Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Oscillations: How the College Board skews students toward Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Overthrown-Mechanobiology-Suzan-Mazur/dp/0578452669

Suzan Mazur, an independent journalist and author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, takes aim at the outdated Darwinism of the College Board university preparation system:

At Oscillations, she notes that the content of its biology course and exam framework devotes 24 pages or 22% to Darwinian natural selection and describes it in the “Essential Knowledge” section as “a major mechanism of evolution.” The College Board, she reports, explicitly says that: “The principles of natural selection and its components appear throughout the course.”

She sees this as a “catastrophe” (Suzan Mazur, “College Board & The Natural Selection Racket” at Oscillations) because “the evolution paradigm has shifted” and – following Eugene Koonin – natural selection is not taken seriously any more as an explain-all.

The_Paradigm_Shifters_470

Is the stuff she identifies designed to insulate students from the ferment going on in biology or is just the outcome of educrats’ self-insulation…? Maybe both?

Mazur has got to be one of the best-connected people writing about evolution today. Her nose for haven’t-we-seen-this-show-before?, oh-not-THAT-again?, used-to-was, done-to-death, and this-will-wash-no-more is the outcome of having interviewed many movers and shakers (and maybe some slackers and fakers) and kept notes over the years. She should certainly be better known.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing ‘the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin’ is also a good introduction to what’s changing in biology.

Comments
Jawa https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Uncommon%20descent This pretty much mirrors the trends in interest for ID. I think it is fair to say that UD and related sites have seen a declining trend for several years.Ed George
February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Error-correcting codes and information in biology
A majority of biologists deny that information theory can be useful to them. It is shown on the contrary that the living world cannot be understood if the scientific concept of information is ignored.
Incorporating the scientific concept of information and the science based on it in the foundations of biology can widely renew the discipline but meets epistemological difficulties which must be overcome.
       OLV
February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Optimality in the standard genetic code is robust with respect to comparison code sets
The genetic code and its evolution have been studied by many different approaches. One approach is to compare the properties of the standard genetic code (SGC) to theoretical alternative codes in order to determine how optimal it is and from this infer whether or not it is likely that it has undergone a selective evolutionary process. Many different properties have been studied in this way in the literature. Less focus has been put on the alternative code sets which are used as a comparison to the standard code. Each implicitly represents an evolutionary hypothesis and the sets used differ greatly across the literature. Here we determine the influence of the comparison set on the results of the optimality calculation by using codes based upon different sub-structures of the SGC. With these results we can generalize the results to different evolutionary hypotheses. We find that the SGC's optimality is very robust, as no code set with no optimised properties is found. We therefore conclude that the optimality of the SGC is a robust feature across all evolutionary hypotheses. Our results provide important information for any future studies on the evolution of the standard genetic code. We also studied properties of the SGC concerning overlapping genes, which have recently been found to be more widespread than often believed. Although our results are not conclusive yet we find additional intriguing structures in the SGC that need explanation.
the idea of trade-offs could be very important in understanding the nature of SGC optimality. Every property has a cost versus some other property and assuming that the genetic code had some freedom in its evolution, some trade-offs were plausibly experienced as constraints. Finding further such trade-offs may launch future studies into this central topic in molecular biology which surprisingly remains unexhausted.
  Do these researchers see that their paper points to ID?OLV
February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Alexa ranks for related websites: EN:……....225,385 TO:……....539,153 UD:……....652,572 PT:……..2,502,542 SW:……3,075,045 TSZ:…...6,150,700jawa
February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Endogenous Bioelectrics in Development, Cancer, and Regeneration: Drugs and Bioelectronic Devices as Electroceuticals for Regenerative Medicine PMC 2019PMC 2019
A major frontier in the post-genomic era is the investigation of the control of coordinated growth and three-dimensional form. Dynamic remodeling of complex organs in regulative embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer reveals that cells and tissues make decisions that implement complex anatomical outcomes. It is now essential to understand not only the genetics that specifies cellular hardware but also the physiological software that implements tissue-level plasticity and robust morphogenesis.
  hmm...  OLV
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
The bioelectric code: An ancient computational medium for dynamic control of growth and form
What determines large-scale anatomy? DNA does not directly specify geometrical arrangements of tissues and organs, and a process of encoding and decoding for morphogenesis is required. Moreover, many species can regenerate and remodel their structure despite drastic injury. The ability to obtain the correct target morphology from a diversity of initial conditions reveals that the morphogenetic code implements a rich system of pattern-homeostatic processes. Here, we describe an important mechanism by which cellular networks implement pattern regulation and plasticitybioelectricity. All cells, not only nerves and muscles, produce and sense electrical signals; in vivo, these processes form bioelectric circuits that harness individual cell behaviors toward specific anatomical endpoints. We review emerging progress in reading and re-writing anatomical information encoded in bioelectrical states, and discuss the approaches to this problem from the perspectives of information theory, dynamical systems, and computational neuroscience. Cracking the bioelectric code will enable much-improved control over biological patterning, advancing basic evolutionary developmental biology as well as enabling numerous applications in regenerative medicine and synthetic bioengineering.
   OLV
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Bob O’H, Did you miss the question @72?PeterA
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Alexa internet traffic ranks for related websites: EN:……………………….221,892 UD:……………………...653,083 TO:………………………668,632 PT:…………………....2,517,004 SW:…………………...3,281,511 TSZ:…………………..4,270,691 PS:……………………………….?jawa
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Ed George, FYI- In addition to Alexa's associations posted @110, we can also consider the important contributors at PT, SW, TSZ and PS that have posted comments and actually engaged in discussions in UD. For example Dr Arthur Hunt of University of Kentucky and Dr Laurence A. Moran of University of Toronto. However, I'd rather stick to Alexa's rules and that's why I removed AiG and RTB from the list, even though I consider them somehow associated to UD, but they are not. Definitely the websites examples you presented were very wrong as I explained before. Hopefully you understood this.jawa
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Alexa internet traffic ranks for related websites: EN:…………………….221,552 top 1% UD:……………………660,024 1% TO:……………………678,636 1% PT:…………………..2,513,241 3% SW:…………………3,276,542 4% TSZ:…………………4,263,969 5%jawa
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
BA77 @122: I see ads for things I have bought or searched for online, totally unrelated from UD. For example, long ago I was reading about schools for my grandchildren and lately I've seen ads for schools displayed on my screen when I open UD.jawa
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
UD posts more science-related articles than PT, SW and TSZ together.jawa
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
What do others see?
Thank God we are not solipsists :) Is Ed George sure he has eyes to *see* anything? Maybe he does not reply most of the time because he is *hallucinating his own reality?* Who knows, materialism is very very weird... The Vampire Diaries makes more sense.
"...the naturalist (insert materialism/physicalism) cannot logically justify his own position that the senses are reliable with respect to external sense objects, because he has already shot himself in the foot by describing the process of sensation in such a materialistic manner that its necessary inference is that he directly knows only neural patterns internal to his brain." Dr. Dennis Bonnette
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Hmm, I see advertising related to amazon, eBay, and a PDF site. Thus my personal browsing history is apparently playing a big part in what I see. What do others see? Also of note: it is clear that the overall broad bush implication is that you are trying to paint Christianity as being anti-science. My challenge to you is to prove it! Again, Christianity gave us modern science!bornagain77
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
BA77
The implication that he is trying to convey is, of course, that Christianity is somehow anti-science.
No, the implication he is trying to convey is that the religious adds that he sees at UD are because the systems used to determine what adds to display characterize UD as a religious site.Ed George
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
...not science.
Science means knowledge . Interesting word indeed for a subjective idealist/solipsist who can not even be sure he has a brain... https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Ed George complains "from the guy who ends most of his comments with a verse from the bible." The implication that he is trying to convey is, of course, that Christianity is somehow anti-science. Yet Christianity is the worldview that gave us modern science in the first place and thus I certainly see no reason to deny the tree that gave us the fruit of science in the first place! . In fact, science is simply impossible without presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded in Theistic and/or Christian metaphysics.
One of the ironies of modern atheistic naturalism, whose proponents often posture as self-appointed defenders of science, is that naturalism, or its insane twin materialism, cannot provide an adequate basis for science. For example, the fact is we cannot even begin to do science unless we make some metaphysical assumptions about science. Another irony, at least according to physicist and theologian Ian Barbour, is that the assumptions that a scientist must make to do science are basically Biblical assumptions. “A good case can be made,” Barbour writes, “that the doctrine of creation helped set the stage for scientific activity.” Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams, who provides the above quote from Barbour in his on-line article, “Does Science Disprove God?” lists several presuppositions of science that he argues “derive warrant from the theistic doctrine of creation: • That the natural world is real (not an illusion) and basically good (and hence worth studying) • That the natural world isn’t divine (i.e. pantheism is false) and so it isn’t impious to experiment upon it • That the natural world isn’t governed by multiple competing and/or capricious forces (i.e. polytheism is false) • That the natural world is governed by a rational order • That the human mind is, to some degree, able to understand the rational order displayed by the natural world • That human cognitive and sensory faculties are generally reliable • That the rational order displayed by the natural world cannot be deduced from first principles, thus observation and experiment are required” Again, notice that these presuppositions themselves cannot be proven by empirical science. Therefore, a science based epistemology, i.e. “scientism,” of any kind cannot be true. Williams observes that, “There is thus a wide-ranging consonance between Christianity and the presuppositions of science.” He then goes on to quote Barbour again. “Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation. Moreover, while nature is real and good in the biblical view, it is not itself divine, as many ancient cultures held, and it is therefore permissible to experiment on it… it does appear that the idea of creation gave a religious legitimacy to scientific inquiry.” http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/is-christianity-unscientific Barbour is not alone here. Both Alfred North Whitehead and American physicist Robert Oppenheimer understood that historically a Christian milieu was in fact necessary for the development of science. The famous Christian writer and University of Cambridge professor C.S. Lewis summarized the position this way: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a [Lawgiver.]” Indeed, all the early scientist who were part of the so-called scientific revolution: Galileo, Kepler, Newton were Christian theists. per - john_a_designer- UD blogger https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rodney-stark-a-social-scientist-who-begged-to-differ-with-the-distinguished-bigots-on-faith-and-science/#comment-669940
Whereas on the other hand, presupposing atheism leads to the catastrophic failure of science itself. This catastrophic failure for science that is inherent in presupposing atheism is most clearly demonstrated in the atheist's denial of his own free will:
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html In short, the claim from Atheists that they do not have free will leads to catastrophic epistemological failure for them. All rationality, reason, and therefore all of science itself, is completely undermined in the atheist’s claim that he does not have free will. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-why-jerry-coyne-cant-actually-deny-free-will/#comment-691809
Don't expect E.G to honestly admit that atheism is completely incoherent as to providing a solid basis for 'doing science'. He NEVER engages the merits of Intelligent Design as a science with any of the integrity that would be expected from a person in an open discussion, but only seeks to attack Theism in general and Christianity in particular every chance he gets. In other words, E.G is a atheistic troll who could care less about the truth! As to E.G.'s browsing history, I note that web-trackers also take note of the words you write, and advertise in regards to that as well. And since E.G. never writes about any actual science, but spends most of his time bashing God, then that will, of course, effect his browsing history and will reflect in the advertising that he personally sees when he visits a site.bornagain77
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Interesting indeed, from the guy who ends most of his comments with a verse from the bible. :) If the adds are tailored to my browsing history, which I know they usually are, then the fact that I don’t frequent or search religious websites suggests that my frequent visits to UD are being classified in the religion category, not science.Ed George
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Bob O'H, Did you miss the question @72?PeterA
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
BA77 @ 113: That's an interesting observation you made about Ed George's complaint.jawa
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Ed George, You keep getting it wrong, even though I have tried to explain it to you over and over. It seems like you haven’t read the explanations carefully. Too bad. Anyway, my main goal is not to persuade you, but to let the anonymous readers see for themselves what’s going on here and draw their own conclusions based on what they read, always testing it to hold what is good. In a way you’re unwittingly helping them to get the point right. Thanks.jawa
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
@89 Ed George said:
Until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.
What "world"?
"... the naturalist might object that sensation ends in the interior of the brain, making such direct knowledge of external reality impossible."
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
E.G. "one that is riddled with advertising. The one that popped up when I logged in this time was for “Hour of Power”. Not exactly a science or ID related site."
LOL, says more about E.G. than UD
Let's say you're shopping online for shoes. After browsing a few stores for just the right pair, you surf over to an article on your favorite news site. There, like magic, an advertisement appears for the very same shoes you were admiring just moments ago. "That's funny," you tell yourself before clicking through to a weather site for the weekend forecast. Then, wedged between sunny Saturday and stormy Sunday, you see yet another ad for the shoes. You're not going crazy; you've just experienced the wonder of custom Internet advertising. Targeted advertising has been part of the Internet experience since the late 1990s.,,, Today, custom Internet advertising is widespread,,,, https://computer.howstuffworks.com/advertiser-custom-ads.htm
bornagain77
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
Jawa, you are expending a lot of energy comparing internet rankings and trying to conclude that they are a measure of the level of seriousness of the discussions. UD posts more OPs than their “peers”. Quantity is not quality. News aggregators also have high rankings. I can’t really speak for the others because I seldom (if ever) frequent them. But I did make a point of checking them out and I did find something very unique about UD. It is the only one that is riddled with advertising. The one that popped up when I logged in this time was for “Hour of Power”. Not exactly a science or ID related site.Ed George
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Ed George, Also note that EN is much higher than UD in the Alexa ranking, but they don’t have any discussion in their website. However they have many interesting and serious articles on science and philosophy. That’s what attracts serious readers. That means you were barking up the wrong tree. You were criticizing a strawman that you built based on misunderstanding. Your examples were so bad that they weren’t even wrong. Complete nonsense. But don’t be discouraged. We all make mistakes, specially when we don’t pay attention to what we do or don’t take it seriously. Yo were comparing apples and alligators. That’s a no-no. I’m sure you’ll try better next time. :)jawa
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Ed George: Here's more information about the links Alexa shows between websites in my list: Alexa associations: EN:   TO, UD, 864  TO:   EN, 2,757 UD:   EN, TSZ, 652 PT:   UD, 1,022 SW:   UD, 473 TSZ:  UD, PS, 44 PS:   TSZ, 15 Again, UD seems more attractive than its Alexa-based peers because it has more articles covering interesting topics of science and philosophy. Only News produces more interesting topics than the other websites combined. On top of that we have KF, JB, PaV, GP, and other OP contributors. The Alexa ranks for these websites are in those relatively large numbers because many people aren't attracted to read serious scientific or philosophical topics.jawa
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Ed George: Now do you understand your error @85, @98 & @101? Basically all your examples were wrong. Based on a deep misunderstanding. The main reason UD attracts more visits than most of its Alexa-based peers is that UD has more interesting articles posted by News, KF, GP, BA, PaV, and other OP contributors, covering a wide range of scientific and philosophical topics. Obviously the follow-up discussions may provoke additional interest for repeated visits, but I think it's mainly the actual OPs that have the magnetism.jawa
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Alexa Ranks for related websites: Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01…………………02/02...................Top % EN:……………………..219,566………….……………218,250………….......219,482.....................1 TO:……………………...636,215……………………….635,771………………652,972.....................1 UD:……………………..662,429……………………....661,806……………....660,514......................1 PT:..……….......……..2,522,379……………..……..2,520,054…….….....2,515,293.......................3 SW:……………...……3,287,895…………………....3,284,894…………..3,278,665.......................4 TSZ:…………………..3,605,624………………....…3,602,299…………..4,266,831.......................5 PS:…………………………?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)jawa
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
@89 Ed George
Until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.
TF asked:
What “world”, Ed George? The one inside your head?
Enter: Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare (or, the "world" is inside my head).
... "Thus, in knowing, ultimately, only changes inside himself, the materialist is logically forced into an epistemological idealism that contradicts his assumed starting point, the observation of external things."
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Ed George, Now do you understand your error @85, @98 & @101? Basically all your examples were wrong. You may want to try again? :)jawa
February 2, 2020
February
02
Feb
2
02
2020
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply