advances
The Ledger, FL -
The bill (HB 257) passed through the committee with a 10-6 vote and has one more committee stop before the House floor. Florida would join several other ...

Posted by: wingtip | March 28, 2008 9:12 PM

33

KoI, you do have a point - the general populace gets offended at being called "ignorant." On the other hand, they won't pay attention long enough to hear the reasons why the ID crowd are so clearly wrong. Trying to boil it down to sound bite-sized pieces makes it far too vulnerable to misinterpretation and fallacy-ridden ID counter-arguments. In that light, making a point of calling Creationists/ID-ers "ignorant" may possibly help to drive the masses away from them, simply because they don't want to be thought of that way. The key is in convincing the masses that anyone with sense knows better.

As far as the other theories Ed mentioned that have not yet been challenged...give them time, and a little success. I once heard an interview with a rabid pro-lifer who admitted that once abortion was illegal, the next step was to ban birth control. With the ID crowd, I feel sure that a successful erasure of evolution will lead to further challenges to accepted science as they move us forward to the 12th century.

Posted by: BobApril | March 29, 2008 4:31 AM

35

To jba RE Zareste: Aren't you sorry you asked?

More to the point, the Florida legislature should drop the ID bill and concern itself with laws to keep the Antarctic ice sheet to stay in place. There won't be much Miami beachfront property above the water line in 20 years if present projections are accurate.

Posted by: infoshaman | March 29, 2008 7:31 AM

37

Sen. Storms is a fundie activist from way back. When she was a county commissioner she successfully led a public outcry against the public library's "Gay Pride" exhibit because it "endangered" the children and was "offensive" to Christian families. Book banning was just the beginning of her evil career. She was elected on her Christianist beliefs by a community that largely supports her agenda.

While she is trying to sneak creationism into the classroom the state legislature is cutting funding for public schools, nursing care for the elderly, help for foster children who are transitioning to adulthood, and publicly financed medical care for the mentally ill, children, and elderly.

There is nothing "Christian" about this agenda. It is pure, unadulterated Republican conservatism at its worst, which, having been in control of the state government here for the last 9 years, is largely responsible for the horrible recession and crumbling infrastructure we are experiencing here now. Public schools are being destroyed by the slow method, through defunding and testing while charter (including religious) schools are being protected and promoted by the legislature and the governor at all costs.

The state that brought you hanging chads and Terry Schiavo is happy to allow school-led prayer, teach religious beliefs in schools, and to promote the Christianist agenda.

You get the government you deserve and the majority of people who vote for these politicians are perfectly content to have uneducated children who will further their cause.
As you sow, so shall you reap. Me, I'm leaving this backward, racist, homophobic state ASAP.

Posted by: Goober Peas | March 29, 2008 7:33 AM

39

Since evidently, at least according to Zareste, using reason to reach logical conclusions isn't permissible, perhaps one may be forced to consider attacking the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the science classroom on the basis that that it would be a mortal sin if such things were taught in the science classroom. Thou shall not bear false witness! You simply can't teach creationism or intelligent design and not bear false witness. Unfortunately for the creationism and ID crowds, "God" has left too many clues suggesting that she used evolution by means of natural selection to create the diversity of life we see on the planet earth (and now possibly on other planets as well, although admittedly astrobiology is still in its infancy).

We must prevent the distortion of science to save their souls.

Posted by: Turkeyfish | March 29, 2008 8:37 AM

41

If I was a teacher in Florida, I'd assign kids "The Case of the Midwife Toad", a book that suggests there is something to Lamarkian evolution. And wait for the complaints from Creationists that I twisted their intent.

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | March 29, 2008 9:32 AM

43

King,

You state that Science has nothing to say about God and then in the very next paragraph contrdict yourself. As Ed states, I do not have a problem with Science. I have a problem with people who want to use Science as a platform to make it say things it cannot.

There is a problem here in that when you talk about God, you refer to the Christian God as described in the Bible. Many others here talk as theists about a generic God.

So think of it this way... if you substitute "the supernatural" for the word "God", then science doesn't address it. But the Bible, when taken literally, makes claims of fact (eg... that the world is 6000 years old). And these facts can be tested by science, and many of them have been proven to be incorrect.

So Ram is entirely correct in what he wrote... but admittedly, from your point of view, I can see how you'd be confused.

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 29, 2008 10:56 AM

45

doctorgoo,

There is a problem here in that when you talk about God, you refer to the Christian God as described in the Bible. Many others here talk as theists about a generic God.

You are getting at a valid distinction in here, but it needs a clarifying footnote:

A theist may be a Christian, a follower of Jesus and his teachings, without reading the Bible as a book of rules or as an accurate history or as a science text. A Christian can (and many do) see the Bible as a collection of incomplete and oft-translated manuscripts of different periods and perspectives (some passages contradicting others) - a collection that gives us insight into how some people in the past have struggled to understand who God is and what that means for their own lives and behavior.

There is no single or universally agreed-on "Christian God as described by the Bible" and no universal understanding of what might be meant by a "generic God."

Posted by: JuliaL | March 29, 2008 12:57 PM

47

Absolutely true, JuliaL. As hazy and confusing as the distinction is as I described it, it's actually much hazier as you pointed out.

This is one of the main reasons why it's so easy for people having a discussion like the one above to end up talking past each other, completely misinterpretting one another.

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 29, 2008 2:02 PM

49

Wow - are people really as naive as the comments here suggest?

Darwinian Evolution is a theory under scientific review. It's not a fact. 25-30 years ago it was entered into most school curricula and the info on it has seldom, if at all, been updated to keep with on-going research. Ex: Remember the chart of evolution? The one with the monkey to man pictures? These are based on diagrams from bone and skeletal fragments of "Austrailiopithicus Africanus". With modern DNA those fragments were retested and found to be an extinct form of an ape with no relationship to man. Yet Text books in schools today still carry the diagram and it is taught as scientific fact.

A law that allows teachers to introduce students to scientific alternatives to former evolutionary thought - is a law that promotes modern education. Take that law away and we end up learning as fact - what has already been proven fiction. ...a bit middle ages, don't you think?

Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 2:19 AM

51

BobApril - No, Newtonian Physics is not the same thing at all. Teaching earlier steps in basic science, and leaving details and new advances to higher ed IS legitimate. Original Darwinian theories, however, are now known to be completely incorrect. There are on-going studies looking for a biological component that could cause or account for the process called evolution. That component has NOT been identified. So teaching Darwinian Evolution is about as accurate as teaching that the world is flat.

Personally, I don't know much about the current theories and ideas around creationism. If, however, the schools are going to try and teach the origin of the species, absent of any clear scientific evidence - brining in all current thought and belief is legitimate.

Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 3:34 AM

53

A "biological component," Kate? What studies are these? And what's wrong with good old DNA, which provides ample chance for random mutation leading to new traits?

In the meantime, it is impossible to present all current thought and belief on ANY subject, much less one so tied into religious belief as the origins of our species. At best, a science class can hope to cover two or three currently accepted scientific theories - accepted by legitimate experts, not any crackpot with a loud mouth and too much funding. For example, in my science classes on the origin of the universe, my teachers covered both the Big Bang and the Steady State. But for the origin of species, there is NO accepted theory to challenge evolution, merely a few different ideas about how evolution works. And certainly, Intelligent Design does NOT qualify as a scientific theory - much less an accepted one. "Teach the controversy" only makes sense if the controversial viewpoints have roughly equal validity.

Posted by: BobApril | March 30, 2008 4:05 AM

55

Kate, you imply that your extensive study of these concepts - so extensive that it would take a year to explain it to me - makes your opinion more credible. And yet you persist in making the most common error of a non-scientist, the concept that if something is "only a theory," then it can be easily dismissed. In particular, you said that evolution isn't science, it's only a theory.

However, in science, to be granted the status of theory is the pinnacle of what a concept can be. A theory is something that has withstood challenges, successfully made predictions, and closely fits all available data. There is nothing in science beyond theories. Your hurt feelings when you discovered that the incomplete and possibly garbled explanations you received in science class were not totally complete and accurate do not detract from the validity of the theory of evolution, nor is it sufficient reason to include the backward, conclusion-first notions of Intelligent Design - notions that don't even approach the dignity of a hypothesis, much less a theory. I would support the teaching of a legitimate theory that challenges evolution - but thus far, none exists. Until one arises, evolution belongs in science classes, and those other fuzzy beliefs belong down the hall in philosophy or comparative religion.

Posted by: BobApril | March 30, 2008 6:38 AM

59

Response to Ed Brayton-
This is a chat-talk-back forum, not an academic symposium, nor a street fight. There is no room for footnotes or extensive bibliography's. There is also no room for denigrating the discussion into name calling.

My comments to BobApril are legitimate, as are his replies to me. Neither of us are morons or idiots (in my opinion he is quite reasonable and has much to say on the subject) and everyone who participates has the right to respond to the subject at hand: ie: legislation that enables the introduction of ID into K-12 curricula.

I support the legislation for reasons stated above, while others do not for reasons they stated above.

Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 1:54 PM

61

I think Kate is actually on to something, although I'm not convinced that she isn't concealing some ID/creationist cards behind her ostensibly 'scientific' argument.

Is there not an alternative between teaching evolution as dogma, and teaching Intelligent Design as a competing dogma with equally valid claims? Is this not the same alternative to what Bob is suggesting - that ID has no place in a science classroom?

What I'm getting at should be obvious. I absolutely agree that evolution is a scientific theory, and a great one, and it deserves to be taught as such. I also absolutely agree that ID is a creationist theory masquerading as a scientific one, and an awful one ... although we shouldn't forget that it was by far the most successful and really the only plausible hypothesis for the origin of life until Darwin came along (see Aristotle, Kant, and even a few after Darwin like Teilhard de Chardin). But the critics of the dogmatic evolutionist position on this site (Kate and 'King of Ireland') are clearly really, really smart, and as believers in evolution we're not doing ourselves any favours by discarding their claims out of hand... even though they could easily be used to buttress a creationist wedge strategy. (Speaking of which, someone in the first few comments mentioned 'Dennis Feyerabend' as though he was a creationist. He's a philosopher of science and his name is Paul Feyerabend, and whoever referred to him clearly has no idea what his project really meant.)

What I'm coming around to is simple: maybe this law is a blessing in disguise. Instead of treating evolution like a religious dogma - which is what gets the hackles of religious folk up in the first place - let's treat it like the scientific theory that it is. Is this theory so weak that it can't stand up to a bit of rational scrutiny? Personally, I don't think so, even if the folks arguing against it are often doing so in very bad faith and without any attention to the standard procedures of reason and logic. I'm well aware that this is a wedge strategy, and a slippery slope, and all that. But personally I'm convinced that with the right curriculum, ID has a very important place in biology class: as an example both of how scientific theories aren't *certain,* and of what scientific certainty actually *means.* This would entail bringing in a discussion of Popper falsifiability, all the other thorny issues of scientific validity and how scientific practice comes to terms with these really tricky problems, and also showing why ID is a pseudoscience because it picks and chooses its evidence and its claims are eminently unfalsifiable.

Isn't this the best conceivable compromise? ID advocates get what they ostensibly "wanted," (ie. exposure to 'competing theories') but the curriculum is structured so that biology students get taught exactly how one-sided the competition really is from a scientific perspective. And as a bonus, they get introduced to the philosophy of science, they learn a bit about what scientific 'truth' really means outside the sphere of science proper, and maybe a few creationists will learn why it's not always a good idea to get what you wish for.

Posted by: ali | March 30, 2008 2:17 PM

63

This is a chat-talk-back forum, not an academic symposium, nor a street fight. There is no room for footnotes or extensive bibliography's.

You initially claimed the evidence has been found that contradicts evolutionary theory. We're asking for specific examples with citations, since that is the opposite everything I have seen. You claimed a DNA a comparison with austrlopithicus failed to show common ancestry. As far as I know such DNA doesn't even exist, much less been studied, much less found to contradict what we would expect.

What DNA evidence I am aware of fits exactly what we'd expect from evolution. Is it just a coincidence multiple gene phylogenies fit into the same nested pattern we expect from different species having a common ancestor? (how's that for an evolutionary prediction). There are common relics from virus infection that integrate into DNA. Is it just a coincidence these viruses seemed to have integrated in the same places in different species, again fitting that same nested pattern? Here's an example of a paper showing similarities in chimps and humans and how they fit evolutionary theory. Can you provide the same for any of your claims?

Posted by: mcmillan | March 30, 2008 2:35 PM

65

Hi Ed,
I'm assuming, then, that you are the official guy writing this crap.

And indeed, as you say, I "feel free to go read a blog by someone you like." Really, though, I find most blogs tremendously tedious. It's what goes on in the comments that's fascinating, especially when it touches on what's now apparently a civil 'war' of cultures down your way. I'm neither a scientist nor a religionist, just a philosopher. And scientists and creationists argue with each other like they're still doing theology, and no twentieth-century philosophy of science ever happened. So on occasion I feel compelled to weigh in as I did above.

Your response is telling, and steeped in a bit of the same vitriol I saw above. We're talking past one another, just like you and Kate.

I'm not taking issue with anything in particular you say, or anything about evolution. Nor am I taking Kate's side. As I said in the post above, I'm sure she's concealing some creationist arguments. You're right to say that "just a theory" is an absurd claim to make about scientific data, insofar as science can *only* produce theories. And Kate was silly to claim that there's any difference in kind between the validity of the theories of physics and of biology, although perhaps there's a difference in degree.

All I'm taking issue with is your rhetoric. It just seems to me from the comments that you're posting that you're more concerned with defending the absolute primacy of scientific reasoning over any other conceivable method, than actually upholding the scientific ideal (ie. disinterested, objective, falsifiable, etc.). Your response to me seems only to confirm my suspicion. Instead of replying in a constructive way to the philosophical criticisms I'm raising, you just keep insisting that there's scientists doing science and then a whole world of ignoramuses with their silly criticisms.

I know that scientifically-minded folk don't like to follow the convoluted lines of a philosophical argument. So I'll put a few straightforward questions to you.

1. Why do you reply to people who affirm that scientific theories are just that - theories - by using obscenities, instead of explaining in a reasoned way exactly what 'theory' means and why they're mistaken to draw the conclusions they draw?
2. Is there no place within a scientific curriculum for a reasoned investigation of ID and other silly hypotheses, as a means of teaching students about falsibility, pseudoscience, and the true meanings of 'theorem' and 'proof' in the context of scientific discovery?
3. Do you not recognize *at all* that in arguing with such vitriol against people who you suspect are concealing some religious tendency, you're actually becoming pretty religious yourself?

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong to advocate science. I just think that your inflammatory rhetoric is counterproductive. Religious people - a category in which I don't include all the idiots turning Genesis into pseudoscience - only see science as a threat to religion when scientists start to talk like prophets (or, even worse, as though they were the gods themselves).

Posted by: ali | March 30, 2008 3:02 PM

67

Ali: A few years back I used to go on a local radio show every year about April 15th and talk about taxes. And every year, I got to field dozens of calls from terribly sincere people who believed that the 16th Amendment was not properly passed, or that income tax is purely "voluntary" or any of three dozen other variations as to why income tax didn't apply to them.

For a couple of years, I did my best to rationally explain why the caller was mistaken, what the flaws in their arguments were and how a rational analysis proved what 99% of everybody this side of Wesley Snipes already knew: You have to pay taxes. But eventually, I gave up. The show went off the air, and even if it hadn't I wouldn't go back again: I had enough.

That was one day a year, by sincere (if mistaken) people who were not trying to lie or deceive anyone else, and who were always polite to me and my views. I like Tax Protesters. They are for the most part good people who just happen to have peculiar beliefs about that one topic.

Compare the Disco Institute: They actively lie and misrepresent, intentionally make false claims that they cannot themselves believe, spread malicious lies and rumors about respectable scientists, and do it all in the name of the God of peace and love. If I were in Ed's position, I would have been calling them a lot worse than he does.

Posted by: kehrsam | March 30, 2008 3:52 PM

69

Kehrsam, I think you put forth the best justification for why it's sometimes necessary to be an asshole in the name of common sense.

Ed, you just go right ahead and do it! Your answers were good enough to the first two questions, although I don't think Kate deserved the 'moron' label. I've read tons of comments by *real* creationists, the kinds that have no interest in saying anything about science except to refute it and how the superiority of their religion or their religious pseudoscience.

Your third answer is pretty telling, at least from my point of view. As the failure of the logicist project in the twentieth century demonstrated, there's no way to be logically sure that the propositions of arithmetic are true. Like a scientific theory, we just accept them because they work pretty damn well as far as we can tell. But you can't prove the validity of arithmetic using arithmetic, and you can't justify science scientifically. I could go on and on about how the incompleteness of arithmetic and number theory actually meshes quite nicely with the little 'common sense' 1+1=2 analogy you provide. But you wouldn't be interested in that.

All I'm saying is that your demagogy presents science like it's something it's not: certain. It's consistent and it's certainly useful for figuring things out, but it's not complete and even its most complete theories can't rule out creation ex nihilo. (Though whoever or whatever hypothetically did the creating sure hasn't intervened much since that Bang.) Insisting that it is and that you can: there's the dogmatism. Even if you yourself are open to the falsification of your hypotheses, when you turn every discussion about scientific truth and testimony into a war, that's when you become a pseudoreligious dogmatist.

OK, this discussion is long since over. We agree on every point of relevance, you're all just more sure of your scientific convictions than myself. And if presenting a belief as incontrovertible fact isn't at least a *bit* religious, then I don't know what is.

Posted by: ali | March 30, 2008 4:54 PM

71

King of Ireland wrote,

That is coming from someone who has some issues with Common descent and Natural Selection in my personal beliefs. At least as far as I understand the the two.

I think that this is a telling point. Reality is clashing with your religious beliefs, and you are questioning reality.

Posted by: Malcolm | March 30, 2008 7:27 PM

73

On behalf of all the regulars here, welcome back BobApril. Your perspectives on things were missed around here!

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 30, 2008 7:35 PM

75

Kate wrote:

Original Darwinian theories, however, are now known to be completely incorrect.

You mean descent with modification? Nope, not completely incorrect at all. You mean the guy who first came up with the ideas didn't get all the details correct, and 100+ years later we've managed to expand upon and further develop the ideas he originated? Gee, I think that's called science.

I would love to sit you down in a small group of my female PHD friends for a wee chat on "theory".

Oh, my. Doesn't that just sound like a bunch of people with PhDs in English doing critical theory. Let's sit around and "chat" about deconstructing evolutionary theory. It's a better path to knowledge than doing field or laboratory research in biology.

Seriously, Kate, I want to know--do they have PhDs in biology? Chemistry? Any relevant field? My PhD is in Political Science (barely relevant, but my dissertation had to do with evolutionary of cognitive mechanisms for playing prisoner's dilemmas--I spent a lot of time in the science library reading Journal of Theoretical Biology and such crazy fun stuff). But I still pay attention to those whose degrees are in more directly relevant fields--particularly my biologist friends. So what fields do your friends have their PhDs in?

Posted by: James Hanley | March 30, 2008 9:37 PM

77

Just as a matter of information, Ms. Kates' claim that DNA has been extracted from Australopithecus Africanus or Afarensis is total crap. The only extinct hominid from which DNA samples have been extracted is Homo Neanderthalis. Currently, those DNA samples are being used to construct a genome for Neanderthals.

As to Ms. Kates' characterization of the Theory of Evolution as "just a theory," well, under that claim, the bacterial/viral theory of disease causation is also "just a theory." Somehow, I don't think even a moron like Ms. Kate believes that.

Posted by: SLC | March 31, 2008 8:49 AM

79

"I think that this is a telling point. Reality is clashing with your religious beliefs, and you are questioning reality."

I meant my views. I am trying to look at this the same way I have many other things: Read about it, discuss it, and come to my own conclusions. I have done this with many philosophies and religions.

With that said, I will comment on two things here. First, I would agree with Ali that some of the Rhetoric here comes off as claiming certainty when there is not. I also stand by my statement that loaded rhetoric and name calling is hurting the evolution side(I hate that broad term) of this more than helping it. With that said though, I think it would be fair to point out that Ed is much more patient with people who are clearly ignorant and misinformed than with those who obviously understand Science.(right or wrong) I think his dealings with me prove that. I think what upsets him is when he perceives that someone is on here masquerading as neutral but really is and IDer or creationist. I do think someone should be given the benefit of the doubt though.

I went to do some research and found a Biology textbook called "Biology: The Network of Life" by Mix, Farber, and King. Let me disgress. This is essentially a debate about public schoools. As a teacher, I have seen state mandated cirriculum changes come and go. Most have no real effect on the classroom. Textbooks have more of an effect but still not much of one. It comes down to what each teacher teaches. So these battles over cirriculum are not irrelevant but not as important as one might think in addressing the practical outworking of these issues. Textbooks carry more weight but are a small part of what any good teacher uses to teach their class.

With that said to address again Jeremie's point above about all the misinformation out there, it is exactly what I thought: The textbook. Here is a statement,

"Although well over a century has passed since Darwin's discussion of the origin or humans, the topic is still controversial. Creationists reject the theory of evolution itself and therefore it implications about humans, and Scientists have repeatedly revised their picture of human evolution to the continuing discovery of human fossils and other relevant data."

This is exactly what I thought I would find. Conflation as you all would say. This is simply not true at all. Maybe some creationists (whatever that means) reject the overall theory of evolution but not many I have ever met. This also could lean toward two camps, "Scientists vs. Creationists" forming in people's minds in a, as Ed states, very complex discussion. This seems to lump abiogenesis with human evolution. All the things that people get mad about here are in this paragraph. Now I assure you that a "Creationist" did not write this. This could be argued to pit the "poor ignorant Creationists" against the clearly more intelligent "Scientists."

I was also blown away about Science having levels of certainty. Some theories have a high level of certainty based on the evidence and others a very low level. That was never explained to me by anyone. Maybe it was assumed that I knew that. I did not. Scientist come off as having certianty they do not and really cannot have at times.

The bottom line is that it comes off as arrogant when certain rhetoric is used here. I stand by that. I now understand that this is actually a strategy. Someone in a comment on this thread admitted that. The average public they said is ignorant and a sound bite cannot explain it all so it is more effective to make the people ID people look like Morons and that sticks in people's minds. Then winning becomes the only important thing and the truth gets lost. It becomes about who can make the other guy look like an ass.

It is no different in politics. I think people are finding out that the younger people are moving in droves to a guy like Obama who appears to be above the fray. If it gets divisive they tune out.

The bottom line here ssems to bethat has Science has encroached on the territory of philosophy and religion over the years. To what degree I am not sure and a much more in depth study of history and philosophy will be needed to see just how much.( Or to be fair not at all if I am wrong) But to use the "Creationists" in such general terms in this textbook to state what it states is wrong. That is political not good Science. It does exactly what I have been trying to point out on many posts: Does things with Science that Science is not supposed to do by its own definition. It is all about marketing. I have my ideology and want to use Science to back it so I overstate certain things as having certainty or at least implying it and get pissed when people call me on it.

I think I am a good guinea pig here. I really do not understand the whole natural selection thing. I read about it and it seems to make sense to me. Things adapt to their environments to survive. It definely went against the teaching of the time that God designed each creature to live perfectly in their environment. But could not the natural selection be by design? Be fruitful and multiply could very well mean adapt and survive. The other one is comomon descent. We have some fossils that look human but have ape like features. Are they human or ape? What is a human? Why do we think they evolved macro, or whatever the term is, to a new species?

The evidence of what I read in that textbook, which is all most people will ever read about it, seems good for evolution in general. It seems terrible for someone trying to use it to prove the spontaneous generation for life. It seems good also that apes and humans have some real similarities. What I need to have explained is why make the leap of judgement to common ancestor?

These are real questions from a real person who: 1. Really wants to understand all this 2. Is really ignorant or misinformed. Why not use this an opportunity to educate people?

I think a change in strategy is in order. The whole rhetoric thing works in your base. It has no street cred as the kids say. If the idea is to educate people in Science I think it counter productive. If it is to beat the "creationists" then it might work in that both sides look like assholes to the average public and they throw it out. No doubt that ID as presented by the DI is political to its core. I understand why that pisses people off. But to throw the whole debate out that would be legimate discussion is wrong. I think it is big picture: Chance or purpose is the philosophical debate. Design is a legitimate Scientific question and does not have to comment on chance or purpose.

This is going to piss some off here but I think Darwin may have encroached on philosophy. If he did do not get pissed when others want to bring it into the Science class from another point of view. The bottom line is that Science is not certain about anything and things that were thought to be true get proven wrong all the time. It is on both sides. Things that religion thought were true get proven wrong all the time too.

Ed, I just think you need to acknowledge the former more. This is not just about Science. It is about world view and the "Culture Wars". You seem to deny it when someone uses Science to build an ideology that is harmful. Or at least down play it. I have said time and time again and mean it. More harm is done when religion gone mad reigns than secularism. In fact, I think History proves that the religionists use fringe elements that they feel "degrade" society as the bogey man for more control over and over again. The argument was used by Nixon against the hippies. It is the paleoconservative argument now: Look at all these secular progressive former hippies with all the minorities tearing up the country we have got to stop them.

I think you could beat them at their own game with their own people if you branched out more. Go speak at some Christian meetings where more progressive types hang out.(They are usually younger and grew up unchurched) They will listen. The battle is not to convince the choir. It is a once and a lifetime opportunity to impact a generation of Christians so they do not end up bank rolling the next Jerry Falwell and I might add destroying Science in the process by wanting to bring philosophical arguments into the Science class. If certain types on the evolution side(such a broad term) would stop doing the same thing then I think a compromise can take place politically that would keep us from the two extremes that kill nations overtime: Militant secualar ideology gone mad and militant religion gone mad.

That is where I am coming from. Just food for thought. I do appreciate Ed being patient with me for the most part though as I learn Science at age 35 because I did not pay attention in HS.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 31, 2008 12:56 PM

81

KoI writes:

First, I would agree with Ali that some of the Rhetoric here comes off as claiming certainty when there is not.

The only people who have used the word "certainty" are you and ali!

There is no "certainty" in science. We can have a very high degree of confidence, but we can never be "certain".

As Steven Gould writes - "In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

I was also blown away about Science having levels of certainty. Some theories have a high level of certainty based on the evidence and others a very low level. That was never explained to me by anyone. Maybe it was assumed that I knew that. I did not. Scientist come off as having certianty they do not and really cannot have at times.

This is what Gould was talking about. We have a LOT of confidence in the atomic thoery of matter or gravity or evolution, because they have passed a LOT of testing. We have less in our theory of abiogenesis or string theory.

This is exactly what I thought I would find. Conflation as you all would say. This is simply not true at all. Maybe some creationists (whatever that means) reject the overall theory of evolution but not many I have ever met.

Try reading the Young Earth Creationists at Answers in Genesis or the Institute of Creation Research or the Old Earth Creationists at Reasons to believe or the ID Creationists at Discovery Institute. You'll find plenty of Creationists who reject evolution and especially the parts where humans are mentioned.

I really do not understand the whole natural selection thing. I read about it and it seems to make sense to me. Things adapt to their environments to survive.

Populations adapt, not individuals. Darwin noticed a few simple things about populations.

1. Not all the individuals in a population are identical. There is variation. Some are faster, some are slower. Some are taller, some are shorter. Some develop sooner, some later.

2. Not all offspring survive. Just look at the tens of thousands of seeds on the average maple tree. They drop off every year, yet we're not knee deep in maple saplings.

3. Resources are limited. There's only so much food, so much water, so much light, so many good nesting areas.

Darwin realized that some individuals in a population, because of their inherent possession of a certain advantageous trait, would be better able to compete for these limited resources - and thus to leave behind more descendants, also with this advantageous trait. Over time, the population would change, or evolve.

The other one is comomon descent. We have some fossils that look human but have ape like features. Are they human or ape? What is a human? Why do we think they evolved macro, or whatever the term is, to a new species?

We think that they evolved because we have fossils that have human and ape like features! We also have the genetics, things like chromosomal fusion, explained nicely by evolution from a common ancestor.

It seems good also that apes and humans have some real similarities. What I need to have explained is why make the leap of judgement to common ancestor?

Because that explains why the similarities exist as they do! How does one explain the fact for instance that both humans and chimps have a non-functioning ψη-globin gene, and its broken the exact same way in both? One answer is that both inherited the same broken gene from a common ancestor. What other biological explanation is there? This is not the only such example, so its unlikely both chimps and humans happened to separately break their genes the same way.

But to throw the whole debate out that would be legimate discussion is wrong. I think it is big picture: Chance or purpose is the philosophical debate. Design is a legitimate Scientific question and does not have to comment on chance or purpose.

Design can be scientific. Look at archeology. Look at CSI style forensics. But the DI style of dissembodied, rarefied design is not the same thing, and is not scientific.

This is going to piss some off here but I think Darwin may have encroached on philosophy.

Where? Think about other science too, and ask yourself if they aren't also "encroaching" the same way.

The bottom line is that Science is not certain about anything and things that were thought to be true get proven wrong all the time.

You are conflating not being absolutely 100% metaphysically certain with not having a clue at all. We can't be 100% absolutely certain that the world chess champ will beat a beginner, but that doesn't mean the odds are therefore 50/50!

Posted by: Dave S. | March 31, 2008 2:05 PM

83

This goes back to your statement that Chinese oppression in Tibet has nothing to do with Atheism. Or something like that. I think you said it was about culture and land. This is true but to discount atheism, is crazy.

There's nothing "crazy" about noticing that people can be greedy, and can take what they want from those weaker than themselves, regardless of their religion. Look what our "Christian" ancestors did to the Indians. Do you think religion had anything to do with that? Don't make me laugh -- they wanted land, the Indians had land, and they were unable to stop the white folks from taking it piece by piece. This has been happening throughout history, all over the planet, and it has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

Posted by: Raging Bee | March 31, 2008 2:45 PM

85

Bee,

How many times do I have to say that religion does the same thing. Did Atheism have anything to do with Marxist theory? Did it have anything to do with Lenin's applications? Can we assume since one had to be an atheist to be in the socialist party that when that party took over the state that to live under the state would require the same in pratice? These dudes killed mass amounts of people based on what religion there were. They also killed mass amounts of people based on a lot of other things too I understand.

But to ignore what they did and the role that atheism and evolution played in( we can debate degrees honestly) it allis absurd. We have not even gotten into the "Social Darwinists" yet. They were just as racist as Southern Christian slave owners. One used Darwin the other the Bible. To acknowledge one and not the other is wrong.

I state for the 150th time I do not believe that most atheists want to kill anyone. I do not even agree with Mroberts that Christians make bet leaders than Atheists because they answer to God. I do not even think that a Christian is any more moral than an atheist in any given situation. I DO THINK THAT ENOUGH MASS MURDERERS HAVE USED PARTS OF EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE TO CONSTRUCT THEIR IDEOLOGIES TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS TAUGHT RIGHT. A big part of that in my opinion will be to get Scientists to quit implying they are more certain about things than they really are.

But to be fair I think it is more Humanists and other groups that are the problem. They have propaganda too, not just the religious folk. Both make it into textbooks. Is anyone denying that?

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 31, 2008 3:09 PM

87

Re King of Ireland

"Is Neanderthal man human or ape?"

The answer is neither. Neanderthals are almost human. Just based on brain size alone (1400 cc), Neanderthals were far from being apes. As somebody once said, dress a Neanderthal in a suit and tie and put him/her on the New York subway and he/she would not stand out from the crowd.

"How do we know that the evidences of "humans" are not just apes like Lucy"

For the information of Mr. King of Ireland, Lucy was not an ape. Lucy has both apelike and humanlike features so she was neither ape or human although she was more apelike then humanlike, unlike Neanderthals.

Posted by: SLC | March 31, 2008 3:15 PM

89

"Neanderthals are almost human"

They are either human or not. Their is no almost human. What is a human? I am asking because it says that God created man. This is a human. To discount the Bible with Science I need to know what a human is? What if Neandethal man was an ape? Who gets to make the labels?

This is the philosophical side of all this I am talking about. Like I said nothing is pure but if we really want to keep Science as pure as possible for the germ theory of disease and other things then we have to take some of the conjecture out of the things we are less certain about. There is a balance somewhere that I think was lost that needs to be restored. That is all I am saying. I do plan on reading more on all this it is a cool subject. I wish I had paid attention in HS.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 31, 2008 3:24 PM

91

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way.

At least none that you're willing to consider, apparently.

Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago

Well, if by spontaneous generation you mean "that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat", then you'd be right. But of course, then you'd just be waling on a straw man, because no-one in their right mind believes that today.

that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

Um, no. Having one scientific hypothesis fail does not in any way imply that goddidit. Instead, we just come up with new hypotheses. Ones that we can test.

We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds

If by "on philosophical grounds" you mean "because there's no way to test it", then sure.

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.

Almost all scientists have accepted it because all the evidence supports that theory. This doesn't make it a religion, any more than scientists supporting the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is a religion.

Posted by: Skemono | March 31, 2008 3:56 PM

93

Here we go with the word thing again and ignoring the POINT! I said "comes off ass". Look man there is no way that your message or strategy is going to make it in a post modern world whether what you say is true or not.

I'm not relying on say-so. I'm relying on the evidence.

That is all I am pointing out. Scientists come off as arrogant know it alls. People he use Science to explain things are not well received in non Scientific settings. Why? Jargon pure and simple.

It's the Creationists who claim to possess The Truth.

If someone wants to convince Scientists to do something then they need to learn the jargon to do so. If Scientists what to convince the general public of something (politics) then they need to learn the language of the people. To get pissed and run off when people do not understand what the hell you are talking about will not get the message through. I know because I have done it with the younger generation many times and paid for it in relating.

Who is running off?

So we found the "missing link" if not then how could we ever know?

There is no one magical "missing link". There are many such evidentiary paths.

Dogs have some human like features too. Not as many of course. Why could all these simliarities point to a common creator?

They do! But that dogs and humans share fewer similarities (technically called shared derived features) means we are related further back. Humans and chimps share a more recent common ancestor than humans and dogs, which expains while they are more similar.

These are all philosopical questions.

Not at all. They are based on observable empirical evidence. It no more "philosophical" than noting you are more closely related to your father than to your great-great-grandfather.

Why bring it into the Science?

Because it's part of the observable world and is subject to testing. Common descent makes very specific predictions of what the evidence should look like, predcitions we can test. That's science.

(Not an attack a real question) It actually made me think when I read about how similar apes and humans were. But to be honest that text book was just as much propaganda as ID is.

Really? What are some predictions made by ID and how does ID explain the data like common descent does?

So many wholes in the conclusions especially with so little evidence they provided. Just bad education to even use that text no matter what side you are on.

Your personal lack of understanding does not mean that nobody understands this stuff and that one is as good as another.

Thank you for your answers but you did not answer what is human?

Look in a mirror. That's a human. Look at your family. Humans.

Is Neanderthal man human or ape?

I think Neanderthals are humans, just different from modern humans. It's like asking which are cats, lions or tigers? Both are.

The text was not clear. How do we know that the evidences of "humans" are not just apes like Lucy?

Lucy was not an ape. Her anatomy clearly indicates that she walked upright, unlike any ape. She was also not modern human. She was in between. That's transitional.

I need some real solid evidence of what is a human and why if we are going to try and recreate conditions and history through theory. I am not saying it is not a great thing to do. Inquiry is great. I am going to do some more and see where I stand on all this.

Why not just read about evolution, and then ask questions where you don't understand. Don't assume that if you don't get it, it must be no better than ID.

Honest questions are appreciated.

Nobody knows everything.

Posted by: Dave S. | March 31, 2008 4:28 PM

95

Dave S.

You guys are so mired in this pissing contest with the Discovery Institute your're blinded. When did I say evolution is untrue and ID is. I have no really read ID. I have made statements about abiogenesis and the whole chance or purpose debate that really is more origins of life generally more than human.

With that said, I think Eve quoted a Scientist in her remarks. Why doesn't anyone call him a moron? So you dispute the claim made by many Christians that there are no transitional forms? And I might add just for something to think about that recreating history is a good endeavor but I would not say anything with too much confidence. It is more like archeology than germ theory type Science. We can look at the past but it is and always will be very subjective "evidence" based on our assumptions going in.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 31, 2008 4:45 PM

97

To those on this thread that doubt science's confidence in the theory of evolution; please heed Cicero,

"The Person who knows only his side of an issue knows neither side."

I recommend rather than spending your time arguing in forums like this against scientific theories when its obvious you know nothing regarding scientific methodology and the actual theory of evolution itself, that you instead educate yourself.

Here are my recommendations:
"Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence for Evolution in DNA" along with "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters". Neither book is used to make claims that have not been peer-reviewed and accepted, instead the authors report and explain the state of scientific knowledge in these two fields.

Neil Shubin, whose team discovered Tiktaalik just published, "Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body", a great adventure story about finding an awesome transitional fossil, but even more importantly, provides insight into how scientific methodology works in general, especially across several disciplines, all independently validating the findings of people like Shurbin who spend years in the field searching for tiny bones that helps increase our understanding of life.

I would then recommend you read the Dover trial transcripts, especially Barbara Forrest who defends science and Michael Behe who defends ID/Creationism. Read the cross examinations to understand the validity of the creationists' process to make claims and whether their claims should carry any weight at all. You can find these transcripts on Wikipedia. Reading Behe without understanding science would be like asking a cave man to listen to Billy Graham. However, considering Behe's arguments after you have a grasp of the science in a forum where he's unable to avoid hard questions puts a whole new light on the validity of his claims (which are extruciatingly bad).

I have little doubt that those of you that are not deluded or intent on remaining virulently ignorant with at least normal intelligence will end-up on this matter. I also think you'll have gain some respect for the people working in the sciences in terms of their intelligence, their honesty, and the extremely high standards they hold in terms of making claims. Currently you treat them as if they were no better than a Baptist minister skilled in the art of rhetoric. Science at its best, and the theory of evolution is an incredible communal discovery and one of mankind's greatest achievements, is nothing like religion, only someone who knows nothing about science would make such a comparison.

Posted by: Michael Heath | March 31, 2008 5:37 PM

101

KoI, try this on. If I kill people and say it's because my dog told me to, does that mean my dog contributed to those murders? I'd say no, it just means I'm crazy if I believe it or a liar if I don't. (It also means that my story will be turned into a boring movie staring John Leguizamo.)

If a government bans gift giving, saying it's because there is no Santa, does that mean asantaism contributed to the ban? I'd say no. It just means the government has made up something stupid.

Likewise, if a government says atheism indicates religion should be suppressed did atheism contribute to the ban? I'd again say no, the government is oppressing people and made up a something to justify it.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 1, 2008 8:57 AM

103

Ed,

I misread the textbook. It just said she had ape like features not that she was an ape. My bad. It is hard to keep all this straight in my mind as I read all these different sources.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 1, 2008 12:25 PM

109

I would also add that I think Marx was a humanist.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 1, 2008 1:48 PM

111

KoI: To "prove" your point about atheism allegedly being responsible for this or that large-scale atrocity, you seem to have fallen into the rut of pointing to religiously-motivated atrocties, and then simply saying, with little elaboration and no backup, "...and atheists do the same thing!!"

Sorry, but that's nowhere near a coherent argument. In fact, if atheists consistently do the same things as theists do, as you keep on admitting, that kinda proves OUR point that religion, or lack thereof, really didn't have that much influence on the events in question.

How many Marxists that killed someone were sincere to the ideology? I am not sure.

Another thing you're "not sure" of, and need to understand, is that atheism is only part of what is generally called "Marxist ideology." That label also includes overthrow of oppression by ruling classes, elimination of all class distinctions within society, redistributing wealth more equally and fairly, equal treatment and rights under the law, etc. -- NONE of which are at all dependent on atheism, and any of which can motivate a man to kill others, and think it right, whether or not he believes in any God(s).

The Communists killed a lot of people, both in and out of power; but if you look at the circumstances and their justification, you'll soon find it really had nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with creating the society they wanted to create, and crushing all enemies of their vision. Yes, they also persecuted believers, but that, too, was because of the policies their churches supported, and the political threat they posed to Communist power. (The church higher-ups claimed that the Communists were persecuting them "in the name of" atheism, but that could be because they didn't want to admit that the Communists were also upset about church support for "reactionary" regimes or policies, or about unfair church privileges that the Communists wanted to take away.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 1, 2008 1:51 PM

113

Let me change my question with one word: Do you think HIS "non-belief" had anything to do with his hatred of religion? His is the new word.

How do you know it wasn't his "hatred of religion" that had something to do with his "non-belief"?

I'm a non-believer, and I don't hate religion. I'm like you. Except I disbelieve in one more religion than you do.

Second, I think I have stated a million times that atheism or any ism can lead to all types of behavior. Some of them are good and some of them are bad.

The problem is the phrase "leads to". Just because B comes after A, it doesn't mean A causes B to happen. You could as easily say "having brown hair can lead to all types of behavior. Some of them are good and some of them are bad." And as evidence you can point to people with brown hair who do bad things, and people with brown hair who do good things.

Posted by: Dave S. | April 1, 2008 1:59 PM

115

Dave S,

So the logical conclusion is to ignore Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Mao and others who killed or espoused ideas that killed millions of people and try to figure out what lead to this so it will not happen again? Now keep in mind, that I think we should study Calvin, Luther, Sir Thomas Moore, The Popes, and everyone else who killed or espoused ideas that killed millions of people to figure out what lead to this so it will not happen again. I am even someone who thinks more light should be pointed to the latter group because more harm was done in the name of religion in my opinion.

This is from people who want to look back at the fossil record to see what we can find out about Human origins. I am all for it. Why limit our inquiry to just Science? All theories have assumptions. There is no certainty. So lets just throw it all out and live in bizarro world.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 1, 2008 2:10 PM

117

ED -

Somewhat off topic, but the University of California v. Calvary Chapel case is in. Looks like the Creationists take another on the chin.

Posted by: Dave S. | April 1, 2008 2:36 PM

119

KoI, I think the idea you want to fight against is that religion is bad. Atheism does not cause that idea. It does not support that idea. It does not refute that idea. Atheism is not a belief, it is not an idea, it is not a value. It is the absence of belief in gods.

Try looking at it this way. If someone is asexual they have no interest in sex, they are not attracted to either gender. What does this tell us about the value of sex? Nothing. It is just the absence of desire.

Could someone claim that lust is bad or that sex should only be for procreation and point to asexuality as evidence? Sure. But then they would just be making up ideas and claiming they have support that isn't really there. It's the ideas that are at issue, not the fallacious arguments made up to support it. Being asexual doesn't logically lead to anything. Being atheist doesn't lead to anything either.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 1, 2008 3:11 PM

121

Abby Normal,

Atheism is not a belief, it is not an idea, it is not a value. It is the absence of belief in gods.

A curiosity question: Do you distinguish between "an absence of belief in X" and "a belief that X does not exist"?

For me, those are different. I have an absence of belief in frasks. I have no belief that frasks don't exist.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 1, 2008 3:25 PM

123

KOI: It could. To say it does not necesarily and to say that it cannot are two different things. I think the latter is ridiculous.

I don't think anyone has even come close to claiming the latter.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 1, 2008 3:40 PM

125

Ed stated:

"So what? Lenin was clearly and obviously wrong and the proof of that is the existence of Christian socialists - and there are millions of them. Why would you mindlessly quote Lenin without ever bothering to consider whether what he said was true or not?"

My comments where I quote Lenin fully acknowledge that there were and are Christian Socialists. We agree on this Ed. I knew we did. You come off as biased sometimes. Very few call you on it. I agree with the dude who said it is obvious who you support in the Democratic race. Most of the time you are fair and consistent. But sometimes you come off as a mindless zealot.

As far as Lenin, I think you could make the case that his brand of socialism was more in line with Mao than Christian socialists. But I agree Hitler was a so how called a Christian socialist and was a bigger prick than all of them it seems. He hated freaking Communists but did the same thing.

All this confusion is best alleviated by using the terms collectivist and individualist and degrees in between in my opinion. I think the Humanists that you admire were great as well because of the value the placed on the individual and the hope of achieving great things as a human race. I think Christianity got mired in wrong teachings about the depravity of man. I believe in the sinful nature but it does not have to go so far as to elimate the great things man is capable of.

I think our potential greatness as well as our frailties are important to recognize. "John Adams" on HBO last night recorded a conversation between Adams and Jefferson. They were watching the first hot air balloon. Adams said it would not work and Jefferson said it would. Then they had a tit for tat about over and underestimating the greatness and dark side of humans.

The balloon went up. But Hitler also killed millions. All I have been trying to say is we need to remember both as we move into what I believe will be a new phase in human history much like the Protestant Reformation. The internet is the new printing press. You should do a post about Tibet. It would be good for you to apply your beliefs to their situation. I think you would have some good insight.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 1, 2008 5:16 PM

127

"I don't think anyone has even come close to claiming the latter."

Stating the atheism is not a belief system and thus could not help explain certain types of behavior is not claiming the latter?

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 1, 2008 6:30 PM

129

KoI hypocriticized:

You come off as biased sometimes.

You come off as biased *all* the time.

Most of the time you are fair and consistent. But sometimes you come off as a mindless zealot.

Ed maybe a 'zealot' about some things, but I've yet to see any mindlessness. You got any specific examples, or just taking random swings? Quite ironic for you to make such a empty accusations since you have been treated with loads of patience, even when you have to be told what atheism is and isn't over and over. I do like some of your comments KoI, and you do bring a different viewpoint, but I say put up or shut up if you're going to attack someone with this 'biased' and 'mindless' bullshit.

Posted by: Spartan | April 1, 2008 7:21 PM

131

I am not a Democrat nor great supporter of Hillary Clinton but it is obvious who Ed supports in the race by what he posts about.

I read nearly every post here nearly every day, but I don't know who he 'supports'. Maybe I missed that post where he specifically said though. I certainly would not trust some tenuous interpretation of 'what he posts about' as indicating anything at all.

To say or imply that atheism is not a belief system and thus could not be looked at as one of the causes of mass killings in former Communist nations is crazy to me.

Is a-leprechaunism also a belief system? There have been more mass killings caused by a-leprechaunists than atheists and Christians put together. How about you tie something related to atheism, which will be difficult since atheism makes no positive claims and can be summed up in a whopping four words, to these mass killings.

Posted by: Spartan | April 1, 2008 7:53 PM

133

KoI, the statement that no logical conclusion can be drawn from atheism is not that same as saying no one can attach illogical conclusions to it and thereby create a belief system. Someone can say that atheism leads to such and such conclusion. But it's the conclusion that's the idea, not atheism itself.

People can find inspiration in anything. A musician viewing a sunset may find inspiration for a song. Yet the sunset doesn't logically lead to the song, and examining it doesn't tell us anything about the song. The connection is all in the mind of the musician.

It's similar with atheism. Any conclusion drawn is purely in the mind of the inventor. He's made an intuitive leap. That's all. Look at any belief system that includes atheism as a premise and you'll find a logical fallacy in the conclusions drawn from that premise.

I read somewhere that Neanderthals are classified as "Homo" which means human by Scientists.

Yes, Neanderthals are in the homo family. H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. georgicus, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. cepranensis, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis and us H. sapiens. Homo is Latin for "man." But that does not mean that the entire family is human. The word "human" doesn't mean anything from a scientific perspective. So if you only want to call homo sapiens human, feel free.

I also have read some disturbing things about fossils being labeled able to walk upright based on just a tooth and jaw.

Ah, good old Nebraska man, a Creationist favorite. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as a bipedal ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:

"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."

Some outright lies about "missing links" being found because people put ape fossils with humans.

Yep, there was such a hoax. It was called Piltdown man. It is an embarrassment and some extravagant claims were made. But ultimately it was a sideshow. Even at the time it was suspected by many scientists that the bones came from different species. That it was a purposeful deception is what took a while to discover. It had no real impact on evolutionary theory, as the complete lack Piltdown dissertations demonstrates.

To me if Neantherthal was a human then human evolution is crap. I think I read that he was thought to be the missing link back in the day and now that has been revised.

Interesting to see what conclusions you'll reject regardless of the evidence. But as I said before, science won't contradict you if you don't want to call Neanderthals human, as there is no scientific definition of the word human. Anyway, as to them being "the missing link" it was hypothesized that they may have been an ancestor of homo sapiens and that has indeed been shown to be unlikely. That's what science does, hypothesize, test and refine. That in no way harms the theory of evolution and is a wonderful example of why science works.

If you're looking for transitional forms, here's a great chart to show you many of them.
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

I think you'll also find answers to a lot of your questions regarding ape-man features.

Is common descent: 1. Common ancestor of all living things 2. Common ancestor or ape and man 3. Both?

Provisionally it's 3. The provision being that common decent is a theory, not a thing, like a common ancestor would be. Look at the homo evolutionary tree. To find the first common ancestor of homo sapiens and Neanderthals you only have to go back as far as homo heidelbergensis. But to find the common ancestor for homo sapiens and Paranthropus boisei you have to go all the way back to Australopithecus afarensis.

If we keep going back we'd eventually get to the first primate, the common ancestor for people, apes, and monkeys. Go back further and you'll get to the first mammal, the common ancestor of all mammals. And so on and so on until you get to the first organism, which would be the common ancestor for all life on earth. If you would like to examine the evidence for this, a mountain of it can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I hope this helps.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 1, 2008 9:50 PM

135

Stating the atheism is not a belief system and thus could not help explain certain types of behavior is not claiming the latter?

No. The problem, KOI, is that you are seeing this issue entirely in black-and-white. As others have pointed out ad nauseam, atheism, like the various brands of theism, can and sometimes is used as an excuse for certain types of behavior, but there is nothing inherent about atheism that necessitates such behavior. No one is claiming that atheism has not been applied in the former sense, but this is due to the faulty psychology of the people involved, not atheism (or theism) itself. This is a very simple point that for whatever reason continues to elude you.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 1, 2008 11:52 PM

137

Abby Normal,

I'm been thinking more about your interesting comment:

Atheism is not a belief, it is not an idea, it is not a value. It is the absence of belief in gods.

Let me try this:

--In my mind, there is an absence of belief that frasks exist.
--In my mind, there is a presence of belief that frasks exist.
--In my mind, there is an absence of belief that frasks do not exist.
--In my mind, there is a presence of belief that frasks do not exist.

It seems to me that these statements combine to form two categories:

Category 1 one pair:
---An afraskist position
In my mind, there is an absence of belief that frasks exist.
In my mind, there is an absence of belief that frasks do not exist.
---

Category 2, two pairs:
---The fraskist position
In my mind, there is a presence of belief that frasks exist.
In my mind, there is an absence of belief that frasks do not exist.
---An afraskist position
In my mind, there is an absence of belief that frasks exist.
In my mind, there is a presence of belief that frasks do not exist.
---

Is there a meaningful difference between a Category 1 afraskist and a Category 2 afraskist? In this case, might it be said a Category 2 afraskist does not have simply an absence of belief, but actually does have a belief? And if so, would "lacks a belief in frasks" be as sufficient a definition for a Category 2 afraskist as for a Category 1? Maybe not, I'm thinking.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 2, 2008 2:45 AM

139

Ed stated:

"There are two problems with this statement. The first is that it equates having a position with being biased; if that's the criteria then every human being on the planet is biased on every single issue in existence. And that makes it pretty pointless to call someone biased."

Your positions become well known. It is a gift and a curse. What I mean is that you are passionate about what you believe. I admire that and I am the same way. People that are passionate about something at times can have blind spots. We are all suseptible to it. I have said at least 10 times in comments that you are fair and consistent the vast majority of the time. I never in a million years thought you would be for gun rights. No insult intended if I offended you I apologize.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 2, 2008 10:51 AM

141

Abby stated:

"That in no way harms the theory of evolution and is a wonderful example of why science works."

I was about to move on from this quote and the last part stuck out to me. I want to say again that I know Science works. I think people try at times to use it to explain things that it cannot explain but it works. It has been the chief reason that we live in this modern world of convenience. I am all for progress.

With that said, a common thread of worry/suspicion keeps coming through on here. It seems that the projection is that "Creationists" hate Science and want to get rid of it. I know that Scientists used to get burned at the stake. It was wrong. But I think something else is rooted in this. I could be wrong but many of you all seem to come from fundementalist families. I guess maybe some or many Evangelical Christians teach their kids that Science is bad and all Scientists want to do is prove God wrong. But that is not where I am coming from.

Draw it up and look into it. No matter what it is. That is my view. I just think we have to be careful of the implications of our discoveries and how to interpret them. Science is great but it is not the only source of knowledge as some I have met seem to imply at times.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 2, 2008 11:55 AM

143

Darwin's Original title of the Origin of Species had something about survival of the races. This is not "Creationist talking points" this is out of a public school textbook. Now before I or other jump to conclusions anyone want to explain that to me? Did race mean something different back then than now?

The full title/sub-title was "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Darwin here was refering to 'race' as 'variety'. He wasn't talking about human races as we understand that cultural term. Indeed, his Origin hardly talks about humans at all.

Posted by: Dave S. | April 2, 2008 3:45 PM

147

JuliaL,

I don't mean to ignore you. I just haven't come up with anything to further the discussion. I keep thinking in circles, which is kind off funny because I spent much of yesterday troubleshooting a circular reference error in one of my macros.

Here's where I'm at:

-In my mind, there is an absence of belief that frasks exist.
-In my mind, there is a presence of belief that frasks do not exist.

When I look at it from a logical perspective they do not appear to be equivalent. Null does not equal false. But when I look at it from a practical perspective they do seem equivalent. They both say fraks don't exist.

This looks like a job for espresso!

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 3, 2008 9:27 AM

149

Darwin assumed natural selection and sought to see if it was true. With that assumption he and others who have followed have come up with a theory.

You're misusing the word "assume" to imply that Darwin started by making up a story/guess (natural selection) with absolutely no supporting evidence. This is probably not the case: what is more likely, is that he got a hunch, based on what he had seen so far; then went out and did more -- and more systematic -- research and observation, which got him more data that happened to reinforce his original hunch. Scientists (and detectives) do this all the time; sometimes their work confirms their initial hunch, sometimes it doesn't.

What if a Christian wants to come at is assuming Intelligence and wants to study it. If the point of learning is to seek truth the this is legitimate discussion.

Christians -- and non-Christians as well -- have been perfectly free to do just that since Darwin was alive. We're still waiting for the results. So far, there's no peer-reviewed work along these lines, and no sign that any scientists are even TRYING to do any real science to prove ID or disprove evolution.

As for Dembski, I know that his "information theory" arguments have been found to be scientifically vacuous and worthless, due to his incessant use of concepts he never bothers to define, describe, quantify, or measure; such as "inormation," "complexity," and "complex specified information." Also, he's been caught numerous times LYING on his own blog; and his faithful lapdog-who-wants-to-be-a-pit-bull DaveScot deletes all posts exposing his lies or refuting his arguments. That's not how real scientists work.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 3, 2008 3:07 PM

153

KoI,

I think the other commenters make some great points. So I won't bother repeating them. Good stuff.

I've read Demski's paper. I started to go through it point by point as you requested. But after the first point I realized I'd need to write an equal sized paper just to point out it's flaws and that I still might miss whatever it is you found compelling. Most of his points seem to come down to, "evolution explains the evidence, but I don't like the implication to my interpretation of god. So maybe evolution is wrong." He does not point out any actual flaws in evolution. He just rejects things out of hand and replaces them with "I like my God idea better." (paraphrasing of course)

To save us both time would you please explain what arguments against evolution you see as having merit? You mentioned that what he wrote about intelligence and morality resonated with you. In what way? His arguments seem to be entirely philosophical and unsupported. But maybe I missed something.

BTW, I'll admit he does do a great job of using his philosophical arguments to make it feel satisfying to reject evolution. It's a fun read.

I mentioned before that I started a point-by-point analysis. Since I did all that typing I figure I'll pass it on.

Point 1
Claim: The difference in intellectual and moral capacities between humans and other chimpanzees is radical and represents a difference in kind and not merely a difference in degree.

Supporting Evidence: William James Sidis was really smart.

Why it's Important: Evolution predicts that closely related species will share many key features.

Abby Normal Says: That's pretty weak supporting evidence. I'm not sure how it supports his claim and he doesn't cite any specific issues. So I'll have address the claim itself from a very general perspective.

As even Dembski points out, humans and chimps do indeed share many key features. His only point of contention seems to be that the difference in intellectual and moral capacity between humans and chimps cannot be explained by evolution.

Multiple independent lines of research refute this. Neuroscience shows our brains to be very similar in structure. It also contains good continuative development hypotheses. The fossil record shows a continuous progression in brain size. Anthropology shows a gradual development from ape-like to modern behaviors. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Look at the behavior of modern chimps. You'll find problem solving and altruism, the concepts of fairness and justice, community, affection, conflict mediation, cooperation, sharing, the foundations of language and a host of other intellectual and moralistic similarities. Just like we'd expect in our closest relative. We also see significant differences, just like we'd expect with 5 or 6 million years of divergent evolution.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 3, 2008 7:44 PM

155

Ed,

I checked out the site of your Christian friend. His son works for an organization that I knew the founder. Small world. I will get some of this stuff. You ever read David Noebel's book "The Battle for Truth"? I would really recommend it if you want to see how even the kids that are being taught to tackle academia are indoctrinated. He had some good points and I think is right about some things but it is the broad argument being made to bring about the narrow focus strategy to the core.

A Christian can want to influence the government and not be an asshole about it. It is possible though rarely practiced. It is why I refuse to raise money for any of it anymore. The whole thing is polluted at least to some degree by the Relgious Right. Thanks again for the discussion it is helping me. I think I know what I want to study in grad school now. The discussions on here put it into focus for me.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 4, 2008 1:05 PM

157

"Are you seriously going to argue that if I haven't read one obscure article he's written, I can't justifiably have formed an opinion about the quality of his work or his credibility?"

No. I do think that this one really gets down to the nitty gritty of the whole real controversy. But since I have not read a lot about what he wrote who am I to say.

I will say this. What these guys did in the Dover Trial was brainless. I think they are so blinded by their political agenda they blew it for others that would come along and really want to discuss this in an honest way. It is just like that dude Behe testifying for the ridiculous case in CA. The DI seems to be the arm of "Homeschoolers of America". No one can take what they say serious because their agenda is so obvious. I do not blame you.

I would have gotten together people from other religions and philosophies that would like to see the pissing contest between atheists and strict creationists ended and real discussion take place and studied this design thing for a long time to see if it is even viable and then brought it into discussion. The right-wingers hijacked the issue from anyone else who wants to look into it.

Ed also stated:

"There are too many other things that must be answered about the source of this intelligence. Is the source of that intelligence natural or supernatural? Is it honest or dishonest? Is it constrained by the laws of nature or unconstrained by them? Without answers to those questions and many more, the question you asked cannot be answered at all."

True. Is anyone trying to answer them? Is it Science?

Ed also stated:

"We see pottery or tablets with writing on them, we know that it is a result of human intelligence. We know this because we can answer all those other questions - we don't attribute that to "intelligence", we attribute it to HUMAN intelligence, because we know what humans are capable of, how they go about making pottery or written words, and we also know what they're not capable of."

Where does human intelligence come from? Why are people that see design in physics and attribute it to some intelligence beyond nature not called hacks and non-scientists? If there is no definition for human in Science (Abby's words) then what does human intelligence mean? Are Humans distinct from apes or not? What are the ethical ramifications if they are not?

Ed also stated:

"Let me turn this around you. You tell me, what would the fossil record look like if it was the result of the actions of a supernatural intelligence? "

If we are talking about a question of what I personally believe then I would say Genesis shows a pattern from simple to more complex forms of life. I think DNA and similarities between all life point would be very consistent with a supernatural intelligence or creator.

I ask again though. What is a human? Are humans distinct from animals? What shows us this? Despite his obvious biases and mine too, Dembski makes a great point here as far as Biblical creation. He should just come out and say it and people would stop getting pissed at him. But Darwinian evolution even in its modern form has some holes. Other philosophies and religions would have a problem with it too.

I ask a lot a questions here. I need to really go and find the answers myself. I am obviously biased. I do not expect anyone to listen to me as far as Science goes. But to make this whole issue into literal creationists vs. atheists is unfair and both sides continue to do it. I read the Dover decision in more detail again today and it was right bottom line. But just because these guys seem at times like morons does not mean that all of what they say is wrong. I think Dembski poses some great questions.

I also think from what I know of Science, that he blew his waude too quick and was sloppy. If people are nailing him on that I say do it. I just do not know enough about genetics and all to even begin to fathom an opinion about what constitutes a fair peer review. They screwed this up. My gut feeling is that the theistic community should take Ruse's deal and sit down together and come up with a good philosphy class that explores all this. I bet if people on the Christian or religious side were fair about it some people may even give some ground on the Science end of this. I think they made an end run around the establishment and got caught. They always do. They are mindless zealots half the time.

In some ways I am more confused and in other ways I am more clear about all this. I know enough now to read up on this whole debate. I think for me a trip back to ancient Greek philosophy will be the first step. My mind works from big to small. I know it drives people on this blog crazy but I have to get the bigger discussion right in my mind to consider each branch of discussion.

By the way someone told me to read up on this stuff before I commented as much. I should have listened. I think I shot my waude too quick. But I am glad because all the backlash actually ended up in understanding the complexity of this issue. You know where I would start? Trying to figure out how promotion turned into a synonym of establishment and how religion turned into a synonym for God? Thanks for the discussion I know I sound all over the place but this is starting to all make sense to me in my own weird way that no one ever seems to understand.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 4, 2008 3:12 PM

159

KoI,

I think you know, I have no grudge against religion. I think it can be a wonderful benefit to a lot of people. So please understand, in no way is my support of evolution meant to be an attack on your faith. I'm on your side.

The objection to ID isn't arbitrary. It's not like scientists have simply stuck their fingers in their ears and chanted "I can't hear you," over and over. The objection is that ID has completely failed to present any scientific hypostases. Simply saying "what if" does not make something a theory. The question, "What if there is an intelligent designer?" is meaningless unless one also explains how that would manifest physically.

ID as a philosophy is not a problem. The fact that some people claim it's not a philosophy but a science is a problem. Let me try to demonstrate.

Science says rainbows exist because of the way water refracts light. It has a good strong theory. ID then says, what if water was designed to do that? The scientist's reply would have to be, how does that impact the theory? It doesn't. It doesn't offer any new insights into the physical world, it doesn't invalidate anything, and it has no scientific value. No problem really, the scientist simply says believe it if you want to it has no impact.

But then say the ID proponent says, the refraction theory is invalid because rainbows are too organized to be explained by a random arrangement of water droplets. Now there's a problem. ID has made a groundless scientific claim. It's invented a hole that doesn't exist and it still hasn't put forward anything of value.

Now lets say most people don't understand how a random arrangement of moving water droplets could create an organized and steady arc of color. Worse, many of these people believe that rainbows are a special creation of God, a symbol of a promise that he won't drown everyone. They start worrying. How do I know I'm safe from God's wrath if scientists are right about rainbows? If rainbows a natural phenomena then maybe God will still drown us all!

Some unscrupulous folk realize this is an emotional issue for some people. And those people will pay them a lot of money if they give them an even semi-plausible excuse not to buy into Big Science's "theory". They write books and go on lecture tours drumming up support for their ID theory of rainbow creation. Some people are so convinced the start contributing their own ID rainbow "research." They demand that the alternative be taught in schools. But through all this scientists keep insisting their water droplet theory is good and pointing out that all the ID pushers are offering is emotional satisfaction without a lick of real evidence.

That's pretty much where we are today. Luckily rainbows are easy to explain with a couple of simple diagrams. Evolution, is a lot more complicated, is much harder to educate people about and the emotional stakes are much higher. So the conflict rages on.

If you would like to discuss the philosophical implications of evolution and ID I'd be happy to. But that's not what's been going on. We've been talking about their scientific merit. Dembski hasn't presented anything of scientific merit and neither have you. Instead you both present many reasons you don't want evolution to be true.

So if you'd like to talk philosophy, lets do that instead. I've been a Christian who accepted evolution. Here's a rough outline of how I arrived there. Maybe it will be of use to you.

Like you, I started by looked for problems with the theory of evolution. I educated myself. I learned all I could as a layman about the evidence, the theory, and the disagreements. After all my research I finally came to the conclusion that the theory was good. Sure I found controversies and gaps. But it was all along the lines of 1, 2, 3, _, 5, _, _, 8, 9. We couldn't say for sure that the gaps contained 4, 6, & 7. But anything else required some seriously twisted thinking.

So, if evolution was real and God was real, then evolution must be what God's implementation looks like. Way to go God!

If evolution is a manifestation of God's plan than he planned for humans. Once the first human evolved he endowed them with a soul, making them unique among his creations. I called this first person Adam. From there marrying evolution, Christianity, and morality is a pretty simple. (Assuming you don't take the Bible too literally.)

Every question fell into place. Like what about the evolutionary foundations for morality we see in chimps? Well, I figured that God wanted us to have an innate feel for right and wrong. So he laid the foundation in our biology. Biological morality became the strings pulled by the soul to communicate Gods will.

I hope I explained that well. I don't mean to suggest it is necessarily the Truth. I'm sure you know I don't believe a word of it. I'm just hoping to give you a new way of looking at evolution. To show that it need not be a threat to faith and can actually be a wonderful affirmation.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 4, 2008 5:42 PM

161

KOI:

I stated earlier that my issue is the distinction of man from animals.

The way I understand it is that humans are animals with highly complex brains. For reasons that do not make any sense to me, this is a notion that threatens a lot of people. Specific religious references aside, why on Earth would our being another animal somehow make us worthless? I personally don't consider other animals worthless in any sense (although I really don't care for snakes). I believe that, at heart, it is this irrational desire to view human beings as "special" that drives creationism and ID more than specific religious doctrines. And I really think that's silly.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 4, 2008 7:07 PM

163

KoI,

You say,

But I hope to understand this enough one day to prove that modern Science in some ways has infringed on the territory of Philosophy and Religion.

In order to get anywhere with this, you're going to need to rephrase your quest a bit if you want others to fully understand you.

First, "science" can't intrude into anything, because it's not a living thing. It can't go anywhere, much less where it doesn't belong. You refer, I would guess, to "some scientists," rather than to "science."

Second, a scientist is a human being, and thus has every right to discuss philosophy and religion. I'm sure you're not trying to take away anyone right to discuss any subject he or she wants. Also, there is a branch of philosophy that studies science. So perhaps what you are objecting to is some scientists' suggesting that science has something meaningful to say about the existence or nature of God.

Sastra, you remember, did an excellent job of describing the two approaches to the relationship between science and religion. In that description, many religious fundamentalists, ID advocates, and some scientists fall into the second group, the group of those who think that questions about God can meaningfully be answered through a search for scientific evidence.

Your concerns seem to focus more on some portions of the second group than on science in general. Ed apparently belongs to the first group, where, as Sastra explains, "Science and religion do not and cannot conflict, because science can't say anything one way or the other about God and whether God exists or not." If someone thinks this, that person isn't likely to be involved in what you are seeing as an intrusion.

My hope is that you will join Ed (and me) in the first group. But in any case, don't lump everyone together and just call it "science." Speaking in some very general terms could possibly give someone the erronneous impression that you aren't listening to some of the answers and explanations given you.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 4, 2008 7:43 PM

165

"But you're still not understanding the distinction between those inferences and the scientific theories they may (or may not, depending on which side you accept) stem from."

Many of these inferences make it into textbooks. Things not are not fact are worded as they are fact. This is what should be at issue here. Those DI guys do kinda cloud all this. There are bad textbooks that are slanted. I think you even said this in a comment on a post. Since there are the broad camps of metaphysical and methodological materialists that debate this and help design policy this is an issue. I am trying to seperate what I believe from what is best for the country. It is hard but possible. As objective as I can be, I think the textbook I read and the way it was worded errors on the side of metaphysical materialism.

I guess what I am saying is that if "methodological materialism" is the standard accepted by the Dover judge than a good deal of what is taught in Biology in regard to human evolution and origins of life in general needs to be struck down too. Exactly what? I do not have the Scientific vocabulary to coherently explain. I do know propaganda when I see it whether it is Christian or otherwise.

They did a thing on young voters yesterday. They said that they have BS meters on their foreheads. It has to be real and authentic to reach them. Propaganda will not work. I did not used to feel this way. I thought they would go for anything. They are so cynical now it is both good and bad. They were not whent they were younger. Something changed. A lot of these "inferences" are jsut that and not as much fact as the wording would indicate. I would think that you would want to make these texts more clear and honest. Statements like, "Creationists reject the theory of evolution in general so they reject it when it comes to humans" are really bad.

So Dawkins goes out and philosophizes and is called a "Scientist" and Dembski does it and is called a hack. It that fair?

Ed also stated:

"This is false. Some inferences are testable and some are not. Any inference that is supernatural cannot be tested, for reasons I have explained so many times now that my fingers could practically type them while I sleep."

Why not come down on people on your side who make inferences that are untestable? Maybe you do and I have not seen it. I think more people are in what Shastra described as camp 2 than your camp in the evolution camp. Someone needs to stand up and call them hacks when they are being one too. Like I said I do not have the vocabulary and knowledge to explain what I am saying in great detail. I do think you get my point. I am sure you agree with some of it. The question is whether you will speak out against it?

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 5, 2008 12:12 PM

167

King of Ireland writes:

I guess what I am saying is that if "methodological materialism" is the standard accepted by the Dover judge than a good deal of what is taught in Biology in regard to human evolution and origins of life in general needs to be struck down too. Exactly what? I do not have the Scientific vocabulary to coherently explain. I do know propaganda when I see it whether it is Christian or otherwise.

You don't need the scientific words. In your own words, what parts of human evolution are not founded on empirical observation (methodological materialism)? You said its propaganda. Pretty strong condemnation. How can you be answered if you can't even say which parts are "propaganda"?

Statements like, "Creationists reject the theory of evolution in general so they reject it when it comes to humans" are really bad.

This statement is accurate except for the most overarching or vague definitions of "Creationist". They reject it especially when it comes to humans.

So Dawkins goes out and philosophizes and is called a "Scientist" and Dembski does it and is called a hack. It that fair?

Dembski is a hack, and for more reasons than merely his philosophizing. And a lot of people do criticize Dawkins for some of his views, expecially on religion. Even people who otherwise agree with his views on the mainstream theory of evolution.

Why not come down on people on your side who make inferences that are untestable?

Like what? People indeed do make untestable inferences, but these are not scientific. It's not the mere fact that the untestable inference is made, its the fact its made and then claimed to be part of science that's the problem.

Posted by: Dave S. | April 5, 2008 12:41 PM

169

"Or to make it even simpler: It's his blog and he can write about whatever he finds interesting. If you feel he's ignoring a topic you find viable, start your own blog and feel free to have at it. This is his house, so he writes about what he wants."

And his influence will not go as far as it could. I say all this to challenged Ed because I respect him. Many of these arguments on both sides and the way they are done is "old school". "Science" is a relative term. One person can look at a million year old fossil that was pieced together and say ape. Another can look at it and say human. Some look at it and say both. I quoted him from last year earlier in this thread. He sees it but does not speak out against it. Like I said, at least from what I know which is limited.

I still have no had one person comment on the quote from the textbook that I have posted on this thread twice. Why? And yes I may start my own blog about all this some day. But no one will in the "evolution camp" will listen because I am a "creationist". I would like them too.

Why do I bother Ed? He has an overall great message. The core of it is expressed in Constitutional rights. I feel he is a consistent Libertarian or classic liberal. They are hard to find. I feel I am the same. We should be working toghether on those issues. When I say "we" I think I speak for a whole lot of others. Fuck the Evangelical Christians if they do not want to come along with me. I am tired of trying to get them to drop all the moralistic crap and care about the fact that if we do not wake up all these arguments we not ever matter because we will no longer have the freedom to discuss it.

So that is why you never see me on these other Science sites. I am challenging Ed to branch out and increase the influence of his overall message. I am also telling him that some Christians might come along with him and back him against our own people. If this happens the Religous Right dies as we know it.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 5, 2008 1:08 PM

171

"This statement is accurate except for the most overarching or vague definitions of "Creationist".

Bull. This is propaganda what you just said. The vast majority of Evangelical Fundementalist Right Wing Christians that I know believe evolution in general is true. They believe it is true in the micro sense in humans. It is about 40/60 or 50/50 the age of the earth with the ones I know. I know a lot of them too. I spent the better part of a year going out and speaking at churches. I spoke at about every kind of denomination there is. Everyone is different in many many ways. I do not even like most of these people but to label them all as rejecting evolution and not explaining that statement is propaganda.

This does not even count other Protestant and Catholic traditions that would not call themselves Evangelical by any means that have much more liberal views about all this and would still say they believe in Creation of some form. Then we have Muslims and Jews who are not Christian at all and would call themselves creationist in the broadest terms. Many Jews agree with at least certain aspects of evolution. Hindus and Buddhists could go either way since they have no real concept of god in some branches but they certainly reject some aspects of Science and evolution but would be fine with others in general. I think in the broadest sense that they could be called creationists.

Why don' we just say 10-30% of Fundementalist Christians in American that want to crusade to establish a moral code and feel they need to discredit Science to do it reject the theory evolution in its broadest sense. That is what the textbook should say. Is the Religious Right way off in my opinion? Yes. Is whoever approved this textbook? Yes.

Branch out some and learn about the other side. It is more complex than people would ever think. But we have to leave our comfort zones where everyone agrees with us learn this. I did and am glad.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 5, 2008 1:22 PM

173

"Dembski is not a scientist because he's not a scientist. His degrees are in math and philosophy, not science."

Why is he even commenting on Science? Did not know that. But like I said I am not defending these guys and their obvious agenda. I think he made some good points in two things I read that he wrote. I would say that in my limited opinion it was more philosophical than Science. Please seperate what I believe from the politics of this. I can think something true and still not think it should be taught in Public School. The question is what is best for the country.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 5, 2008 1:47 PM

175

King of Ireland:

One of the reasons many people want to keep God out of science explanations is that, if you bring God in as a "possibility," then you have to treat God as if it is just one possibility among many other possible scientific explanations. No special rules for God anymore.

This means that if there is a good natural explanation for how something happened, then you have to throw God out. You can't just say "well, maybe God did it that way." If God didn't do it directly through a miracle against nature, then God did it indirectly by working through nature: heads I win, tails you lose. No, not anymore. You can't do that in science. A scientific theory has to be formed to be consistent with some results, but inconsistent with others. It can be wrong. And if it does nothing and adds nothing, it's considered unimportant. And it gets tossed aside for either reason.

A Christian colleague of William Dembski in Baylor University once said something very shrewd:

"I really don't want someone to say, as Dembski does, that he can prove the existence of God using statistical formulas. The problem with that is that if you disprove his argument, you prove there's no God."

Well, yes.

You want God brought into science? You want a supernatural "Intelligence" to be considered seriously as a possible scientific explanation for the origin of species, and set it up in opposition to (parts of) evolution?

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: Sastra | April 5, 2008 3:01 PM

177

KOI, all I have to say is that it is completely possible for you to be a Christian and still accept the reality of evolution, for the many reasons that others have offered you. Whether or not you realize this is up to you, but at this point it seems like we're all just going in circles. You sure do seem to have a lot of time on your hands. ;-)

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 5, 2008 3:52 PM

179

I just realized I chose my words poorly. I should have said "recognize the controversy," not teach it.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 5, 2008 5:34 PM

181

While the statement is more or less accurate, I think there are two objections which might have some legitimacy. One, mentioning creationism is superfluous when teaching pure science. So there's no reason to include in a pure science textbook. Two, describing creationism as simply rejecting evolution is an oversimplification. It gives the impression that all creationist reject evolution wholesale when in fact there are many types of creationism. Many creationist accept aspects of evolution. Heck evolutionary creationism, also known as theistic evolution even accepts common decent and that man evolved from lower primates. By not acknowledging the subtleties involved the text KoI quotes is misleading.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 5, 2008 8:16 PM

183

Abby Normal wrote:

One, mentioning creationism is superfluous when teaching pure science. So there's no reason to include in a pure science textbook.

Well, they aren't teaching "pure science", they are (presumably) teaching biology to beginners. And in that case it isn't superfluous at all. It will come up, guaranteed. In my experience, which was at the college level, we spent the first 3 sessions on the various types of creationism and the merits of their claims. We were told that this would be the only class time spent on it, and questions regarding it would not be addressed during class from that point on.

That may not be science, no. But it certainly is practical knowledge about science. Further, science doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are often cultural, social, or ethical issues that should be addressed alongside the rote facts. That, in my estimation, is not just practical, but necessary for a well-rounded education, even at the high-school level.

Two, describing creationism as simply rejecting evolution is an oversimplification. It gives the impression that all creationist reject evolution wholesale when in fact there are many types of creationism.

Abby, we have one paragraph here to work with. One paragraph from a source we can't even verify, I might add. It's probably a little premature to judge this text on that count.

In any case, I'm not saying the statement is above criticism, I'm simply saying it hardly qualifies as the "outrageous" statement KoI characterized it as.

Posted by: Leni | April 5, 2008 9:02 PM

185

"The issue of creationism will almost inevitably come up when introducing evolution."

Then what Creationism is should be explained acurately in all its complexity. This brings God in and now you have exactly what no one hear wants.

Ed stated:

"I guess I don't see what is remotely controversial about this statement. What part do you think is false?"

One I read on hear all the time that there is no controversy. Two, you do not think that this statement conflates evolution, creationism, and Science arguments into a severely over simpistic idea of what you said was a complex debate. Just because the Religious Right hijacked this issue to bring aspects of Creations Science back up in a different way, does not mean that people that say we should, what were Abby's words "recognize the contoversy", are wrong.

What the hell is the difference between recognizing and teaching the controversy? Word semantics again. Chief sign of propaganda. Clitonian, "Well what does "is" mean" type crap. Is it "false" when DI and others say there is a controversy? In a most general sense no it is not false. "Not false" does not mean it tells the whole story. I go back to Jeremy's comment:

"But why, then, is Storms not concerned about "protecting the rights of students and teachers" who don't agree with the big bang?

Given that I've had many a discussion with creationists that seems to think that evolutionary theory covers everything from the origin of life on earth to the origin of the universe and physics, it might be more of a case of ignorance rather than special pleading. Then again, when it comes to debates over evolution, it is sometimes hard to tell who is dishonest and who is simply uneducated or misinformed."

I refer back to a comment a made before I I read the textbook:(I guess you could call me a liar and say I read the book first but I did not)

"I am going to state this again many weeks later based on Jeremy's comment about all the ignorance:

If ID does get into the cirriculum in places(I am not for that at least not they way they are trying to do it for sure) it will be for one reason and one reason only: Total arrogance. You guys are gonna get killed in the PR. Why? It comes off as arrogant when you use the word ignorant. Misinformed is better. SO many here get pissed when people do not get the jargon or complexities. They attack and ridicule instead of inform.

I am not sure why it is but this is a fact. I might not know about Science but I do know about communicating to people. I have done it as a teacher and preacher cross culturally. I have been able to reach people others could not because I broke words and concepts down to where they could understand it. I learned this teaching kids that were years behind. Small bites and simple language works better than jargon throw at someone all at once. You know who you guys remind me of? Born again Christians who use lingo no one understands and then gets made when people say forget this and move on.

Now with that said, there have been people who are patient and explain things out so someone who is not educated in this can understand. I still have no clue what evolution is really saying in general. But I do know enough now to read into it in the correct way.

The first thing I am going to do is look into a HS biology textbook. If it conflates the argument for evolution and couples abiogensis with natural selection and common ancestor then I will know why so many people are confused. Many here want to disprove God through Science. That is fine. But in American you cannot use the schools to do it. If you do not stop you will be labeled a religion sooner or later and open up the Biology classroom to all kinds of crap. Progress will be hurt when this happens and you will not be able to blame the Christians.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I think Ed is right about a lot of this but no one would ever know it because it is not explained right by so many.(Though I think he does pretty good) You all want me to learn the lingo and all that goes with this culture here to be taken seriously. I have tried. I challenge you to do the same and learn how to make your message relevant in this culture. It is not. Why? It is not understood. I say all this to help not to hurt. God help us all if we return to the Dark Ages of dogmatic religion.

I guess what I am saying is what I had to say to all the Christians who sat on a mountain side in Colorado and wondered why no one wanted to come: Get out of your bubble and relate to the culture around you. There is a disconnect I am telling you. It is scary how similar both groups are really.

So call me anti elitist or whatever people said months ago when I brought this up but I hope people listen to what I am saying here and really think about it. I have found out many times you can be so right you are wrong and alienate people who would otherwise agree with you and help you. I learned the hard way most times.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 6:10 PM

Notice paragraph 4.

I will requote Ed from last April in reference to framing:

""And yes, our side has them too and I won't pretend otherwise. And even those who don't consciously use the tools of framing in political discourse nonetheless do so unconsciously through the normal process of deciding how best to state our arguments so that they are most convincing to others. But for a guy like Dembski, of all people, to feign such outrage that those big bad Darwinists, I mean atheists, I mean secular elites, are engaged in framing....well that's pretty much the peak of irony and hypocrisy."

Leni stated:

"Well, they aren't teaching "pure science", they are (presumably) teaching biology to beginners. And in that case it isn't superfluous at all. It will come up, guaranteed"

Are we teaching "pure Science" or not? I thought the idea was to teach pure Science? You guys are caught. There will always be "inferences" and "philosophies" interjected into this. Do not claim "pure Science" anymore in your claims about the way evolution is taught. College class or not.

Sadie stated:

"KOI, all I have to say is that it is completely possible for you to be a Christian and still accept the reality of evolution, for the many reasons that others have offered you. Whether or not you realize this is up to you, but at this point it seems like we're all just going in circles. You sure do seem to have a lot of time on your hands. ;-)"

One I have already agreed with the first sentence. Second, what does this have to do with what I said about arrogance, framing, propaganda, philosophy in the name of Science on BOTH sides of this debate? Even if all of what most scientists infer from studies of evolution are true, it does not mean they way they go about presenting this in an academic setting it the right way. I say again clean your own house of hypocrites, zealots, liars, and all before you point it out in others. This is a pissing contest between athiests and the Religious Right. Everyone else is just along for the ride.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 6, 2008 2:36 PM

187

To all:

This is important. I state again I am open to evolution in its fullest extent being true. I really am. I am opposed the at very least the way DI is going about what they are trying to do. I am pretty sure I agree with Ed's stance on what is appropriate for the public school classroom. I support the Dover decision and think it correct on Establishment issues. At least assuming the Lemon is a good test.

What I am concerned about is what role this discussion has to play in human rights. Why? I quote some earlier in this thread:

"The way I understand it is that humans are animals with highly complex brains. For reasons that do not make any sense to me, this is a notion that threatens a lot of people. Specific religious references aside, why on Earth would our being another animal somehow make us worthless?"

Why I am not sure but we all know of many examples where people were dehumanized(made less than human) and mass genocide took place. So it is important in modern society to understand what human is and why that is important if we are going to discuss "Human" rights. This is not just a religious issue. Although at times like in Tibet it can be a big part of it. They are being asked to renounce their religous leader or be jailed. They are going specifically to monks in monasteries. It is happening many places in the world now.

Science is not the cause or solution to all aspects of this. It can be used for good or bad. "Inferences" made from Science( and other academic disciplines as well) can cause dehumanization. That has been and is my point. This issue trumps all others to me. That is the reason I even got interested in this subject. I am sure we all can agree that human rights is important. That is why human origins is such an important topic. That is also why I think the discipline of Science should lose what seems like its monopoly on this subject in academia. Nothing is pure.

I am sure discussing about 10 issues at once is circular and confusing to some. I hope I am being clear. I hope this statement helps.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 6, 2008 3:05 PM

189

Abby stated:

"Sounds great for college level course but I think it would be dangerous at an earlier level."

Why? Who decides? I am not even saying I disagree with you. I am not sure.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 6, 2008 3:08 PM

191

KOI:

I say again clean your own house of hypocrites, zealots, liars, and all before you point it out in others. This is a pissing contest between athiests and the Religious Right. Everyone else is just along for the ride.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Just because you perceive there to be hypocrisy, arrogance, etc. on the science side of the debate does not mean that there actually is. I see that, once again, you appear to be suggesting that proponents of evolution are necessarily atheists. How many times must you be told that this is inaccurate?

This debate is hardly a pissing contest between anyone--it is a very real fight between genuine science and powerful political/fundamentalist religious opponents who seek to impose their worldview on the nation at large, regardless of whether or not their worldview is in the slightest way accurate.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 6, 2008 3:42 PM

193

King of Ireland wrote:

Are we teaching "pure Science" or not? I thought the idea was to teach pure Science?

The idea is to teach science and put it in a relevant context so that students can understand why what they are learning is important.

Especially in introductory classes, where the goal isn't necessarily to make scientists. Intro classes routinely address the history of the science, and other issues such as practical applications, effects on society, technology or other cultural, social, or political aspects of the field.Of course they cover the science, that is the bulk of what the material is and should be, but they often teach a little bit about why the field is important. Think about it. Would you even want to learn about relativity if you didn't understand the enormous impact it had? You could, but imagine what you'd be missing.

You guys are caught. There will always be "inferences" and "philosophies" interjected into this. Do not claim "pure Science" anymore in your claims about the way evolution is taught. College class or not.

You are confusing teaching context with teaching pseudoscience. Talking about the social relevance of science is not the same thing as using science class time for teaching pseudo-scientific malarkey like ID.

They teach the science, and sometimes they teach about the science. Do you see the distinction?

Posted by: Leni | April 6, 2008 3:58 PM

195

King of Ireland,

Perhaps this comment about the particular text you are referring to will reinforce Leni's comments above about the difference between teaching science and teaching about the context of science (to save space, I've quoted only the part that refers directly to this book):

. . . Biology: The Network of Life by Michael Mix, Paul Farber, and Keith King urges college biology teachers to present science as "lineages of questions."1 This historical perspective emphasizes the dynamic nature of science and encourages students to see that new problems arise from older ones. Throughout the textbook Mix, Farber, and King place contemporary issues in biology within a fairly detailed historical context that includes social, cultural, and intellectual dimensions.

It sounds like the mention of Creationism in the quote you offer from the book may be a portion of one of their studies of social and cultural interactions with science. That would not qualify, I think, as an intrusion of science into religion any more than your own discussions of the political and social and cultural issues involved is an intrusion of one field into the other - that is, not at all an intrusion. If the analysis I quoted above is correct, then the book would appear to be doing just what Ed said - pointing out a political/cultural controversy, not a scientific one. The book then doesn't appear to be a good example of the problem you see in the way some scientists relate science and religion.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 6, 2008 4:58 PM

197

KoI, are you suggesting that schools not even be allowed to acknowledge the social controversy? How do you suggest schools handle the issue of creationism? We're all in agreement that evolution should be accurately taught and that creationism, including ID, should not. So how do we engage students who have already made up their minds that evolution is bunk before they've even walked in the door? There are a lot of lies and misconceptions that need to be cleared up. You've listed many of them. Often times the kids bring these ideas with them into the classroom.

When I was young I went to a fairly progressive Protestant church. They taught the Old Testament as largely parable. There was not much mention of Hell and lots of New Testament love and tolerance. Yet even there I was introduced to creationism in Sunday school as early as age 7. (Actually I got kicked out for asking too many difficult questions about dinosaurs. Imagine the geeky little boy from Jurassic Park and you'll have a good mental image. I guess I started this fight kinda early.) I can only imagine how bad it is in less progressive churches.

You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions from one out of context quote. You mentioned you'd take a look at other biology textbooks to see how evolution is being taught. I look forward to your report. But I get the distinct feeling that if you're looking in schools for the primary source of confusion about evolution then you're looking in the wrong building.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 6, 2008 9:29 PM

199

KoI has stated that he determined to prove two things: one, that science is encroaching in areas it shouldn't and two, humans are special. Notice - determined to prove.

The first is a creationist projection - it is they who are encroaching boundaries. It's not science's fault that it doesn't support the bible. Neither does astronomy, geology, geometry, dentistry, medicine or ballet. What do we do - rewrite reality so it's half-way between reality and the bible? Because that is somehow unbiased? Half-way between reality and fiction is actually still fiction.

The second point (that humans are special) is a real problem for you. And you claim that you will not believe anything that undermines this claim. So it looks like a real impasse. If you won't change your mind about either of these points and you are determined to prove the generous posters are hypocrites, zealots and liars then it seems an argument is pointless. You HAVE to be open to changing your mind.

You seem to be caught up in this irrational belief system that says if proponents of one side of an argument are bullshitters then, in order to be fair, we must treat both sides as bullshitters. How is this fair?

Posted by: debbyo | April 6, 2008 10:42 PM

201

King of Ireland posted:

I think your caught here Ed. Cannot have your cake and eat it to. This text is bad. I am not saying you are a liar or anything like that by the way. I think you are honest just perhaps blind to the weaknesses of some parts of your case. I actually agree with you on most of this. But if all the bull is going to be taken out of this it needs to happen on both sides. If not the "religion" charge is going to stick here soon. I think they might even be setting you guys up for that.

I think you are projecting. I think you are honest but perhaps blind to the weakness of some part of YOUR case. You haven't said exactly what the "bull" is in evolution. You haven't said what is so bad about the quote from the book. To just keep repeating that it's bad does not make your case.

It might help your case if you wrote a list of exactly what the problems are (as you see it). Then provide evidence that they are problems. If you have no evidence, then you must entertain the possibility that you are wrong. Which is a cause for celebration. Because you no longer have to hold onto a false idea and you've added to our knowledge. BUT if you start with an assumption, for example that humans are not animals, and ignore all evidence to the contrary, then you will remain "blind to the weakness of your case".

Not changing your mind in the face of evidence (or lack thereof) is a trait of the fanatic.

Posted by: debbyo | April 6, 2008 11:33 PM

203

Ed stated:

"I don't see even the most tenuous connections between that quote and the questions you asked above."

I pointed out in a previous comment that absurdity of using the word "Creationist" to describe and complex group of people that disagree on a lot. It is also a lie to say that all "creationists" reject evolution as a theory. The vast majority recognize most claims of the theory of Evolution. The only contention for most is common descent and macro evolution. There are more than two camps in the political controversy. This makes it too simple. It makes is Scientists against Creationists.

Look I come from a very cosmopolitian place. The "Creationists" around here are a small minority. The PHD's and Scientists have all the power. Maybe that is not the case in some small towns. I have to go for today I am busy but I will come back to this tommorrow. I have to think about some of the questions people asked anyway.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 7, 2008 8:24 AM

205

KOI said:

The only contention for most is common descent and macro evolution.

As Dave said, that pretty much is evolution. If you don't agree on those then you reject evolution.

I think you are taking the passage you quoted in the wrong way. "Creationist" is used there as a synonym for "Young Earth Creationists". A more subtle definition includes old-Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, etc., but by and large when you say "Creationist" you pretty much mean YECs. It's possible that later in the book they go into more detail, or it's possible that the authors wanted a very high-level overview and didn't want to get into nit-picky details.

On an unrelated note, KOI, if you want a block of text to stand out as quoted, like I did for yours above, surround that block of text with :blockquote; blah blah blah :/blockquote; tags, replacing the colons with a less than symbol and the semicolons with a greater than symbol. More here. It will make following your comments much easier for the reader.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 7, 2008 9:08 AM

207

Abby stated:

"Perhaps this comment about the particular text you are referring to will reinforce Leni's comments above about the difference between teaching science and teaching about the context of science (to save space, I've quoted only the part that refers directly to this"

So the converse should be true as well. The difference in teaching Creation and the context of Creation. If it is going to come up it needs to be explained.

Dave S. stated:

"Common descent (macroevolution) is the very core of the theory King. Of course we hear all the time how Creationists accept 'microevolution'. "

Theory of evolution in general including abiogenesis, theory in general not including abiogenesis, thoery in general for inorganic life, theory in general for organic life? Of the many other facets of a complex subject?

Jeff Herbert stated:

"I think you are taking the passage you quoted in the wrong way. "Creationist" is used there as a synonym for "Young Earth Creationists". A more subtle definition includes old-Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, etc., but by and large when you say "Creationist" you pretty much mean YECs. It's possible that later in the book they go into more detail, or it's possible that the authors wanted a very high-level overview and didn't want to get into nit-picky details."

The nick picky details like using one word to described probably 10 groups of people at least that all think differently. What if I said Scientists reject God or athiests are murderers? People would go nuts.

My Pet Slug,

You just lumped three distinct groups all into one as far as Creationist. I also have never said that all who accept evolution are atheist. I did say that this 100 years of court battles is a pissing contest between atheists and rigid and usually moralistic creationists. The politics that is. The key to victory is to paint whatever it is as being the "Creationists" at it again with a different spin. This usually is fairly accurate but more and more misses the mark in describing things. They keep getting shot down because of their political agenda.

There is a controversy here. It is among Scientists. Even if you take ID out of it. There are all kinds of disputes. Another thing why did this textbook not bring up Nebraska Man and other hoaxes into the context of all this? Why not more clearly explain the controversy sorrounding some of the fossils?

Debbyo stated:

"Not changing your mind in the face of evidence (or lack thereof) is a trait of the fanatic"

I have changed my mind on many things since coming on this site. This is garbage.

Sadie stated:

"Whatever origins humans may have are utterly irrelevant to the issue of human rights."

What a naive statement in a world where some mad man just tried to kill off a whole race of people is pursuit of "creating a new man" based at least in part on his understanding of origins of man and his irrational dehumanization of Jews. He stated they were animals. Same thing in Rwanda.

Ed stated:

"Who, other than those opposed to evolution, are confusing abiogenesis with common descent?"

Many, many Scientists I have talked to that want to bring up Science to prove their is no God. Like I said I live in a place that has all kinds of Scientists. They are the most arrogant bunch I have ever met when discussion origins, God, and the like. They claim that Science says things about all this that it could never say. They claim a level of certainty about things where there is little level of certainty.

They are not confused in their minds but they know most people are and use "evidence" from one aspect of evolutions or origins to talk about the other. One has almost no certainty and the other has more and the equate the both. I already said that most people I have known. ( I was only Christian in the last 9 years) when they think of evolution think of origins of the Universe. That is what I thought when I first came on here.

I was like wait a minute how can these people be so sure about something that no one could ever know for sure like how the first speck of life and where it came from? I am tired of discussing this. That quote in the text makes "Creationists" look like stupid people who dare challenge "Science". Think what you want.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 7, 2008 1:52 PM

209

Bee:

"Okay, it's time to call BS: who are these "many, many Scientists?" In what capacity, under what circumstances, and in what comon endeavor, did you "talk to" them? What, exactly, was the topic of discussion? And on what grounds do you treat them as a "representative sample" of "Science?"

D.C./Baltimore area. John Hopkins, UMBC, NIH, Georgetown University Medical Center, The lab where all the DNA samples go to, and all the bio tech crap in Northern Virginia...... The context was one of discussing God, the Bible, and when they brought it up, Science. I have literally talked with hundreds of thousands of people about these subjects. Quite obviously, living in an area that has more PHD's per capita than anywhere else there is a good chance you will run into someone who is a strict evolutionist and many time it is a very good chance that that person is an atheist.

Religion is a taboo subject in the schools here. It does not come up period. Mainly because of the influence of the types of people I just described. So stories of School Boards being stacked with Creationists, kids being persecuted for being atheist or Jewish, and other stories I have heard shock me. Well not so much after having spent some time in Western Colorado. I had no idea what anyone thought like outside this area. It is very unique in many ways.

Just like any group, Scientists are more bold when they are well represented and live around other highly educated people. To be fair I should change my statement to people well educated in Science. I am not sure what Scientist actually means. If it is PHD's then I have talked to a lot but not that many compared with people who work around Science. I should be accurate with my terms too. What do you consider a Scientist?

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 7, 2008 2:25 PM

211

KoI, I just want to point out that the following quote you attribute to me, was in fact posted by JuliaL. Credit where it's due and all.

Perhaps this comment about the particular text you are referring to will reinforce Leni's comments above about the difference between teaching science and teaching about the context of science (to save space, I've quoted only the part that refers directly to this

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 7, 2008 3:23 PM

213

ABBY,

Sorry.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 7, 2008 3:31 PM

215

Okay, KOI, I've officially lost my patience for this game. Your objections to evolution are just as fundamentalist and misguided as those of more hardcore YECS, you just have different objections (where the latter's objections are based on literalist interpretations of Genesis, yours seem to be based on your belief that humans are "better" than other animals). You have demonstrated that you are utterly closed to anything that contradicts this attitude of yours.

What a naive statement in a world where some mad man just tried to kill off a whole race of people is pursuit of "creating a new man" based at least in part on his understanding of origins of man and his irrational dehumanization of Jews. He stated they were animals. Same thing in Rwanda.

Neither you nor I knows where or how exactly humans and any other animals originated and it does not matter ultimately. The truth, KOI, whether you like it or not, is that humans *ARE* animals. Listen carefully: this fact DOES NOT justify murder, genocide, racism, rape, etc etc and so on. If you are unwilling to see how this can be, then I can't help you.

I think you are basically a good guy and I wish you no harm, but I'm done with this conversation. I don't know how Ed, Abby, and others have continued as long as they have without having their craniums explode.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 7, 2008 4:23 PM