…and this is a 
The Discovery Institute lies to educators
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 16, 2007 2:22 PM, by PZ Myers
The Discovery Institute is spreading misinformation again. They have a document that implies that it would be OK for schools in at least some states to "teach the controversy", by which they mean that it is alright for teachers to promote Intelligent Design creationism in their classes. I wonder if the DI would also consider themselves liable if any teacher followed their advice, and discovered that they were costing their district an awful lot of money, as in Dover? Somehow, I doubt it.
On the front page of their screed, they quote Charles Darwin: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." What they neglect to mention is the importance of that word "balancing": we have been balancing the arguments, and the scientific side weighs tons while the creationist side is a puff of air. They also omit any mention of facts on their side, because they have none. Darwin's quote is not advocacy for equal time for nonsense.
What they claim is that because a report on the NCLB claimed that students should be able to "understand the full range of scientific views that exist," ID is fair game for the curriculum. This ignores the fact that ID is not a scientific view and therefore has no place at the table. They also rely on a selective reading of state science standards. They claim that some indeterminate number of states allow the ID "controversy" to be taught.
Five states (Kansas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Minnesota) have already adopted science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.
Four states (Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.
Yes, both quotes are directly from the same Discovery Institute document. Would you trust an organization that can't count and gets confused by numbers greater than three?
My state is in there. I know the Minnesota State Science Standards, and pulled out the relevant one. In their document, the DI quotes one small part of this standard, and I've put that part in bold.
The student will understand the nature of scientific ways of thinking and that scientific knowledge changes and accumulates over time. |
|
This does not support the teaching of Intelligent Design creationism in the classroom. It is a general statement about the provisional nature of science and the requirement for solid scientific evidence to support our ideas. We no more expect our high schools to refute evolution than that they will deny cells, atoms, germs, plate tectonics, or the big bang.
In particular, note items 3 and 4, which the DI conveniently leaves out of their literature. There are criteria for recognizing scientific knowledge that include consistency, an empirical basis, logic, reporting, and falsifiability, and that there are methods in place to manage the process. The Discovery Institute's propaganda violates all of these and does not belong in our schools.
If a misinformed teacher tried to pull a Buckingham and insert creationism into Minnesota schools, at the urgings of the Discovery Institute, they'd be inviting a lawsuit that I'm confident would be slapped down hard. We've been through this before, with the Rodney LeVake case, and here's some surprising news for the DI: the creationists lost.
There's a more relevant standard in the Minnesota requirements that the Discovery Institute glossed over.
| The student will understand how biological evolution provides a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms, as well as for the striking molecular similarities observed among the diverse species of living organisms. |
|
If something is to be taught in our schools, that's the degree of specification we expect. The DI seems to think that the fact that we encourage critical thinking means they've got carte blanche to insert any old bogus bit of pseudoscience into the curriculum, and are urging teachers to do an injustice to the standards of their profession.
I read that as incitement to commit a crime.
Politics
Comments
The only way to actually teach about controversies in evolution is to ignore ID, creationism, and spend a lot of time talking about mainstream research on evolution. There always is controversy (usually lots of it) within any science; that's how the thing works. That this is not so is The Big Lie of the creationist/ID movement.
Posted by: QrazyQat | November 16, 2007 2:39 PM
Wait a minute... the Discovery Institute LIES?!!
Say it ain't so!
Posted by: jfatz | November 16, 2007 2:39 PM
Oh please, DI, just for me, put that belief to the test, oh please, oh please, oh please... /Schadenfreude
--thalarctos, who just got back from an unbelievably sobering risk management seminar about the legal and insurance risks of implementing an evidence-based approach
Posted by: thalarctos | November 16, 2007 2:42 PM
I agree PZ.
This is a brainwashing we see in the United States. We are taught it since we are practically born. There is a "Fair and Balanced" lie, where there is always, "two sides to the story."
In the real world there are some stories where there is only one actual story, no "sides." It would be stupid to see:
"Cyanide poisoning bad for you? The other side to the story, tonight, on Fox News."
There may also me 3 "sides" to a story, or several hundred. It all depends on the subject. Babies either come from "The Stork" or they do not. There is no other side to that freakin' story...
Posted by: Lago | November 16, 2007 2:44 PM
What I learned last week: it doesn't matter whether the DI considers themselves liable. It only matters what the judge thinks. Nothing else.
So please, DI, just for me, please test it! please, please, pretty please!
kthxbye!
Posted by: thalarctos | November 16, 2007 2:46 PM
I've half a mind to start a campaign to force churches to give equal time to Cthulhu in their services. Preach the controversy!
Posted by: Ted D | November 16, 2007 2:46 PM
What, exactly does the Discovery Institute hope to discover? Since they are approaching the whole issue of 'evilution' from a stance of already knowing the answer. From now on I will refer to them as the Deficient Institute... Deficient in science, morals, education and common decency to their fellow man.
/rant
Posted by: Justin Stanley | November 16, 2007 2:46 PM
I think this is more evidence for my denialists shouldn't be debated post. It's clear they will never put forward anything of their own resembling scientific effort, or even give it the old college try. It's the appearance of a debate that they desire and that is it. False parity 'R Us. Whatever happens, this must be opposed.
Posted by: MarkH | November 16, 2007 2:49 PM
To me it seems the DI is just wanting PR of any kind, even if it is bad. Bad PR is still PR.
Posted by: zer0 | November 16, 2007 2:50 PM
Here's the thing:
even if organisms were intelligently designed and not evolved, ID *still* wouldn't be science.
Posted by: Aloysius Horn | November 16, 2007 2:54 PM
Too funny. In the Dover case, it ended up costing the school district $2 million dollars. The plaintiffs graciously waived $1 million of that.
It definitely sounds like a case of inciting school districts to violate the US constitution and end up in court. Again.
I'm sure that there will be more court cases. There have been several since before the one in Pennsylvania. You would think organisations devoted to teaching and learning could learn from history but they never seem to.
The DI should include a copy of their Wedge manifesto with their package to make it clear what their ultimate goal is, but they aren't going to.
Posted by: raven | November 16, 2007 2:57 PM
I'm shocked. What is it about Christianity that makes its followers so dishonest?
Posted by: AgnosticOracle | November 16, 2007 2:58 PM
Well, it's not the first time a bunch of religious wackos tried to conscript others to do their proselytising for them.
Next they'll be promising indulgences for teachers who 'teach the controversy.'
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 16, 2007 3:04 PM
Oh goodie, more wasted time on invisible entities. Since time is one of the the only commodities that cannot be replenished, shouldn't taxpayers get a losses incurred refund from the Discovery Institute each year?
Posted by: danley | November 16, 2007 3:08 PM
This is where we could have a whole lot of fun playing with the authoritarian mindset.
Hey, if Darwin was right about that, wasn't he right about everything else, too?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 16, 2007 3:10 PM
Question:
What are the holes in evolutionary theory?
A friend of mine, when talking about this subject, was pretty strong headed that ID shouldn't be taught (this is weird for him, because its the only subject where we agree, for him, GW is fake, Bush is sane, and all illegal immigrants should be shot on site). However he is also pretty strong minded that the holes in evolution should be taught. And I agree, but I don't really know what they are.
Are the 'holes' just a lack of a complete transitional fossil record from first cells to humans? Or are there real areas where there are strange occurrences that evolution doesnt quite answer (and surely God did it doesnt really answer either).
anyone know?
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 3:13 PM
Oh gee, they quote mined Darwin. I suppose scientists should feel free to quote mine the bible then. Wasn't there a commandment in there somewhere about....not lying?
Posted by: raven | November 16, 2007 3:14 PM
PZ, the folks at DI must truly hate you. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Karl Hungus | November 16, 2007 3:18 PM
This is a brainwashing we see in the United States. We are taught it since we are practically born. There is a "Fair and Balanced" lie, where there is always, "two sides to the story."
and
To me it seems the DI is just wanting PR of any kind, even if it is bad. Bad PR is still PR.
The media is so bad about the whole fair and balanced crap. Reporting on the new Florida Science Standards is horrible, with all sorts of "both sides" crap and downright false reporting. I keep finding gross errors and distortions in the news stories. It's obvious that in most cases the reporters assigned haven't a clue what they're reporting on and haven't the time or inclination to do some basic research.
For the latest load of crap, see: http://www.flascience.org/wp/
Posted by: Brandon | November 16, 2007 3:20 PM
Blake Stacy: Brilliant :-) Not that they'll ever admit to that, though ....
Posted by: Pdiff | November 16, 2007 3:20 PM
"However he is also pretty strong minded that the holes in evolution should be taught.
As the school guidelines posted by PZ already testify too, student are (and have been for some time) been taught about the scientific process, and that that process is ongoing and never complete. The problem with teaching all the "holes" is that more often than not those "holes" are simply far too complex for a high school teacher, let alone a high school student to fully understand. The scientific curriculum at that age should be focusing on simply getting across the scientific method and why it is important, in addition to providing the basic background in physics, chemistry and biology required for further study at college level.
To be honest, I think most students don't become fully comfortable with the nuances and limitations of the current thinking in their respective specialist fields until they have successfully submitted and defended their Ph. D dissertation.
Posted by: DSKS | November 16, 2007 3:37 PM
There's another aspect to the idea of "balance."
Even where there are legitimate controversies, any comparison has to be done on an equal footing if there is to be any sort of "balance of views." Let's suppose there were any kind of alternative to the theory of special relativity--in college one would use the same empirical methods and virtually the same rules for theoretical modeling to "teach the controversy."
When "one side" wants to teach science, and the "alternative" rests on the belief that details are not important, "Causes" may be invoked when there is no hint that they exist detectably in any area, and ancient religious beliefs deserve to be respected for no other reason than that they are ancient religious beliefs, there can be no balance. The differing ideas aren't even on the same stage, let alone being comparable.
I suppose that "gaps" could be taught, on the other hand, but of course they can't be the same BS gaps that the DI zealously brings up to discredit evolution, for these come from the same lack of balance that Judge Jones ruled against. Anyhow, real gaps in our knowledge often are taught where they can be properly appreciated, at the college level.
IOW, "balancing" out the teaching of biological science attendant with its most comprehensive theory with a bunch of religiously-inspired nonsense fails to balance at the starting gate, at our willingness to actually question what we believe rather than to cling to ancient superstition.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 16, 2007 3:39 PM
The holes in your friend's knowledge...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 16, 2007 3:43 PM
Posted by: Leon | November 16, 2007 3:43 PM
Right on, Blakey Stacey. The more they lose, the more they quote Darwin.
(Hey! Sound bite! Sound bite!)
What gets me is that they simultaneously exalt the science standards of Pennsylvania as being friendly to ID, while continuing to whine about Dover. How does that make sense? (No, don't answer that!) ;-)
Posted by: Kristine | November 16, 2007 3:52 PM
Another headline with the same currency as this one: Snakes are Legless
And no, PZ, I'm not faulting the headline, because however monotonous it is to say that the DI lies, they just do it again on a nearly daily basis. The boredom this causes is no reason to quit, and headlines really should do what this one does, inform us about the article.
I'm jabbing the DI's lying ass.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 16, 2007 3:55 PM
I thought the New Mexico thing sounded fishy, because I graduated from high school there not long ago. I looked it up and low and behold!
http://www.nmlites.org/standards/science/index/html
I didn't see any reference to ID, but then I found this: http://pworld.thstateonline.com/?p=47
Anybody know what to make of this?
Posted by: Rubicon | November 16, 2007 3:58 PM
@ david #23
So, you are saying there are no holes? That is hard to believe. Theories do a great job of explaining the preponderance of evidence, but it is a rare case that it explains all of the documented evidence. Perhaps there is a nuance here and there as DSKS in #21 says. But what are they. A real scientist will say "Here are the areas that we simply don't know yet"
I have read up read through Talk Origins, I learned a bunch of stuff there. But surely there are things that have happened, that we have evidence for that still needs explaining...if there weren't, why are we still studying it?
So, forgetting whether or not it should be taught in high school (and perhaps DSKS is right, maybe its not HS material). Anyone know what the 'holes' are?
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 4:00 PM
Saying that the Discovery Institute is spreading misinformation is like saying that evolutionary biologists are spreading evolution. The DI is misinformation personified, and I think the best way to deal with them is not to dwell on their arguments, but to mock them for the lack of political effectiveness. They've produced no legislation, no reforms and their veiled threats to sue educators are clearly positioning statements with no real substance.
They are the Disappointing Institute, and we should focus on their failure to advance their own political agenda. That hurts the lawyers and the politicians a lot worse that arguing about 'dissents with Darwinism'. When we argue science with a bunch of non-scientists, it gives them a patina of respectability. We tend to lose PR points when that happens, unless our scientists are also skilled at the lawyerly reply. On the other hand, should non-lawyers focus on DI's failures to advance their own legal and political agenda, this will tend to undercut their effectiveness in general without ever putting the science up for (usually dubious) 'debate.' The stock question should not be 'what's the science?' but rather, 'why should DI, largely a bunch of lawyers, even be regarded as credible on scientific matters when they can't gain any traction in the courts or the legislature?"
My apologies in advance for our friends in the legal and political spheres who are effective, dedicated, ethical and supportive of science education.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | November 16, 2007 4:03 PM
I can't speak to the specifics (I'm not a science, just an educated layperson), but as I understand it, the "holes" that people refer to are:
1. Bits and pieces that they're not quite sure of in evolutionary theory. Basically, details they haven't quite puzzled out yet. There are controversies on little things, such as how much of evolution is long, slow development versus spurts followed by long periods of inactivity. These are usually pretty technical and not too interesting to the likes of me.
2. "Gaps" in the fossil record. I put gaps in quotes because where you draw the lines between species (and genus, order, family, etc.) is really a judgement call, and the line between one type of creature and another REALLY isn't as cut and dried as the creationists would have you believe. But, there are spots in the fossil record where we don't have an in-between specimen to show what happened in between point A and point B. The thing is that these spots get filled in gradually (e.g. Tiktaalik).
Both #1 and #2 are real, but neither is a structural weakness in the theory of evolution. People like the DI would have this sort of thing thrust into the schoolroom at a stage where it will confuse students more than it would inform them. And, it should be noted, that's the reason they're trying to get it taught at low levels of education, and not at college level.
Posted by: Leon | November 16, 2007 4:13 PM
(Um...ahem...I meant to say I'm not a scientist, not a science. Time to brew a pot of coffee.)
Posted by: Leon | November 16, 2007 4:15 PM
I'm not a science.
I guess that explains why I've always had faith in you, Leon. ;)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 16, 2007 4:20 PM
techskeptic: I think David was absolutely right with his comment (and to think I was going to devote a paragraph or two to what could have been boiled down to one sentence so well!). The issue here really has nothing to do with what the actual "holes" are in evolution and everything to do with what the Man on the Street thinks they are. He doesn't know what, say, punctuated equilibrium is, let alone care about what paradigm of evolutionary thought is passed on to children and teenagers. He just has vague misgivings about evolution, or he thinks it's counterintuitive, or that it leads to some bleak view of life and the role of our species. And all this can be traced back to a general misunderstanding of evolution.
Really, anyone who speaks of "holes in evolution" doesn't know what they're talking about. If he ever says "just a theory", then it will be confirmed.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 16, 2007 4:21 PM
It's funny, because I was just posting about the situation here in NM this morning. Although the standards aren't SPECIFIC in stating that the schools should "teach ID", there are standards here which SOME districts ((cough... RIO RANCHO... cough)) have taken as a free ticket to lunacy:
but my very FAVORITE part of the Discovery Document is the big bold letters on page 9 that states:
Sounds like they want to incite a few more districts to try it...
Posted by: dorid | November 16, 2007 4:22 PM
While we all got a good, satisfying rise out of the Kitzmiller case, each and every one of those trial cases is dangerous. As PZ (I think it was PZ) pointed out, when we win one of those cases, it just means we haven't lost anything. If we lose one of those cases, we're (potentially) in big trouble.
Posted by: Leon | November 16, 2007 4:27 PM
Good one, Brownian! I've been trying to come up with a witty comeback involving science, religion, laws, theory, or something, but ah well, it escapes me. Come on, finish brewing, my afternoon companion...ah, there, it's almost finished.
Posted by: Leon | November 16, 2007 4:32 PM
It may not be a binding legal precendent, but you can bet your sweet bippy that in future legal silliness any judge (and certainly the lawyers on the side of reason) will look to and cite the Dover decision.
Posted by: shiftlessbum | November 16, 2007 4:34 PM
Anyone know what the 'holes' are?
It's a nonsensical question. The ToE is not a complete theory and, because it is largely contingent rather than lawful, it never will be. To answer the question one would have to lay out all the possible evolutionary facts and remove all that are explained by the current theory -- that would leave the "holes".
You say your friend is pretty strong minded that the holes in evolution should be taught, but you don't know what they are. Well, why didn't you ask him what holes he was referring to that aren't being taught but should be? We aren't mind readers. Or are you or your friend foolishly implying that there's some sort of conspiracy to hide known "holes"?
But surely there are things that have happened, that we have evidence for that still needs explaining...if there weren't, why are we still studying it?
Even if we had explanations for all the evidence at hand, that wouldn't be the end of science, because science constantly uncovers new evidence -- we don't know everything that has happened, and we don't even know where to look for some of these things or how to characterize them ... yet.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 4:34 PM
I would like all science teachers to be able to read this very short statement at the beginning and end of each semester of science education:
"Intelligent Design is a caricature of Young Earth Creationism wearing a Lab-coat and Stethoscope."
Posted by: Jefe | November 16, 2007 4:36 PM
It's some kind of gaseous emission, to be sure.
Posted by: Warren | November 16, 2007 4:37 PM
Blake: Hey, if Darwin was right about that, wasn't he right about everything else, too?
That's an interesting point: they love to quote mint scientist, and say "see, a leading scientist(TM) agrees with us; ergo we're right" (Argument from authority), not once seeing what that implies regarding the opinions of most other scientists (and usually also the one being quotemined) who disagree with them. Also, whenever they want to belittle science, they call it a religion. Again, not seeing the connect that if science shouldn't be given any credence because it's a religion, what does that say about the demands they make for respect for their religion? Odd.
Posted by: AlanWCan | November 16, 2007 4:40 PM
Jefe;
Nice, but I much prefer; "Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo".
Posted by: shiftlessbum | November 16, 2007 4:41 PM
Leon:
Thanks. This is nothing more than detail with regards to chronology and specificity of fossils. If this truly is the extent of the 'holes', I'm truly amazed at how robust of a theory it is (I do wish PZ would chime in). those aren't holes at all. They are not things that evolutionary theory do not describe. they are simply things that are needed to further detail and round out the results of an evolutionary process.
Rey Fox,
i was trying to make clear in my original post that my friend does in fact agree with evolutionary theory, in fact he scoffs at his creationist brethren (he is catholic) and cheered the Dover Trial. but I think he rightly points out that most every theory has a dataset that it does not fully explain. for example they teach Newtonian Physics and the Bohr model of the atom, both of which, by todays standards are very coarse approximations of reality, we have done much better than this due to data that these models do not describe (near light speed physics, heisenberg effects, etc). It doesnt make the older model useless for their boundary condition, they just make them innaccurate. Maybe there is something like macroscopic vs microscopic differentiantion in evolutionary theory (see? if I were an expert in this, I would know the answer to this I am sure). something in one that does not describe the other?
It quite possible that 140 years of attacking evolutionary theory has made it the most robust scientific theory to date, and I'm cool with that. It would just be more robust science, a result of honest scientists, if some place like talk origins put up the real data that evolution doesnt truly describe (none of this "eye is too complex" nonsense). I mean stuff that they themselves admit requires that evolutionary theory need further work.
If there are inconsistencies in the theory, we should be honest about them, and study more about it to strengthen the theory. I realize that if we point out flaws in the theory, creationist nutjobs will point at it and say "See? Godidit". But we shouldn't let that get in the way of true science.
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 4:44 PM
It seems to me that claiming there are "holes in evolution" because not all the details are known is like saying there are "holes in quantum mechanics" because we don't know the exact electronic energy of benzene, for example.
Oh sure, we have pretty close approximation, maybe, but the variational principle tells us it's wrong (only the true wave function will give the right answer). I mean, isn't it a huge hole in quantum mechanics that we can't even apply it exactly for anything but the most trivial of systems?
Posted by: Pablo | November 16, 2007 4:46 PM
Most of them can't even fathom the scientific process...
explaining that you don't know the exact year a dinosaur died because of the nature of dating the fossils just emboldens them... "I want FACTS not GUESSWORK." I hear that alot.
Then try to explain that even being a million years off doesn't impact the study of fossils greatly.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 16, 2007 4:50 PM
A real scientist will say "Here are the areas that we simply don't know yet"
Not if they want to get any work done -- it would take too long to enumerate them.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 4:51 PM
truth machine:
Well, why didn't you ask him what holes he was referring to that aren't being taught but should be?
I did. I didn't get an answer. I giggled at that. But that doesnt mean that there arent any, it just means that he doesn't know what they are, and he assumes, like I do, that most every theory doesn't explain ALL the data. My asking what the holes in the theory are, have nothing to do with my conversation with him, it is my own curiosity. I'm not asking anyone to explain any particular thing, I am just asking what the greatest evolutionary minds think are problems with ToE.
It's a nonsensical question. The ToE is not a complete theory and, because it is largely contingent rather than lawful, it never will be. To answer the question one would have to lay out all the possible evolutionary facts and remove all that are explained by the current theory -- that would leave the "holes".
yes I agree. I don't understand why that makes the question nonsensical. Surely something has arisen over the last 140 years that made biologists go "hmmm...". Perhaps not.
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 4:51 PM
Oh, and I love the implication that evolutionary biologists aren't "real scientists".
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 4:52 PM
Surely something has arisen over the last 140 years that made biologists go "hmmm...".
Yes, many things.
Perhaps not.
You're getting very tiresome.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 4:53 PM
I am just asking what the greatest evolutionary minds think are problems with ToE.
That's a different subject from the question of what the "holes" are -- but then you've been told that several times.
yes I agree. I don't understand why that makes the question nonsensical.
Then you're agreeing to something you don't understand.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 4:56 PM
pablo:
It seems to me that claiming there are "holes in evolution" because not all the details are known is like saying there are "holes in quantum mechanics" because we don't know the exact electronic energy of benzene, for example.
Yes, that is true, if all the 'holes' are just the sort of details of chronology or fossil specificity that Leon was talking about. What I am wondering about is something that really is unanswerable by evolutionary theory.
for example: I know this has never happened. but if a fossil of a more advanced species appears below a fossil of a less advanced species. I realize this has never happened and is one of the things that makes the ToE so strong.
But is there really nothing that is of this caliber, even if it is only one instance? Truth Machine indicates that there are too many to enumerate. I presume he was simply refering to the number of gaps in the fossil record there are, but that is not what I am looking for.
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 4:58 PM
If we could just figure out a way to convert stupidity into electricity, the DI would power the world.
Posted by: Jessa | November 16, 2007 4:59 PM
Truth Machine:
huh???
You're getting very tiresome.
No one is forcing you to respond to me... or be a dickhead.
That's a different subject from the question of what the "holes" are -- but then you've been told that several times
No it isn't. you just interpreted what i meant by "holes" to mean "gaps" in the evolutionary records. Perhaps my previous post to this one will clear that up for you.
Then you're agreeing to something you don't understand.
no, I agreed at what it would take to understand where the weak points in a theory is. but there are thousands of scientists looking at evolution, they dont all have to look through all the data. Just one has to come forward, with an understanding of evolutionary processes and say "hmm...this is weird".
Oh, and I love the implication that evolutionary biologists aren't "real scientists".
I don't know where I implied that. It was never intended that way. If you interpreted something that way, that's your problem.
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 5:04 PM
It seems to me that claiming there are "holes in evolution" because not all the details are known is like saying there are "holes in quantum mechanics" because we don't know the exact electronic energy of benzene, for example.
There are those sorts of little holes in evolution, but there are much larger holes too, as large as major disagreements as to the role of endosymbiosis as an evolutionary mechanism, and everything in between.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 5:06 PM
as large as major disagreements as to the role of endosymbiosis as an evolutionary mechanism
There we go! that is what I was looking for and can look up. Its these 'major disagreements' I am looking for. At least its something I can look up? Is there a small list of "major disagreement" I can see somewhere (there can't be that many can there?)?
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 5:12 PM
No one is forcing you to respond to me... or be a dickhead.
No one is forcing you to post your repetitive and off-topic tripe ... or be a dickhead.
No it isn't. you just interpreted what i meant by "holes" to mean "gaps" in the evolutionary records.
No, I told you what holes are, and you said you agreed. Now you are talking about "problems"/"really is unanswerable", but the failure of a theory to be complete is not a "problem", it's the nature of science. And we certainly don't want to waste class time spending all day telling students what isn't known.
no, I agreed at what it would take to understand where the weak points in a theory is.
Like I said, you agreed to something that you didn't understand -- that's not what I was talking about, that you responded "I agree" to.
Oh, and I love the implication that evolutionary biologists aren't "real scientists".
I don't know where I implied that.
You said "a real scientist will say ..." while complaining about what isn't being said. The implication is clear to anyone who isn't a dunderhead.
Just one has to come forward, with an understanding of evolutionary processes and say "hmm...this is weird".
People say this all the time; just peruse the archives here.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 5:14 PM
PZ, I remember that in Dover it was pointed out that the fact Evolution was the only theory that was targeted was enough to infer a hidden religious agenda, which _might_ explain - although I admit I am not certain - why the standards you mentioned talk about other scientific theories like plate tectonics. Maybe it's just a way to introduce ID in the classroom without being accused of having a religious agenda. They want to give the impression of being fair and applying the "controversy" thingy to all the sciences, not just biology.
I mean, we all know Creationists are quite good at patching legal holes after all... Am I the only one to think that? Or maybe I'm just paranoid? ;-)
Posted by: Matthew L. | November 16, 2007 5:15 PM
there can't be that many can there?
What makes you think that?
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 5:15 PM
"Just one has to come forward, with an understanding of evolutionary processes and say "hmm...this is weird"." - Techskeptic.
They have. In many cases these oddities have lead to a breakthrough of some kind through research and observed data.
Some prime examples of things that have made Biologists say "Hmmm...this is weird." have been changes in HIV recently. Behe has been seen to comment on these "Hmmmm" moments about HIV, and been slapped down as incorrect or underinformed by scientists in the know about HIV mutation in recent years.
Many of the "Holes" or "Gaps" exist simply because of poor or incomplete understandings of portions of evolutionary science.
The Theory of evolution states simply that - "Organisms changed (evolved) gradually over time, and the main engine of this change (evolution) is natural selection." Now - practical applications of this theory in a variety of disciplines have led to heaps and heaps of experimental data and observations that have supported the theory.
To successfully learn the "holes" in the theory, one would have to become a multi-disciplinary savant. This very well could lead to a profound and in-depth knowledge of a variety of practical applications that have arisen from the theory and studies that have surrounded its application.
(deep breath)
And even at that point, the "holes" would not be evidence in support of completely abandoning evolutionary theory (a theory that has already led to a multitude of daily practical applications), but would simply lead to further research into why we don't know or haven't found the supporting evidence for the "gaps" in question.
Posted by: Jefe | November 16, 2007 5:17 PM
Why does the DI do this to itself all the time? Pain. Pain is the only way they can know whether or not they are still alive. (as an organization)
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | November 16, 2007 5:23 PM
I don't know how much more blatent DI has to get before they can be held liable for inciting to commit a crime. Why couldn't the Dover board sue DI for publishing intentionally fraudulent textbooks and insisting to school boards and churches that their ideas on education policies are legal? Or does DI somehow waive any such liabilities when they boast about the legality of their policies but then recommend against schools actually going to court over them?
If there's another court case in the future costing millions to taxpayers, someone should seriously start pointing fingers at the source of all this misinformation and inform the local public about how they're being screwed and used to push the crackpot agendas of the DI.
Posted by: Miguel Picanco | November 16, 2007 5:24 PM
I'm not a biologist. In fact, the only biology I study is my wife... and that's as far as I', going to take THAT.
I've taken a quick spin through their Educator's Packet... what a load of unmitigated B.S.! Back pedalling, side-stepping, mis-informing, and outright liying. I dread to think about what I'll find when I go through it in detail.
Right in their cover letter, for instance, they claim that "Evolution has a number of different definitions". Well, yes - but only ONE as it applies to biology. "Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such process as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift". End of story.
Ignoring their true aim for a moment, let's look at what DI *claims* to want - "Teach the Controversy". While in broad terms, a case can be made for this to be a controversy, I think that when all is sorted out, it's not even that.
Controversy, in the dictionary, is defined as "A prolonged public dispute, debate, or contgention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion."
What - to me at least - *implied* by this definition is that the differences of opinion are between equally knowlegable people.. Ergo, for this to be even considered a controversy, DI needs to get some serious science on their side.
How a bunch of dyspeptic lawyers and engineers can think to seriously tackle a structure so robust as Evolutionary Theory is beyond me. Perhaps they suffer from hypercubicalism and can't get a real job.
Since that is as likely to happen as the second coming, this can't be really called a controversy.
This is more a case of Luskin, West, Behe et. al. standing in a field and waving their private parts at us.
The problem is, we can't ignore them. They might sneak in to the kitchen and pee in our wheaties, and that would just ruin the whole day.
Posted by: Lurchgs | November 16, 2007 5:24 PM
jeesh,
OK. first lets agree that email/text on a message board is a crap way to communicate and very prone to misinterpretation since intonation and body language is deleted to large degree (well, we have italics and emoticons).
I never intended to not include evolutionary biologists from my "real scientists" statement. They were intended to be included.
I'm looking to understand the current list of "major disagreements" (to use your terms) in evolutionary biology. I used the term "holes" to describe this. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.
there can't be that many can there?
What makes you think that?
Ok. there are millions. What do you think are the top 5 major disagreements? I've got one so far.
p.s. I dont see how discussion of the controversies within evolutionary biology is off topic on the thread about how DI is intending to portray controversies as a means to get ID nonsense into schools. I'm just trying to discern real controversy from ID nonsensical controversy. I for one am not a real scientist (Evolutionary Biologists included), I am an engineer.
Posted by: techskeptic | November 16, 2007 5:29 PM
The Theory of evolution states simply that - "Organisms changed (evolved) gradually over time, and the main engine of this change (evolution) is natural selection."
No it doesn't. From Wikipedia:
The ToE is much broader than a single statement, and your single statement is woefully incomplete and isn't even accurate; see, e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 5:35 PM
Thanks Jefe.
Yeah, I read ERV about the HIV stuff (not that I could truly understand all of it! I'm grateful she wrote a laymans version!). That was great work on her part.
sounds like you agree with DSKS, teaching some of the current disagreements within the evolutionary scientific community is probably not high school material.
Posted by: Techskeptic | November 16, 2007 5:36 PM
I dont see how discussion of the controversies within evolutionary biology is off topic on the thread about how DI is intending to portray controversies as a means to get ID nonsense into schools.
The "controversy" they are talking about is evolution vs. ID -- not unexplored areas or internal scientific debates within the science of evolution. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 5:38 PM
""The Theory of evolution states simply that - "Organisms changed (evolved) gradually over time, and the main engine of this change (evolution) is natural selection." - Jefe
The ToE is much broader than a single statement, and your single statement is woefully incomplete and isn't even accurate; see, e.g.," Technosceptic
You better email this to Jerry Coyne Chicago U. It was he that I was quoting/paraphrasing when I typed that out.
Posted by: Jefe | November 16, 2007 5:39 PM
sounds like you agree with DSKS, teaching some of the current disagreements within the evolutionary scientific community is probably not high school material.
Note that the dispute between Abby Smith and Michael Behe is not a current disagreement within the evolutionary scientific community. (I'm not saying that you meant that it is, but just in case, as you seemed to slide from one to the other.)
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 5:41 PM
Eeep! I misrepresented Techskeptic above.
Post 67 should attribute the second quote to "truth machine"
Posted by: Jefe | November 16, 2007 5:42 PM
oftentimes it seems like dealing with stupid humans is truly as impossible a task as sweeping back the tide. Don't get me wrong, I'm stupid too. But then, so are you. It's built in to all of us.
this brings to mind an interesting study I was reading about.
Just google this, the title of the paper, it should be the first hit,
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments,
It's about metacognitive skills- in this case referring to the ability to observe your own skill or lack thereof and adjust accordingly.
Essentially what it shows is that (surprisingly!), the stupider and less skilled you are, the less likely you are to learn from your mistakes, EVEN IF you have your mistakes explained to you. It's not a very long paper, give it a go.
why do I mention it? Well, if only a few people are very smart, then that leaves a lot of people who aren't very smart. if all it takes is a few very smart and corrupt people to continue to de-rail conversations by continuing to contend that religion needs to be allowed the same footing as science, well, the many will continue to buy the garbage they spew and feel justified glomming onto their archaic nonsensical beliefs.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | November 16, 2007 5:44 PM
I was quoting/paraphrasing when I typed that out.
Which was it? Please provide a citation so it can be evaluated in context. If Coyne is saying that, he shouldn't be -- it would imply, among other things, that the Theory of Evolution has exactly the same content it had when Darwin first proposed natural selection as mechanism of evolution.