The fiercely split Kansas Board of Education voted 6 to 4 on Tuesday to adopt new science standards that are the most far-reaching in the nation in challenging Darwin's theory of evolution in the classroom.You may want the courts to stop this immediately.
The standards move beyond the broad mandate for critical analysis of evolution that four other states have established in recent years, by recommending that schools teach specific points that doubters of evolution use to undermine its primacy in science education.
But remember that democracy works too:
Voters on Tuesday ousted a Pennsylvania local school board that promoted an ''intelligent-design'' alternative to teaching evolution, and elected a new slate of candidates who promised to remove the concept from science classes.ADDED: It's too simple, however, to point to what happened in Dover, Pennsyvania as proof that democracy is all the correction that is needed. That vote took place in the context of an ongoing trial:
For the last six weeks, the teaching of intelligent design has been challenged in federal court by a group of Dover parents. They said the concept is a religious belief and therefore may not be taught in public schools, because the U.S. Constitution forbids it. They also argue that the theory is unscientific and so has no place in science classes....We have to take into account the effect of this litigation on the voters:
The trial, which attracted national and international media attention, was watched in at least 30 states where policies are being considered that would promote teaching alternatives to evolution theory.
1. It may have educated and persuaded voters that teaching intelligent design is a bad idea.Without lawsuits (and the threat of them) the democratic process would play out differently.
2. Even if they still like the policy, they may want to avoid the bad publicity the litigation brought to their town.
3. They may still like the policy but be averse to the expense of the litigation.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
I went to a Catholic school in Annapolis, Maryland, that taught evolution in science class, and creation in religion class. I'm stunned that public school boards are unable to make this distinction.
Umm, isn't democracy at work in Kansas, too? Surely the Kansas Board of Education was as duly elected as the Pennsyvlania local school board. Or does democracy only work when the outcome is the way you want it and the courts invoked for when the outcome isn't? (Or was your tongue planted firmly in cheek about using the courts? If so, er, never mind.)
There isn't a whole lot of fear of litigation in Dover. Activist conservatives went shopping for a school district by promising they would bear the costs of litigation. Check out what these conservatives believe the role of the court is: (via Arthur Silbur, Libertarian)
HARRISBURG, Pa., Nov. 3 - For years, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan visited school boards around the country searching for one willing to challenge evolution by teaching intelligent design, and to face a risky, high-profile trial.
Intelligent design was a departure for a nonprofit law firm founded by two conservative Roman Catholics - one the magnate of Domino's pizza, the other a former prosecutor - who until then had focused on the defense of anti-abortion advocates, gay-rights opponents and the display of Christian symbols like crosses and Nativity scenes on government property.
But Richard Thompson, the former prosecutor who is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Center, says its role is to use the courts "to change the culture" - and it well could depending on the outcome of the test case it finally found.
Can you believe what these conservatives want the courts to do? Is there no honor amongst thieves?
Of course, Bush the Panderer, eggs them on. WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
The people of Kansas don't deserve to learn real science.
If they want to learn ID instead of real science - let them. Just don't make me pay for their welfare when they can't get a job.
You get the govenment you deserve.
Starless,
I’m talking about the school board here, not science. In both instances, a democratically elected school board determined, or will determine, what will be studied in the schools; presumably the elections represent what the people want, no matter how foolish you think that is. (Personally, I see no harm in questioning theories, even a theory as firmly entrenched as evolution, and I don’t quite equate Intelligent Design with alchemy or astrology.) I don’t see anyone’s civil rights being trampled on as a result of this election and so I don’t think lawsuits are quite in order just yet. Maybe Ann’s later point is valid, that the threat of lawsuits affects the democratic process, but this is still a process, not an end result. If it doesn’t work out this go-round, the other side will get their shot at it. Not pretty, but freedom seldom is.
There's a lot more evidence to back up astrology than there is intelligent design.
Why not teach astrology?
Why not teach the flat-earth theory as well? I mean let's present two theories, that the earth is round and that the earth is flat, and let the students decide.
Why don't we teach alternatives to the moon landing? Let's teach the theory that it was all staged.
Why don't we teach about UFO's while we're at it as well?
Or does democracy only work when the outcome is the way you want it and the courts invoked for when the outcome isn't?
I think the answer is obvious from the comments.
"Or does democracy only work when the outcome is the way you want it and the courts invoked for when the outcome isn't?"
What I'm raising in this post is the question of how broadly the establishment clause should be read. One of the arguments for reading it narrowly is that the democratic processes will already work to preserve many of the values that we may want to expand the clause to protect. There really is a lot of controversy about what the clause means, and the question of what democratic majorities will do if they are less restricted by constitutional law really affects the debate. If I believe majorities, left to their own preferences, will import a lot of religion into government, it will make me more likely to support a broader reading of the establishment clause.
You know, it's funny seeing how the Darwinists are scared of their shaky theories that they won't allow anything to challenge it.
I've blogged about this at Conblogeration.
I think this has to do with the conflation of science as a discipline and process with scientific naturalism. Science educators are the ones who brought discussion of origins into science classes, but they want to limit the discussion to a favored viewpoint. If you're going to talk about worldview and origins, teach the controversy. Present the best case for evolutionary theory, recognize that you're living in a country where the majority of people have sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with materialism, and discuss problems with atheistic evolution and challenges people have presented. Or, just don't talk metaphysics in Physics.
You know, it's funny seeing how the Creationists only in the United States are scared of their shaky bible and call for answers from mystical beings that they won't allow scientific and rational thought processes to challenge it.
If you're going to talk about worldview and origins, teach the controversy. Present the best case for evolutionary theory, recognize that you're living in a country where the majority of people have sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with materialism, and discuss problems with atheistic evolution and challenges people have presented. Or, just don't talk metaphysics in Physics.
Agreed. Do it your blessed church though on your dollars please, not mine. In my taxpayer funded *science* classes, teach Karl Popper, teach empirical evidence, teach the scientific method.
When Sagan says it's the cosmos stupid and nothing but the cosmos, I understand that to mean that science will answer questions based on evidence, and falsifiable theories.
There are millions of Americans that with no paradox believe in G-d, or don't, and who believe in science and evolution. No paradox. Keep your rank corrupt politics and religious viewpoints out of the science classroom.
Do fund, if you wish, a religious sampler course where you teach a good sampling of the various creation myths of the world. Including pastafarianism.
Evolution has been updated and corrected from the moment Darwin made his mark. You need only look through past issues of Nature and other journals of biology to see how various concepts of evolution have been challenged and modified. It is a living and breathing scientific theory, and 'intelligent design' is nothing more than an attempt to paralyze it.
It's silly to call scientists "evolutionists" just as it'd be silly to call them "plate tectonicists"--another more recent theory that affected multiple disciplines of science.
While discussion about the establishment clause is lively and relevant, any arguments for intelligent design carry about as much weight as those for a geocentric universe or a loch ness monster.
If I believe majorities, left to their own preferences, will import a lot of religion into government, it will make me more likely to support a broader reading of the establishment clause.
Aha! Sounds like an admission that all these "philosophies" of constitutional interpretation are so much hogwash...all that really matters is getting the result you want.
I recommend the two posts here.
The sticking point, I think:
I suppose what bothers me is this insistance on just giving up when the questions become too difficult and leaving it all up to God, because had we done that at many points along our history we'd have been robbed of many of our greatest achievements and discovery. If there is a God the last thing I'd expect he'd want us to do is accept ignorance in our name, it's as much a subversion of the faith as intelligent design is a subversion of science.
I'm told that professors of archaeology regularly teach their students that one can easily distinguish between a rock and a pottery shard because the latter shows evidence of design. Are they teaching religion? Hmm.
Keep your rank corrupt politics and religious viewpoints out of the science classroom.
Ah, Quxxo, there's no discussion you can't turn into an ugly and pointless diatribe.
In my taxpayer funded *science* classes, teach Karl Popper, teach empirical evidence, teach the scientific method.
Sounds good to me. Can we just stop there, though?
When Sagan says it's the cosmos stupid and nothing but the cosmos, I understand that to mean that science will answer questions based on evidence, and falsifiable theories.
Hmmm. Apparently not. How exactly did good old Carl determine scientifically that there's nothing but matter? And if that's more than a scientific position, what's it doing in a science class? Atheistic materialism is a faith position, just as much as your pastafarianism. So teach both or neither, but not Saganism only.
There are millions of Americans that with no paradox believe in G-d, or don't, and who believe in science and evolution.
I myself don't happen to have any problem reconciling scientific investigation with belief in God. I only have a problem with science educators exercising a monolopy on metaphysical viewpoints that will be taught in science class.
If you want to teach scientific naturalism, go ahead - but make sure to also throw in ID, pastafarianism and Zoroastrianism for all I care. Just don't pretend it's science when it's a worldview.
Seems to me the basic question is: does strict adherence to scientific principle in discussion of the deepest questions of life (Who are we really, where dd we come from etc.)in the science classroom gradually push people (taken in general) away from religion?
And if it does, is that okay? Or is it a serious issue?
Given that my new hobby is understading conservatives, I don't necessarily begrudge those who at least raise the issue, as long as they do it honestly. In fact I could even see them as courageous.
Although I'm not totally confident of my starting point, the characterization of those opposing ID in the science classroom. Because I gather the IDers claim to be scientific too. But I don't think that totally kills the whole comment; maybe it does. It's difficult to say, I must say.
I know it's science class we're talking about, that was part of my question. I didn't think it was necessary to add - maybe it was, I might have been unclear - with other ideas, more subjective ideas, covered in other classes. Does that way of approaching the teaching inevitably push people away from religion over time.
I have no idea at all of the specifics of the Kansas case. What I'm trying to do is feel where the IDers may be coming from. Based on my instinct that they're not evil.
Someone earlier said ID was invented to paralyze evolution? Huh? Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, and Newton.
Pastor jeff is right. Most believers in ID are able and willing to discuss. Yes there are caricatures out there -- squeaky wheel types.
And whomever said evolution involves no worldview is ignorant. EVERYTHING involves a worldview. Not having a worldview is in and of itself a worldview so let's not pretend that there's no faith involved in evolution. It's still a theory in which some conclusions are being jumped to. I'm fine with that, but don't pretend it's not so.
Oddly, being called an "idiot" by the likes of the (admittedly brilliant, but "brilliant" isn't "wise") Brian Leiter does not deter.
Most believers have room for a Creator and some degree (many variations) of evolution because we actually debate these things. The "evolution-only" types want only to talk of their industry er... theory and completely exclude any suggestion of a Prime Mover.
Who's close-minded again?
I think I basically understand that version of their motivations, too, although the description of the science disagreement was helpful. But I shy away from the totally cynical view of who they are and what they're trying to promote.
By the way, aren't there some branches of physics that come close to pondering something similar? I think I remember an article a long time ago talking about how some physicists begin to wonder if they aren't uncovering some evidence of some kind of directive consciousness or intent at a very basic level.
And actually, instinctively, the way you summarize the debate on the source of order, at a gut level I'm not totally horrified by the way you describe the ID approach. Of course if they are dishonest that's not excusable. I would guess some are and some aren't.
The Nat'l Review folks are totally aghast at ID, as far as I can tell. They wish it would go away, but they seem to consider it a relatively minor irritation.
It's like I've sad before: the right's crazies are like the whacked out aunt in the attic everybody knwos is there. The left's crazies are like termites, and the owner seems to keep ignoring the signs of their impact.
And actually, there are days I almost prefer the right's crazies. On an integrity I almost trust them more.
I should clarify, Starless, that I'm sure groups and motivatioons like you describe are part of it, even orginated it. But I'm not sure that's all there is; and as you say, there might even be a more generous description of the hard-core adherents available.
Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Jerry Falwell, I'd actually be more worried about Noam deciding he needed to turn me over to someone someday. In some sort of hypothetical Omega Man world, I mean.
(Anthony Zerbe was a very left-based villain in that one.)
In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards.
-Mark Twain: Following the Equator; Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar
Anyone who believes in intelligent design hasn't studied the duck-billed platypus. - me
although I don't believe in ID, i do think discussing it rationally should be possible in schools. One should also be able to discuss UFOs, alien abductions, etc. UFOlogy is almost a religion too.
My favorite evidence proving the existence of a higher power is the way almost all kittens understand the purpose of the litter box nearly immediately.
Why would they have the knowledge so ingrained?
And I don't buy the "well they go in dirt naturally" argument. I'm talking about the way they almost all go, "Oh great, thanks! I'll just go in here from now on and ignore those other sources of dirt scattered around the house!" Weird.
This whole topic may in fact be most interesting to me as a part of a comparison of crazies.
Anthony Zerbe could actually play Noam Chomsky, incidentally.
http://www.nndb.com/people/232/000025157/
This doesn't strike me as all that heated.
Pastor Jeff is so right... "I think this has to do with the conflation of science as a discipline and process with scientific naturalism."
This is where World View comes in. Scientific naturalism (or some variation) is a World View. A World View is whatever pattern a person uses to explain and predict how the world works. A scientist can have profound faith in God, but someone can also be a scientist who's World View includes scientific naturalism and does not allow a place for God.
Conflating the two things is not the error of one side but of people on either side. There *are* people who believe that science is not compatible with religious faith on both ends of this. In essence, they are in agreement.
It would do us a great deal of good, though, for the rest of us to make a serious effort to use language that separates the concepts, solves this "conflation" problem. "Evolution" is not the same thing as origins and accepting the scientific reality of evolution does not, at all, require giving up faith in God... or even that God created the natural world.
"Science educators are the ones who brought discussion of origins into science classes, but they want to limit the discussion to a favored viewpoint. If you're going to talk about worldview and origins, teach the controversy."
"Where did we come from and what does it mean?" is the scientific equivalent of the theological question "who is Melchezidek?" The speculation is great fun, but beyond the entertainment value what good is it?
Origins is a fun question for the scientist but it's not science. It's speculation. Unlike evolution, it can't be tested or observed. It can be investigated and should be. But should it be taught as fact to school students? Students who are compelled to attend the school and who have a Constitutional right to their religious traditions and beliefs?
What anti-ID people seem to miss so badly is that SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS SUCK. That's even in the NON controversial parts. There's no reason at all to indoctrinate students with the idea that we came from monkeys or jellyfish or whatever under the guise of explaining the scientific reality of mutating viruses or genetic inheritance or the creation of species.
I think the question of Melchezidek is about the coolest thing ever... but I'm not going to indulge in my speculative fun about him to a Sunday School class and defend myself with "It's in the Bible, it's theology, how dare you suggest I not teach theology in Sunday School!"
That would be stupid.
In case that wasn't clear... I don't think that Intelligent Design should be in any science text book.
But neither should evolutionary origins. Evolution, yes. Origins, no.
"Where did we come from and what does it mean," is a religious question.
Coco -
Some citizens brought it up, rather insistently. Specifically, what they brought for discussion up was that idea, the idea that how we think about "evolution" as accepted science vis-a-vis our inherent nature and possibility of a spiritual side is worth talking about.
You seem aghast we're talking about it; talking about it is their point. I doubt this will last forever. I don't see it having the staying power of abortion.
Your cat falls outside "almost all" or "most." Or she falls into that very large cat category "I know what you want and it is beyond me why I should comply, to be brutally honest about it."
Here's a suprising ally of those who believe that ID should not be taught in schools: the creation scientists at Reasons to Believe, an organization devoted to constructing a testable, scientific model for old-earth creationism---and who in general do not accept macroevolutionary theory (though they do accept microevolution).
Creation Scientist says Intelligent Design Has No Place in Public School Science Curriculum
Further explanation of their position is here.
I think we should sit down the IDers and the Darwin worshippers with WWE's The Rock. He could ask both sides why they think their side is right to which they would reply 'Well, Mr. The Rock, I think my side is right because.." and The Rock would reply..
"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! KNOW YOUR ROLE!", and then he'd powerbomb Pat Robertson and give The People's Elbow to the recently reanimatedCharles Darwin. The Rock would retain his title of The People's Championand the rest of the debate would be wholly comprised of a ninja vs pirate battle royale with Catcus Jack and Noah officiating whilst riding on the back of a Tyrannosaurus.
It would be the greatest televised debate of all time.
Starless---forget about ID, there have long been turf wars even within Creation Science... the folks I quoted above are old-earth creationists, and the press release (the first link) even labels as "ludicrous" the young-earth creationism belief that the earth is only thousands of years old.
Actually, starless, since religious people generally reproduce at higher rates than non-religious people, it seems to me that the group that could most accurately be defined as "eating their young" are the folks sterilizing themselves with negative fertility rates.
Which, of course, has some interesting evolutionary implications. Survival of the fittest and all that.
;-)
I haven't read the Kansas guidelines, but it seems like they are only saying that ID is what people of a certain faith believe rather than Darwinism.
Ho hum. It's just another thing parents will need to discuss with their kids, just like they've been discussing all the left-inspired dogma of the past two decades.
Just to reiterate - I don't think ID is science, nor do I think it necessarily belongs in a science class. The problem is the conflation of the scientific method and a metaphysical theory of origins and purpose, scientific materialism or naturalism - e.g.,
When Sagan says it's the cosmos stupid and nothing but the cosmos, I understand that to mean that science will answer questions based on evidence, and falsifiable theories.
That's not science, that's materialism - the belief that all observations can be explained by purely material causes and that no supernatural reality exists. Science can no more prove, test or falsify that claim than I can jump to the moon. And ironically, this kind of assertion is exactly the same as ID.
If you want to teach materialism, fine; just don't call it science, and don't lie to students by telling them that science has proven your materialist philosophy. Either get it out of the science classroom or at least allow people to challenge the theory (which is all the Kansas guidelines do, anyway).
Undecided, your comments are myopic. Lots of species became extinct before hominids evolved. It is the natural course of events for species to die, just as it is for individual organisms.
The Earth has been warmer in the past than global warming models predict it will be in the near future. The Earth has experienced climatic change on a more rapid and devasting scale than global warming predicts. Hell, the extinction event that allowed the dinosaurs to evolve wiped out 90% or so of all living species. That level of destruction surpasses what happened to the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago, and that took a great g-d-damn big rock traveling at huge speed impacting the Earth. I'm not saying that there aren't bad things attributable to hominids, but get a grip, and some perspective. It's not the end of the world!
Circular arguments...
Of course scientific evidence is accepted or rejected -- facts have no worldview. The interpretation of those facts, since they are interpreted by humans, is affected by worldview. People push Evolution as if it were fact when it is not a fact, but a theory. People believe in evolution when they push it as a fact (which requires some faith since it is only a theory. I'm well aware, resigned or whatever there are no empirical proofs of God, though I think one day that will change (based on faith of course). ID is not science in that there is no proof of God's existence to satisfy those who must see with their eyes before they claim knowledge. The debate is pointless, but if you're going to teach origins, then the physical and metaphysical are going to bump into each other.
"You can't have it both ways--present "ID" in scientific terms, claim that it should be judged on the same footing as a scientific theory, and then turn around and say, "oh, but I don't think it's science"."
I don't think that Pastor Jeff is doing that at all. I think he's pretty much saying what I'm saying (though I could be wrong about that.)
Parents see a threat to the faith of their children in the way that science is taught. It's not an imaginary thing. It's real. "Where did humans come from and what does it mean" is not an innocent question of biology.
Science limits itself to the natural but this is often conflated with the notion that this isn't a limit on Science but rather a definition of truth. Not that Science explores the natural world, but that nothing beyond the natural world exists.
I don't think ID should be taught in the classroom at all. But if the text is going to talk about origins or meaning, then it's only fair to allow equal time.
But better would be if the text books and teachers could be counted on not to present Science as the answer to all questions, including the philosophical and religious ones, such as where we came from and what it means.
Evolution isn't origins and origins isn't evolution. Would it really be that disasterous to leave origins out of it? The space in textbooks is limited... I'm sure those four pages could be put to good use examining something else in more depth.
1: What business is it of people not living in Kansas what Kansas teaches? What is it about "liberals" that makes them so all fired intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than they do?
2: Let's consider a different belief: the belief that none of the differences between women and men in scientific achievement are caused by genetic differences between men and women.
You know, the belief that Larry Summers was crucified for questioning.
When it comes to asinine ideas totally unjustified by science, I'd say that belief is at least as loony as anything offered by the IDers. Shall I go to court to crush that belief?
3: There is a lot that science simply cannot explain about how life came into being (here's a simple example: provide an evolutionary path explaining how tRNA could have come into existence). Until science builds reasonable theories (not merely hypotheses) for all those issues, the belief that science can explain how life came into existence is just another profession of faith. It's rank hypocrisy to complain about Christians pushing their faith, while encouraging scientific materialists to push theirs.
Scientists using the scientific method have figured out a lot. But they do not understand everything. They certainly don't understand everything about biology, or evolution, or the origins of life. If people would stop claiming that it is all understood, and show a bit of basic humility about what is and isn't known, I think we'd all get along much better.
I went into this in more detail on an earlier thread of Ann's, but to some extent, ID is an answer to places in evolution and cosmology where the classical view just assumes things happened a certain way, but can't prove it. Yes, we can see how a single mutation, if marginally beneficial, can flourish. But does that work with 20+ so far apparently independant mutations many of which don't appear to have been overly beneficial? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a divine being pushed things along there.
And that is how I would teach ID. A quarter or so of standard evolution, and then at the end, when the teacher is telling them where the frontiers are, to throw this in just to get the students thinking. Maybe 15 minutes out of the quarter. More than that, I would think would be wasted time.
"(here's a simple example: provide an evolutionary path explaining how tRNA could have come into existence)"
Rather than repost, I'll point you towards the comment that I left on a similar thread here.
You're falling into the same trap that Behe lives within... you're pinning the test for whether something happened on whether you can imagine HOW it happened.
This is the classic "god of the gaps" fallacious argument:
Advocate: "Process 'A' looks like the work of a creator! Since you can't explain it, it must be intelligently designed"
Scientist: "Ok, out of curiousity, I'll go study that..."
(time passes)
Scientist: "Here's a logical and plausible scientific explanation for how that might have arisen... it's made up of several steps as follows..."
Advocate: "OK then, what about Process 'B'! That's certainly unexplainable!"
Scientist: "No, we've known about that for some time, here's the ninth revision of the currently prevailing explanation..." (detailed explanation follows)
Advocate: "Never mind that, surely you must accept that Process 'C' is evidence of a designer! No one has yet written a paper on exactly how that came to be!"
... and so on, ad infinitum.
At some point, if you're intellectually honest, you need to examine the underlying PREMISE that's being used... namely, that if you don't know how, you think that's evidence that it's not possible.
Coco: "My extremely conservative catholic education saw no dispute here - science was taught separately from religion."
There is a context there, even in the Science class, that God exists. The school was a Catholic school. The building, the teachers, everything declared an acceptance of God active in the world. Science class concentrated on science and the best ideas that scientists had at that time to explain the world.
Who is going to worry overmuch about kids coming home convinced that Science disproves God?
And we are talking about *kids.* They get weird ideas. I know my high school Biology teacher didn't stand a chance, we opened the book to the picture of the monkey people gradually changing to a modern human man (we've all seen that picture, right?) the future homecoming queen raised her hand and said "We didn't come from monkeys." our teacher was obviously annoyed at this and sputtered some reply or other and went on. Anyone who wanted to just ignored him. (Poor guy, that happened to him a lot.)
But then there was one of my friends. Not popular. Not going to get into a discussion that would draw negative attention to herself. The same teacher showed a movie in class about discovering past lives through hypnosis. After class I tried to tell my friend that this was unscientific garbage. She could not be convinced.
Two points *proved* to her that past lives were true... the film was shown in science class and the people in the film wore lab coats.
What matters most to me about that incident, though, is that I didn't tell my Mother about the hypnosis and past lives film until I was over 30 years old. It never even occured to me that I ought to mention it.
Can anyone really, honestly, claim that teachers don't come up with weird, inappropriate stuff? Do you not *remember* being in high school? Do you ever wonder what your kid isn't telling you?
Jody,
"Theories" are things that have been rigorously tested, and passed all tests. Hypotheses are ideas that have been proposed, but not really tested.
Macroevolution is more of a hypothesis than a theory. The idea that science can actually explain how life came about is a hypothesis, and a very weak one (try to explain how tRNA came into existence. You can't translate RNA into Protein without them, but until you're translating RNA into Protein, they serve no purpose).
But both are taught as theories.
When I was in high school, the color changing moths were offered as "proof" that Darwinian evolution takes place, despite the fact that they prove no such thing (when the pollution got cleaned up, the population's color quickly reverted to the previous color). And Darwinian evolution was presented as an accepted fact.
When I got to college I learned that Darwin's theory of evolution was false (he believed in gradual change, the fossil record is entirely lacking in evidence of such changes. Last I checked, the current Pravda was "punctuated equilibrium"). But that people were positive that evolution was correct, because anything was conceivable, except for the thought the science might just not be able to explain where we came from.
So, Jody, how many high school textbooks teach that Darwin was wrong about gradual evolution? How many of them discuss all the "gaps" in the fossil record. How many point out that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology, since whatever survives is presumptively labeled "the fittest"? How many high school textbooks teach the truth about evolution, which is that it's an interesting hypothesis, occasionally useful, that still needs a lot of work before it can be considered solid? Any?
Science is a tool. It's a wonderful tool. But it's only a tool. It's not the be all and end all of existence, and there's no reason to believe that it can explain everything.
The belief that it can do so is an article of faith. And I see no reason to believe that faith is superior to all other faiths.
What gives? What accounts for the intemperate attacks on Pastor Jeff by Quxxo and Starless? Pastor Jeff, after all, was only making a philosophical point, and a serious one at that.
But rather than addressing the Pastor's point in a thoughtful way, Quxxo and Starless resort to ad hominem attacks: "Keep your rank corrupt politics and religious viewpoints out of the science class room", "Again I refer the the pig and his makeup", and "...people like the parents you talk about and Pastor Jeff look at the Theory of Evolution and say 'This contradicts Genesis, it can't be so.'"
One can infer two things from their attacks on Pastor Jeff. First, Starless and Quxxo, wittingly or unwittingly, are proponents of a theory of reality that can best be described as radical philosophical materialism. That is, their view of reality is that the only things that exist are things that consist only of atoms and blind forces that interact with atoms. (Just why these blind forces are constrained by abstract mathematical laws is a question that politeness tell us should not be put to a committed materialist.)
The second inference is that they view Pastor Jeff's point as quite threatening to their belief of what constitutes reality. However, instead of a rational counter-argument, we have emotional tirades like those quoted above. Why? I suggest that both Starless and Quxxo may be suffering from SPUD--severe philosophical understanding deficit.
As a remedy for this disorder, I suggest, hopefully with Pastor Jeff's blessing, that over the coming winter both Starless and Quxxo read and study the works of George Berkeley. I fear Quxxo is hopeless; but perhaps the good Bishop will provide an antidote to Starless' naive materialism.
It is difficult to grope for any sensible response to your statement that:"When I got to college I learned that Darwin's theory of evolution was false."
Except to wearily counter: "Nearly everyone educated in science agrees that there is neither controversy nor debate over the fundamental premise of evolutionary theory".
Jody, You need to work on your reading skills.
I didn't say "I learned in college that evolution didn't happen", I said "I learned that Darwin's theory of evolution was false."
Darwin believed in gradual change. There's no evidence, at all, that evolution happens the way Darwin thought it did, and a good deal of evidence from the fossil record saying it doesn't happen that way.
As for "Nearly everyone educated ...", read this NPR story about what happened to a scientist who merely published a peer-reviewed article by someone who supported ID with data from the fossil record.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
Scientists who are secure in the knowledge that they're right don't act like inquisitors, they simply use the data to prove the other person wrong.
Is evolution the best scientific answer to how we came about? To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Is it proved that science can answer the question "how did we come about?" (the same way, for example, that it's been proved that cholera is caused by a certain bacterium)?
No, it's not.
Science currently has some lovely hypotheses about how we came about. Scientists have managed to shove most of the available data (with some straining) into holes that "support" the hypothesis, and they've managed to mostly successfully ignore the rest of the data (for a good summary of the data they ignore, see "Kicking the Sacred Cow", by James P. Hogan).
But they haven't come close to dealing with all the data. And they haven't even started addressing some of the questions they'd need to address to have a hope of coming up with a worthwhile explanation of how we came to be here (e.g. explaining how tRNA came into existence).
You are free to cling to the religious belief that science will conquer all, that science will answer all the questions. But others are free to cling to their religious beliefs, too.
Don't bitch about them clinging to their beliefs when you insist on clinging to yours.
Show me a textbook that says: "The best scientific explanation we have for how life came about is evolution. This is what it says. This is where it's been successful. This is where it hasn't been successful."
But if you try to use that textbook, the "Darwinists" will foam at the mouth about "IDers pushing their religion on the rest of us."
And thus we get the current mess.
The idea that science can actually explain how life came about is a hypothesis, and a very weak one (try to explain how tRNA came into existence. You can't translate RNA into Protein without them, but until you're translating RNA into Protein, they serve no purpose).
Again, this is an example that demonstrates the logical flaw in relying on personal imagination as the metric for determining what is possible.
Just because you can't imagine a purpose for tRNA (or structures which were the precursors to it) prior to the need for the translation of RNA into protein, that doesn't mean that tRNA or something similar COULD NOT HAVE EVER ARISEN.
Some evolutionary changes tend to arise through scavenging of existing code, retasking and reusing bits and pieces along the way for purposes that may have little, if anything, to do with their current functions.
If the along-the-way steps happen to grant an advantage, they will tend to propagate more quickly, but so long as they don't provide a marked disadvantage, there will be no reason for them to selected against (no negative pressure).
That's why techniques like scaffolding, duplication and divergence, and advantages becoming necessities allow structures to arise that appear to be chicken-and-egg type problems, but in fact often are not.
The test for whether something could not have happened is not whether you can imagine or figure out how it happened. Relying on such a test is logically fallacious.
But exactly such a test is required as the lynchpin of "intelligent design". It's a game of forever-regressing-goalposts where the advocates want to hold up a succession of things that they declare are "impossible" for evolution to have created... yet when it is shown how an example is possible, they don't consider their "intelligent design" hypothesis to be falsified.
Because it can't be falsified (by design)... and it's therefore not proper science.
Time is short, so I'll make one last response, then leave the field to you all.
1: Dr. Sternberg.
Dr. Sternberg published a peer-reviewed article that showed problems with Evolutionary theory. What was the response? Was it: "wow, this guy has published an article that teaches us things we didn't know"?
Was it "this guy published a clearly flawed article. Here's the data to prove it wrong"?
Nope, it was "this heretic published something we don't want to hear. Let's burn him at the stake." So much for Judy's "Nobel Prize" claims.
And so much for claims that this is about "science". They didn't attack him for publishing a sloppy paper, they attacked him for publishing something they disagreed with.
Anyone think they would not have disproved the paper, if they could have done so?
Any of you "pro-science" people noticed that they didn't disprove the paper? Or do facts, reason, and logic just not matter to you when it comes to your religion of evolution?
2: tRNA
Barry writes a whole bunch of pretty stuff, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I'll try again, putting it in small words so he won't unintentionally fail to understand me (there's nothing I can do, after all, to keep him from willfully refusing to understand).
If "Darwinian" evolution is correct, then everything came about by random chance plus natural selection. That means that tRNA, the "charger" proteins that specifically attach the right amino acid to the right tRNA, and the Ribosome (or some other place where the mRNA has tRNA lined up against it, and then the amino acids those tRNAs carry are attached together) all had to come about by chance. It also means that they all had to have other "jobs" before RNA -> Protein came about.
So, what were those jobs?
The burden of proof is on "science". Until scientists can propose reasonable explanations as for where that machinery came from, "assuming" that science will come up with an answer is a matter of faith.
Which is to say, those who claim that science does / can explain how we came about are pushing their own religious dogma, just as much the creationists are.
I'd like to see all the religious dogmas kept out of school science texts. But every time someone tries to get the textbooks to be honest, and point out the weaknesses, flaws, and gaps in evolutionary "theory", the "science" zealots go apeshit.
There's an old joke about a drunk looking for his keys by a light poll (rather than where he dropped them), because "the light's better over here." Science is a tool. It's a wonderful tool. But it's only a tool. It cannot answer all questions ("what's the best poem?" "What's love?" "Am I in love?" etc.). The question reasonable people need to ask is "can science answer the question "where did we come from?"
Whining that ID "isn't scientific" begs the question. Being scientific doesn't automatically make something correct. Being unscientific doesn't automatically make something wrong.
What matters is correctness.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा