Denyse O'Leary

Here’s the reason I asked why human evolution should be taught in school:

I just came across this fact: Human evolution: Little is known other than basic outline

Contrary to widely heard huffing, there are huge gaps in our understanding of early humans. In Nature’s 2020 Visions (7 January 2010) Scroll down to Leslie C. Aiello, and we learn

Most of the recent effort in hominin palaeontology has been focused on Africa and Europe. But the announcement in 2004 of the small hominin Homo floresiensis in Indonesia was a warning that we are naive to assume we know more than the basic outline of human evolutionary history. … Go here for more.

Sorry to be so long judging this one, but there were 143 posts and I had several local issues to deal with at the same time. Now, to business: The winner is Collin at 8. His succinct entry appears below. I would also have awarded a prize to EvilSnack at 48, for this entry, but I only received one copy of David Berlinski’s The Deniable Darwin. I will see if I can procure another copy, but if not EvilSnack may contact me anyway. I have other prizes on my shelf.

Winners need to be in touch with me at oleary@sympatico.ca, with a valid postal address. Their names will not be added to a mailing list. There is no mailing list.

Here’s Collin:

Human evolution ought to be taught in schools because it is one of the best cases for common descent. This is probably a result of the extra interest among scientists concerning human evolution.

Even creationists and students sympathetic to ID ought to be taught the best argument for Darwinism so that if they want to argue against it they do so against the best scenario the opposition has to offer. Otherwise, those supportive of traditional Darwinism will sense a straw man argument and end up being inoculated against further, more refined and honest arguments.

Some careless creationists in the ’80s made this mistake causing further, more compelling arguments to be dismissed before being further evaluated.

Human evolution, being taught, does inform students of a lot of ideas that are not necessarily against ID or even creationism. Presumably even creationists (most of them) will concede that homo erectus did exist as some kind of now-extinct species. Students can be presented with the fact of the bones (or lack thereof) and they can make their own conclusions. My hope is that teachers will present evolution’s best arguments but not endeavor to indoctrinate students. Maybe that is a fine line, but it can be done, and is the honest way to go about it.

What swayed me was Collin’s emphasis on hearing both sides honestly represented by their own advocates. If schools do not teach students to evaluate on that basis, they are not worth the money we spend on them.

Consider a simple example: Most days, I ride the Toronto Transit System, which features a vast array of busboard ads and subway posters advocating every cell phone offer imaginable. You can be sure that the sales person will not emphasize strongly to the customer, “Our offer is the cheapest – but, of course, we do sign you up for three years, and it costs you $300 to cancel.”

The salesperson’s competitor does that. The competitor shouts from busboards, subway posters, and billboards, “No contract, no cancellation fee!” That sets the customer thinking about what to ask next time, doesn’t it?

Cell phones are a minor matter, of course. But later in life, the student will deal with job offers, marriage proposals, mortgage offers, investment advice, medical plans …. The advocate’s offer can only be evaluated by hearing alternatives, clearly spelled out.

One of my major objections to “Darwinism-only” biology education is that – apart from the fact that I don’t think it is true – it is not a good way to teach.

Other comments follow: Read More ›

Here, Access Research Network has published the Top Ten Darwin and Design Resources for 2009. Most interesting. As executive director Dennis Wagner comments, “I would never have predicted that an atheist would name a book about intelligent design as one of the top books of 2009, while another atheist would write a book defending intelligent design? This is a sign that open minds in the academic and scientific communities are beginning to take the evidence for intelligent design seriously,” (Note: The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here, and the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, Read More ›

I see where Evolution Weekend, brainchild of the Clergy Letter Project, has come and gone again: Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic – to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. Finally, as with The Clergy Letters themselves, which have now been signed by more than 13,000 members of the clergy in the United States, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion Read More ›

A while back, I wrote about a self-absorbed female Darwinist* who was misshelving Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution in the “religion” section of the bookstore, to make some odd personal point:

Peer review, mere review, and smear review

Andrew Sibley here discusses a thoughtful article by Fred Pearce in the Guardian (02 February 2010) on the climate change scandal, an article which had also been mentioned to me by a kind reader recently. The article takes a critical look at peer review, a well-justified critical look in my view.

I have written about the problem with peer review here, and would recommend Frank Tipler’s paper on the subject.

The basic problem is that the peer review process, intended to enforce quality, can end up enforcing mere orthodoxy or, worse, mediocrity. Or worst of all, as in the now-famous climategate e-mails, it can lead to a classic “bunker” mentality.

I would be inclined to treat all science-based dissent as legitimate. The mere fact that some scientists cannot replicate others’ work or support their conclusions is not evidence of incompetence or dishonesty. It may lead to useful corrections or valuable new information.

Of course, if someone claims that climate change is caused by space aliens, an evil plot by a minority group, or proof that Jesus is coming again soon, I would say, please, this is not science. Science is about evidence from nature.

I was trying to remember recently what peer review reminded me of, and then I suddenly remembered: Read More ›

Listen to these, and don’t have a fight with someone on your cell phone while driving:

1.

Moving the Goalpost: How Darwin’s Theory Survives

It’s easy to win the game when you can move the goalpost.

On this episode of ID the Future, biologist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells explains how Darwinism, unlike football, has only one rule: survival of the fittest. The fittest are those who survive, and Darwinists are determined to survive at all costs—even if it means moving the goalpost.

Go here to listen.

(Note: This one is quite interesting because Wells talks about how his observation that a specific type of speciation needed by Darwinism has not been observed was recently distorted in a science mag to say that speciation – as such – has never been observed. This tells me that the commitment of many scientists to Darwinism is not to the idea of speciation as such, but to a broader philosophical commitment to a method by which it must happen, a method that supports broader philosophical ideas. Remember that 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists – no God and no free will.)

2.

Is the Cell Like a Computer?

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Dr. Donald Johnson, author of Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity. As both a chemist and a computer scientist, Dr. Johnson explains how the cell uses programming code, much like a computer, and he elucidates how the information is processed and converted from proteins into DNA. Listen in as Dr. Johnson shares the science of how the cell is like a computer.

Donald E. Johnson holds PhDs in Computer & Information Sciences from the University of Minnesota and in Chemistry from Michigan State University. He can be reached at his website,ScienceIntegrity.net.

Go here to listen.

(Note: In two important ways, cells are not like computers. Read More ›

I have appended comments to these stories, chosen by a vote among knowledgeable people. Please note that this year, the stories were divided into science and media and culture, as there was too much happening to keep the two lists together any more. So I will only comment on the media stories and leave the science stories to others. This version does not include the links, for which you must go here. Here’s #1.

1. Texas Requires Critical Analysis of Evolution. In a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution, the Texas State Board of Education voted in March 2009 to require students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence” and specifically required students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations. “Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned,” said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. The Texas board was influenced by the testimony of multiple Ph.D. scientists and academics who spoke Read More ›

2. Louisiana Implements Academic Freedom Act. The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) voted unanimously on January 15, 2009 to adopt rules implementing the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the landmark academic freedom bill passed the previous summer. The Louisiana Darwin-lobby didn’t give up, and it was not until September, 2009 that rules respecting the intent of the law were finally safeguarded. The rules approved by the BESE allow teachers to use supplementary materials to teach controversial scientific theories without threat of recrimination. According to Discovery Institute education policy analyst Casey Luskin, “This is another victory for Louisiana students and teachers academic freedom to learn about scientific controversies over evolution and other topics in the curriculum.” Several Louisiana Read More ›

3. Polls Show that Americans Overwhelmingly Support Academic Freedom in Evolution Education. A nationwide Zogby poll taken in January 2009 indicates that support for the freedom to teach the controversy about Darwinian evolution cuts across religion, party affiliation, political ideology, and educational levels. A large majority of respondents (80%) agree that teachers and students should have academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, with more than half (54%) saying they strongly agree. Only 16% disagree. Says Dennis Wagner, ARN’s Executive Director, “Although some media consistently portray support for the freedom to discuss both sides of the evolution debate as the view only of conservative Christians, these poll results paint a very different Read More ›

4. The Darwin Bicentennial Bust. One of the biggest media stories of 2009 was actually a non-story. Apart from the special issues of several science magazines and a couple TV programs celebrating the Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his theory, there was little true public adulation of Darwin. Some of the big planned media events such as the Ida fossil, turned out to be a scientific bust and left Darwin’s theory with a black eye (again). Rumors of revolutions in biology and a post-Darwinian world began to appear in the scientific literature in a year in which we were supposed to be celebrating Darwin’s theory. Even Simon Conway Morris said in the journal Current Read More ›

6. California Science Center Sued over Cancellation of Darwin’s Dilemma Film Showing. Amid allegations that they were pressured by colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Southern California, the Huntington Library and elsewhere, California Science Center cancelled the October 25th IMAX showing of Darwin’s Dilemma, then refused to disclose public documents in the matter. In November 2009 the American Freedom Alliance, a non-profit group, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against a state science museum for cancelling the event exploring topics of evolution and intelligent design. The group says its free speech rights were violated when the CSC abruptly reversed its decision to allow the showing of the pro-intelligent design documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Read More ›