Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Signature in the Cell: Darwinist demands to rewrite product copy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But why should that be a surprise? Of course, Darwinists don’t want anyone to read Signature in the Cell. Darwinism is a tax-funded origins cult, especially noxious in countries like the United States and Canada, which do not have and – for good reasons* – do not want established religions.

Yes, I have in my files a recent brownbagged letter, written to Amazon by a Darwinist, demanding that the editorial description of Signature be altered to reflect Darwinist bias.

Some useless flunky actually assured the Darwinist that these changes would indeed be made.

When I protested, I received an insulting e-mail assuring me that the ‘Zon guys understand that I might be upset, but that Amazon does not “support or promote hatred or criminal acts.”

Upset? That doesn’t cover the half of it.

I am a Canadian free speech journalist. A minor one to be sure but we have been kicking butt up and down the country with benighted sons of ditches like him, and their arrogant bosses.

I have had a good relationship with the ‘Zon over the years, and sold many books for them. But … if they cave to some aggrieved Darwin scammer – just another tax burden, really – I am transferring all my business to Barnes & Noble, and I recommend that all good citizens do the same.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with me about Darwinism. Why on earth should these people have dictatorial rights over a private company’s business?

Oh wait, if you are a Darwinist, maybe you know that you are right, and you should rule, and that no one must be permitted to simply publish a book showing that your theories are inadequate to nature, without your interference.

Well then, the remaining good citizens must step into the breach.

*For one thing, countries tend to be more religious when the government avoids meddling. That’s why religious people here want the government out of religion. Except for Darwinists, who need to impose their unbelievable beliefs by law.

Anika Smith at the Discovery Institute also advises me that Meyer is World Magazine’s Daniel of the Year. I’m not sure how helpful that is. Basically, Darwinism is wrong no matter what one’s religion, unless it is atheistic materialism – in which case Darwinism is the only game in town, and tax-funded to boot. But re Daniels, I submit to more experienced judgement.

Also, from Evolution News and Views:

The continued success of Signature In The Cell has driven Darwinists crazy. They’re desperately making louder and ever more ridiculous denunciations of the book and anyone who might have the temerity to suggest people read it for themselves.

An interesting and informative back and forth has been taking place on the pages of the Times Literary Supplement, where last month noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recommended SITC as one of the best books of the year. Not surprisingly, he was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. Is this what passes for civil discourse on important topics now? Just ignore the arguments you don’t like? A pretty pathetic state of affairs if true.

Go here for the rest and for the links.

Never mind what you think of Darwinism. If you think that ‘crats are not smart enough to run your life and do all your thinking for you – join the revolution now.

Go here for intellectual freedom news from Canada.

Comments
This may not be the perfect place for this but Abel has published a new paper on what he calls the The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27 Sounds just like Bill Dembski's UPB. The paper is about the need for estimates of feasibility in some obvious domains, origin of life, but in any other area as well. Here is the abstract Abstract Background Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ? is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set. Conclusion No low-probability hypothetical plausibility assertion should survive peer-review without subjection to the UPP inequality standard of formal falsification (? < 1). There goes the neighborhood. No Darwinian proposition will survive this type of screening.jerry
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Nakashima @69. It appears that you are doing some interesting reading. I have not read anything by Nevin. Does he attribute Teresa's reputed faith crisis to a "dark night of the soul?"StephenB
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: But of course your assessment was that the Origin was secular and should therefore be permitted to be taught as science (whatever is still scientific about it is beside the point) in a science class (whether as history or not doesn’t matter).
This is Zachriel's very first mention of Origin of Species on this thread: "You have a very odd view of how a secular eduation works. Darwin’s Origin of Species is an important moment in scientific history. It shouldn’t be used to teach the state of current science, but it can be used to discuss that moment in scientific history." Your continued confusion is that you apparently believe non-secular books can't be studied in a secular education. This is simply incorrect. You can even study the Bible as part of a secular eduction. Indeed, any study of Western Civilization would have to include a thorough understanding of the Bible. In any case, Origin of Species is largely a secular work, and was intended as a scientific treatise for the scientific community. It does involve a discussion of prevailing Creation Science views of the time, mostly in opposition. Those aspects of interest to the study of science are secular.Zachriel
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Timaeus @99, Phenomenal post. You've certainly been more than fair in describing the inadequacies of the current educational climate. I also just wanted to say: I hope you continue to post here on a regular basis. I remember reading many thoughtful discussions between you, StephenB, and others from some time ago.HouseStreetRoom
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Timaeus: I see no evidence that lightning is guided. Its behaviour can be explained fully without reference to any redundant hypothesis of guidance.
That does clarify the matter somewhat. Many people would disagree, believing that God is in all things and that nothing happens without his Will. However, most people wouldn't try to claim they have scientific evidence to support this view, at least not since Franklin.
Timaeus: In the case of macroevolution, all the evidence suggests that no such process could occur, were it not either guided or front-loaded (front-loading being just guidance at a temporal distance).
The vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields strongly disagree.Zachriel
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Timaeus: Awww, and we were doing so well.
Clive Hayden deleted the previous response and insisted on a more direct answer. That's what you got.
Timaeus: Then you turned dogmatic.
It's not dogmatism. ID undermines science education because ID is not science. You asked. That's the answer.
Timaeus: So one trained scientists has uttered statement A, and another trained scientist has uttered statement not-A.
The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations in the relevant fields reject Intelligent Design. There are always contrarians. We could discuss the evidence, but that wasn't the question.
Timaeus: But that would be to argue that Behe’s position is false science, bad science, weak science, unsubstantiated science, etc.
ID is based on equivocation, hence it can be all of those things. Worse, it's scientifically sterile. It leads to nowhere. Worse still, it claims to be something it's not.
Timaeus: All kinds of statements made by scientists have been proved wrong, but have not been considered “unscientific” in form or content.
ID falsely claims much more than being mere speculation. (And as speculation, it's not particularly interesting. It's Creationism drained of its Divine Spark.)
Timaeus: So I’m trying to figure out why you wouldn’t want students to hear Behe’s views.
Because ID isn't science.
Timaeus: We’ve already established that his views don’t involve preaching religion or teaching catechism, so there’s no constitutional barrier.
It's been established that ID has been used as a pretext to undermine science education for religious purposes.
Timaeus: So are school teachers to be mere civil servants ...
Public school teachers *are* civil servants who are hired to teach a curriculum. There is more flexibility with adult students.
Timaeus: ... rather than motivators who encourage students to think and debate things for themselves ...
There are better ways to encourage students to think than to teach them pseudoscience as science. Perhaps in a class on rhetoric.
Timaeus: That’s the kind of thinking behind Fascism and Marxism.
Sure. Telling teachers not to teach the Flat Earth Theory is Fascism. Who's being dogmatic?
Timaeus: Possibly there is some proof that Darwinian processes can produce complex new cellular machinery, lying in some library book that I have missed.
That would take us afield of the appropriateness of teaching pseudoscience to schoolchildren. (There are scientific journals that can provide ample support for the Theory of Evolution, but for the basics, you should start with Common Descent.)Zachriel
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Your terminology is confused. You don’t teach Origin of Species any more than you teach Mendel’s Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden. They’re historical artifacts. In science, you teach the fundamental concepts as they still apply to modern biology. You may mention the historical context of their discovery.
But of course your assessment was that the Origin was secular and should therefore be permitted to be taught as science (whatever is still scientific about it is beside the point) in a science class (whether as history or not doesn't matter). It is not a secular book, with its many references to God and creation and the miraculous. To be consistent, it is not a secular book, and the religious arguments that it makes have no place within a secular scientific curriculum, in which case the book would have to be heavily edited, and would no longer by The Origin of Species once editing was finished. So your initial assessment that claimed that the book should be taught in secular education of science is wrong. The book cannot be taught as a whole, and maintain a secular curriculum, for it makes many many religious arguments. This fact cannot be denied. That you want it taught as historical is irrelevant to the question of the efficacy of a secular education from a book that makes repeated religious arguments.Clive Hayden
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Zachriel@ 98: I thought I answered your question about lighting indirectly, by implication, when I denied the legitimacy of the parallel between lightning and Darwinian evolution. But if you need a direct answer, here it is: I see no evidence that lightning is guided. Its behaviour can be explained fully without reference to any redundant hypothesis of guidance. In the case of macroevolution, all the evidence suggests that no such process could occur, were it not either guided or front-loaded (front-loading being just guidance at a temporal distance). At least, no formulation of unguided evolution yet in existence can explain the unguided emergence of anything more complicated than antibiotic resistance and longer finch beaks. That's not my fault. I'm not an overpaid and underperforming evolutionary biologist. If you don't like the fact that evolutionary biology is all promissory notes and very little accomplishment, don't shoot the messenger. Take your complaint to Coyne, Dawkins, Orr, etc., and tell them to get off their duffs and prove something, instead of offering purely qualitative story-telling about past events that can never be recovered, and past DNA that cannot be studied. Ask them to write the book that shows in detail how the camera eye and the avian lung were formed without any planning or guidance whatsoever. T.Timaeus
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 97: Awww, and we were doing so well. Then you turned dogmatic. How do you expect conversation to continue when you utter down-from-Mt.-Sinai statements such the ones which fill your post? Let's see now. Richard Dawkins, who has a Ph.D. from a legitimate secular university, and many scholarly publications, argues that random mutations plus natural selection are capable of creating complex new cellular machinery. Michael Behe, who also has a Ph.D. from a legitimate secular university, and many scholarly publications, argues that random mutations plus natural selection are incapable -- as far as the empirical evidence shows up to this point, anyway -- of creating complex new cellular machinery. So one trained scientists has uttered statement A, and another trained scientist has uttered statement not-A. Can you explain to me how a statement, thesis, or argument can be "scientific", whereas its negation is not? I can conceive how you could argue that Behe is incorrect. But that would be to argue that Behe's position is false science, bad science, weak science, unsubstantiated science, etc. That would not mean that his position is, in itself, unscientific. All kinds of statements made by scientists have been proved wrong, but have not been considered "unscientific" in form or content. (The arguments against continental drift, for example, were scientific, even though they were wrong. For that matter, the arguments against heliocentrism were scientific, though they were wrong.) So I'm trying to figure out why you wouldn't want students to hear Behe's views. We've already established that his views don't involve preaching religion or teaching catechism, so there's no constitutional barrier. I've just shown that it's logically incoherent to allow the statements of Dawkins to be taught, but not Behe's negation of those statements, so there's no methodological barrier. The only reason I can think of that you would object to including a discussion of Behe's ideas is that they are bad science, i.e., already falsified science. But to falsify Behe's science you would need to provide a demonstration that Darwinian processes can accomplish what they claim to have accomplished. In Behe's books, he gives reasons (entirely independent of any religious or philosophical commitment) for doubting that they can. Further, when scientific critics have tried to refute his reasons, he has replied to them at great length, showing why his reasons stand. He has not dodged any honest criticism (though he has ignored a lot of savage, low-class, vulgar, unscientific ad hominem criticism). He has been a model of humble scientific behaviour, which is more than can be said for some of his critics. So why exclude Behe from classroom discussion? Because, in your judgment, his science is bad? That's fine -- but what if some science teacher somewhere disagrees with you? What if, in that science teacher's judgment, Behe's arguments, even if not unassailable, are just good enough to warrant a five-minute mention in one class? Are you saying you want the political power to walk into that teacher's classroom and say: "I forbid the ideas of Behe from being presented here, and you will lose your teaching post with this school board if you exercise your independent professional judgment regarding science pedagogy"? So are school teachers to be mere civil servants, slaves of the state who blindly parrot the opinions endorsed by the state curriculum, rather than motivators who encourage students to think and debate things for themselves? That's the kind of thinking behind Fascism and Marxism. (Indeed, there is much of the kind of thinking that lies behind Fascism and Marxism behind many modern causes celebres, from Darwinian evolution through global warming.) Possibly I am missing something. Possibly there is some proof that Darwinian processes can produce complex new cellular machinery, lying in some library book that I have missed. Didn't I ask you about this? Weren't you undertaking to inform me where the books and articles were that show exactly how Darwinian processes can do this, or else to show me yourself how Darwinian processes do this? I don't remember your answer, but perhaps I missed the post. And if you *can't* show how Darwinian processes do this, by what right do you stand between teachers and students, when the teacher simply wants to inform the students of the facts, i.e., that Darwinian processes have not been validated for anything beyond finch beaks? Do you not want students to hear the truth? Would you rather they emerged from high school biology believing that Darwinian theory has proved things that it has not proved? Would you not rather that they were aware of the failures of Darwinian theory? Are you interested in science education, or propaganda? T.Timaeus
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Timaeus: I said nothing whatsoever about lightning being guided. Zachriel: Is lightning guided? Is it appropriate to say that there is no scientific evidence God uses lightning to punish the wicked?
I didn't see the answer to this question. It may help illustrate a subtle distinction in the use of the term "guided."Zachriel
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Timaeus: We have some agreement, that mentioning earlier scientific views, even when those views were partly grounded in religion, does not in itself constitute preaching religion, teaching catechism, or violating the principle of disestablishment of religion.
As long as you don't abuse your position to proselytize or diminish anyone's personal religious beliefs, especially with regards to teaching children. (There much more flexibility with adult students.)
Timaeus: Suppose that, after introducing Darwin’s theory in the way that you and I have agreed upon, and after covering all the usual bases of evolutionary theory (the contribution of Mendelian genetics, theories of drift, bottlenecks, DNA, mutations, various tree-of-life schemes, etc.), the teacher closed off the unit with a brief discussion (not an endorsement) of various critiques of neo-Darwinian theory and various alternative explanations for the integrated structures of life.
Generally, those critiques would be covered in context. In introductory courses, well-established science is largely covered with only broad outlines of areas under current investigation.
Timaeus: Suppose that one of the alternatives mentioned was intelligent design.
As there is no scientific support for Intelligent Design, it should not be part of the science curriculum.
Timaeus: Suppose that the teacher gave a judicious ten-minute summary of the ideas of Behe, and a similar summary of the ideas of Dembski and Meyer.
Behe et al. should convince their peers before their speculations should be taught to children as science.
Timaeus: Suppose that no endorsement of the theories was offered, and no connection of them to religion was made.
There is documented evidence of people using Intelligent Design as a subterfuge to undermine science education for religious purposes.
Timaeus: I ask you: where is the “religious” content in this?
Even if we grant the (historically inaccurate) Immaculate Conception of Intelligent Design, it's still not science and undermines the teaching of the actual science.
Timaeus: What harm could be done by such teaching?
Because it's not science, but pretends to be.
Timaeus: How does such a presentation negate or invalidate the evolutionary unit of the curriculum?
Because it gives the imprimatur of science to pseudoscience.
Timaeus: How does it undermine respect for science?
Because it's nonsense masquerading as science.
Timaeus: More important, might not such a presentation make the evolution unit more engaging to many students?
Dinosaurs and expeditions to faraway lands in the search of scientific evidence are plenty engaging. There's lots of great material. It depends mostly on the teacher.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: It is a book with many religious arguments, so it should only be taught as a historical relic in a history class, is that right?
Your terminology is confused. You don't teach Origin of Species any more than you teach Mendel's Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden. They're historical artifacts. In science, you teach the fundamental concepts as they still apply to modern biology. You may mention the historical context of their discovery.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Zachriel, Are you going to answer my last question about which class the Origin should be taught and in what form?Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 87: Good. Now we are getting somewhere. We have some agreement, that mentioning earlier scientific views, even when those views were partly grounded in religion, does not in itself constitute preaching religion, teaching catechism, or violating the principle of disestablishment of religion. Now let's move to the next step. Suppose that, after introducing Darwin's theory in the way that you and I have agreed upon, and after covering all the usual bases of evolutionary theory (the contribution of Mendelian genetics, theories of drift, bottlenecks, DNA, mutations, various tree-of-life schemes, etc.), the teacher closed off the unit with a brief discussion (not an endorsement) of various critiques of neo-Darwinian theory and various alternative explanations for the integrated structures of life. Suppose that one of the alternatives mentioned was intelligent design. Suppose that the teacher gave a judicious ten-minute summary of the ideas of Behe, and a similar summary of the ideas of Dembski and Meyer. Suppose that no endorsement of the theories was offered, and no connection of them to religion was made. Suppose that the teacher also mentioned rebuttals of Behe, Dembski etc. that have come from the neo-Darwinian community. Suppose the teacher stressed the minority status of ID proponents among the scientific community, and suggested that much more work would need to be done before ID could become mainstream. Finally, suppose that the teacher was not *mandated* to do this by a local school board or any state curriculum, but merely thought it would be an interesting way of finishing off the unit -- give the students a sense of the clash of foundational ideas that makes science so exciting. I ask you: where is the "religious" content in this? Where is the "catechism"? Where is the violation of the establishment clause? Where is the coercion of students by religious teachers? Also: What harm could be done by such teaching? What harm does it do students to know that there are some scientists with valid Ph.D.s from reputable secular universities who have doubts about Darwinism, and who think that there is evidence in nature for design? How does such a presentation negate or invalidate the evolutionary unit of the curriculum? How does it undermine respect for science? More important, might not such a presentation make the evolution unit more engaging to many students? Not just to the religious students, but even to those who are of a more critical bent, and who like to hear about foundational debates? I wasn't at all religious, but I was a bright little whippersnapper, and I always preferred those parts of science class where the teacher talked about "big ideas" to those parts where he or she just showed us how to calculate stuff. The "big picture" issues showcased by the ID-Darwinism debate are just the sort of thing that impels the brighter, more thoughtful students into the study of science. They want to wrestle with those grand problems. (Of course, in my day, it wasn't ID, but things like Carl Sagan's views on exobiology, and the SETI project, that offered such grand attractions.) If merely *explaining* (not preaching) some ID arguments is not religious, and not in violation of the establishment clause, and stimulates some bright students to choose to study biology rather than, say, philosophy, why would you object? I have never contended, here or elsewhere, that ID should be mandated in the schools. My position has always been that it should be permissible to mention its existence in the schools, and even to discuss it in the context of evolutionary theory, where the teacher feels competent enough to do so, and where the teacher feels that there is some pedagogical advantage to doing so (e.g., by bookending the non-teleological unit on Darwinism with Paley at one end and ID at the other, to show the constant recurrence of teleological ideas about nature). Why would you be opposed to such an approach? Or are you opposed to such an approach? Would you perhaps agree with me that discussing (not endorsing) ID for perhaps half an hour, during the entire high school science curriculum, is not in itself religious teaching, and *could* (in the hands of a good teacher) be a useful pedagogical device? T.Timaeus
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: Didn’t you say that Common Descent and Natural Selection should be taught in a science class?
Yes, they are fundamental concepts in biology.
Clive Hayden: Now you’re saying that the book should only be taught in a history class?
Origin of Species is over 150 years old, is dated on a number of concepts, wrong on others, and was never written as a textbook. Modern textbooks are available to teach the basic concepts of biology.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
How many times does it need to be repeated? You don’t teach biology from Origin of Species. It only has historical interest.
In a science class it has only historical interest? Didn't you say that Common Descent and Natural Selection should be taught in a science class? Now you're saying that the book should only be taught in a history class? Which is it Zachriel? It is a book with many religious arguments, so it should only be taught as a historical relic in a history class, is that right? Or should we cut it to pieces, and teach CD and NS in a science class, excising all of the religious content and wrong science? But if we do that, it is no longer The Origin of Species, because so much has been removed. So what would you prefer?Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: I take it that you have not read the Origin of Species if you think it should be taught, as it was written, in a science class.
How many times does it need to be repeated? You don't teach biology from Origin of Species. It only has historical interest.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Do you really think that teaching history in a secular school means you can’t mention that the Pope is Catholic? Or what the Reformation was reforming? Or that the Islamic Conquests had something to do with Islam?
I take it that you have not read the Origin of Species if you think it should be taught, as it was written, in a science class.Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
FYI, here are the New Jersey Core Curriculum Standards (2009) for high school biology. While they contain significant content on evolution, the focus is on the theory, not the history. Darwin, the Beagle, OoS etc are never mentioned. I know y'all are having fun with the could be/should be, but the brute fact is that it is all irrelevant.Nakashima
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Zachriel: You have a very odd view of a secular education if you think it means pretending religious thought isn’t a part of history. Clive Hayden: I guess you need to decide what it is that you consider secular.
Do you really think that teaching history in a secular school means you can't mention that the Pope is Catholic? Or what the Reformation was reforming? Or that the Islamic Conquests had something to do with Islam?Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Timaeus: It was common for my science teachers, in both high school and university, to “set the stage” by referring to the views that prevailed before the great theories came along and reshaped scientific thinking. Do you agree that this is a legitimate part of a science curriculum?
Yes, as mentioned above, introductory classes often include a brief history of a field of study, including pre-scientific beliefs and their influence on scholarship.
Timaeus: For example, do you agree that it would be legitimate to briefly explain some of the views held by Ptolemy (including some of the reasons for those views) in order to set up the discussion of Copernicus etc.?
Of course.
Timaeus: Do you agree that it would be legitimate to briefly explain the views held by Aristotle to set up the discussion of Galileo’s physics?
Yes, as mentioned above, it would be difficult to discuss Galileo's seminal work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, without discussing that it is a counterpoint between two world views.
Timaeus: Do you agree that would be legitimate to briefly explain the views predominant in biology (e.g., the special creation of species, or at least of basic types, and the Paleyan sort of argument for design, and catastrophism in geology, etc.) at the time of the publication of *The Origin of Species*?
Of course. It's a matter of history.
Timaeus: Do you further agree that simply *explaining* (not advocating) these earlier views, and their rationale, would not in itself constitute “religious instruction” or “catechism”, even if taught in science class?
As already mentioned, a secular education can certainly include the study of religion, and in science classes when appropriate to the curriculum.
Timaeus: And therefore would not violate the establishment clause, but would come under “valid science pedagogy”?
It's entirely appropriate. But teachers have to be careful not to proselytize or to diminish anyone's particular religious tradition. A comparative religion, history or philosophy class is a more appropriate venue for delving into those fields.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
You have a very odd view of a secular education if you think it means pretending religious thought isn’t a part of history.
I guess you need to decide what it is that you consider secular.Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: You have an odd view of what constitutes as secular if you think the Origin of Species with all of it’s 70+ references to God, creation, and miracles is secular.
You have a very odd view of a secular education if you think it means pretending religious thought isn't a part of history.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Zachriel, You're not fooling anyone, the context of your comment was what should be taught in SECULAR education. This is what you said:
You have a very odd view of how a secular eduation works. Darwin’s Origin of Species is an important moment in scientific history. It shouldn’t be used to teach the state of current science, but it can be used to discuss that moment in scientific history.
You have an odd view of what constitutes as secular if you think the Origin of Species with all of it's 70+ references to God, creation, and miracles is secular. If you want it cut into pieces, and have all of the religious context removed, and then taught as a historical relic, that's perfectly fine. But it wouldn't be The Origin of Species anymore.Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel, In response to a comment that I will not approve, you have to actually answer the questions, not retrofit them to some previous post. Timaeus is asking you specific questions, and your re-heated answers don't really answer them. You're just being passive aggressive, as if Timaeus shouldn't be asking, given that you think you've already answered his questions, when you haven't. I won't allow this comment. Answer the questions and/or stop resubmitting your answers if, according to you, they have already been given.Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: I never said it was, it was you who said that The Origin of Species should be taught in science classes for whatever reasons you believe.
Zachriel (from above): Darwin’s Origin of Species is an important moment in scientific history. It shouldn’t be used to teach the state of current science, but it can be used to discuss that moment in scientific history.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
In any case, evolutionary biology is not usually taught directly from Origin of Species any more than than physics is taught directly from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
I never said it was, it was you who said that The Origin of Species should be taught in science classes for whatever reasons you believe. I merely pointed out that if we are to be consistent with not teaching matters of faith in science, then the Origin and all of it's faith commitments and 70+ references to miracles and creation wouldn't qualify unless we cut it up into pieces, but then it is only pieces, not the book itself.Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Our science education appears to have differed, mine being somewhat broader. It was common for my science teachers, in both high school and university, to "set the stage" by referring to the views that prevailed before the great theories came along and reshaped scientific thinking. Do you agree that this is a legitimate part of a science curriculum? For example, do you agree that it would be legitimate to briefly explain some of the views held by Ptolemy (including some of the reasons for those views) in order to set up the discussion of Copernicus etc.? Do you agree that it would be legitimate to briefly explain the views held by Aristotle to set up the discussion of Galileo's physics? Do you agree that would be legitimate to briefly explain the views predominant in biology (e.g., the special creation of species, or at least of basic types, and the Paleyan sort of argument for design, and catastrophism in geology, etc.) at the time of the publication of *The Origin of Species*? Do you further agree that simply *explaining* (not advocating) these earlier views, and their rationale, would not in itself constitute "religious instruction" or "catechism", even if taught in science class? And therefore would not violate the establishment clause, but would come under "valid science pedagogy"? T.Timaeus
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: If you mean excising and expurgating The Origin of Species with all of its 70+ references to creation and miracles and religion, and further excising bad science like the discarded notions such as gemmules, and leaving whatever has “stood the test of time” to be taught in a history class or as history within a science class then I agree with you. But, that’s not The Origin of Species anymore.
Origin of Species includes several important scientific concepts, including Common Descent and Natural Selection. (Darwin's discarded pangenesis theory was introduced in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.) In any case, evolutionary biology is not usually taught directly from Origin of Species any more than than physics is taught directly from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. As an historical scientific argument, considered within the context of its time, it is a remarkable work by the greatest scientist of the Age. Origin of Species is an important work whose ramifications are still being felt today.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
tribune7: You would think that in a high school science class, the subject wouldn’t involve teaching about the influence of particular philosopher but in objective facts and learning the methods to find and take advantage of them.
Darwin isn't known for his philosophy, but for his scientific work. Mendel's theory of genetics should certainly be taught, and usually is taught. Most high school biology classes include the study of cell and cell structure, taxonomic groupings, genetics, evolution, ecology, and major organ functions (respiration, digestion, reproduction).Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply