At Oscillations: How the College Board skews students toward Darwinism

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 27, 2020

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, science education}

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Suzan Mazur, an independent journalist and author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, takes aim at the outdated Darwinism of the College Board university preparation system: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

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

Alexa Ranks for related websites: AiG:………………………44,300 EN:……………………….219,566 RTB:……………………417,037 TO:………………………636,215 UD:………………………662,429 PT:…………………..2,522,379 SW:…………………3,287,895 TSZ:…………………3,605,624 PS:……………………………….? I still don't understand well what makes those internet traffic numbers vary so drastically on different days. Any clues?jawa_{January 31, 2020
January
01
Jan
31
31
2020
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Me killing my children = A female bonobo killing its offspring. If we do not punish bonobos, WHY should I be punished?Truthfreedom_{January 31, 2020
January
01
Jan
31
31
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Everything is "Natural". Natural deaths vs. Artificial deaths = non-sense. Once you get rid of the human mind : EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST TROUBLE.Truthfreedom_{January 31, 2020
January
01
Jan
31
31
2020
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H @48: Is the sentence (quoted @46) written correctly?PeterA_{January 31, 2020
January
01
Jan
31
31
2020
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

A process of selection would have a concrete objective, ...
But according to "naturalists": 1. "Physics" is doing the "selection" (lots of quotation marks because these people say really weird things). 2. "We" (an "illusion") are "informed" after the fact. Conclusion: it is "physics" the thing bringing about a change. Now: 3. "Physics" is natural. Therefore: Everything is "Natural Selection'. Truthfreedom_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Yes, you are wrong. From Ernst Mayr in "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
He goes on to say:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.
Artificial selection is an example of the former whereas natural selection is the latter.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

1. EVERYTHING that exists= Nature. 2. We are part of Nature. Conclusion: when e.g. we modify dog breeds across generations = we are "Natural Selection" in action. We are selecting traits that (usually) give us aesthetic pleasure (and those aesthetic traits have associated "free riders"). Am I wrong?Truthfreedom_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Andrew:
I’m trying to inform you that your idea of Nature is not the the same as everyone’s.
And you are failing, miserably. AGAIN: Naturalists still define nature as the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans. How does Christianity define “nature”, Andrew? How do you think Intelligent Design defines “nature”? Does it differ from the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans? Please answer the questions. Also tell me how that definition is philosophical. You won't because all you have are your false accusations, Andrew. Lord, have mercy, indeed.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

For those certain naturalists they have a hard time explaining "nature" because to do that you have to have something that is "non-nature". In that case, it would be impossible to distinguish anything that is "nature" (physical) from its opposite, non-nature or non-physical. The term nature would be meaningless in that case. To identify something as "nature" in that worldview, it has to be separate from non-nature. All they can say is that nature is distinct from supernatural, and supernatural is something that is non-natural. But doesn't make a lot of sense.Silver Asiatic_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

"Andrew wants to conflate the two." ET, That is a false accusation. I'm trying to inform you that your idea of Nature is not the the same as everyone's. And that's because **You don't know what Nature is** and neither does anyone else who tries to use the term. What you have is a **philosophical position on what Nature is**. Lord, have mercy. ;) Andrewasauber_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

asauber
They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit”
That is a detailed article - informative. I didn't read the whole thing but it explains "causal closure" where "nature" is believed to be nothing other than "the physical". The two terms are the same. The "natural world" is the same as the "physical world" in that view. However, even some naturalists think that there are non-physical causes in nature. So, nature would not be only the physical world. So, in that case, anything governed by natural laws and forces would be "nature" even if such things were non-physical.
Mental and other special forces were non-physical in the sense that they arose only in special circumstances and not throughout the spatiotemporal realm, but even so they fell within the realm of scientific law and lacked spontaneous autonomy.
Silver Asiatic_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

For the record- There is a HUGE difference between naturalism and nature. Andrew wants to conflate the two.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Andrew- Your projection is duly noted, as in your avoidance of reality.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

But for those interested in further reading, this was interesting to me: "The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ Andrewasauber_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

ET. You are obviously not going to accept any information beyond your own framework. So, I quit. Have a nice rest of your day. Andrewasauber_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Andrew, Naturalism comes from how you define nature's capabilities, philosophically. Naturalists still define nature as the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans. How does Christianity define "nature", Andrew? How do you think Intelligent Design defines "nature"? Does it differ from the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans?ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

ET, Naturalism comes from how you define nature, philosophically. For instance, you can ask, does nature have capabilities? If so, what are they? If you say nature is everything, then of course it has every capability. We philosophically defined it that way! And that's what naturalists do. Andrewasauber_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Oh my. I have never said that naturalism isn't a philosophical position. I said that nature isn't.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

"Just because naturalists say something doesn’t make it so." ET, Obviously. But they say stuff. And its a philosophical position. I don't know why you don't get that. Andrewasauber_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Andrew- You don't know what you are talking about. Just because naturalists say something doesn't make it so. They do NOT disagree with me on the definition of "nature" nor "natural". Evolutionists have defined natural selection and I have just repeated it. Natural selection occurs whenever you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance, as in random, variation(s). And no, nature is not defined by philosophy.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

ET
There isn’t an ordered purpose to the wind-blown leaves or snow drifts.
From the ID perspective, we say that such things are "random nature". ID is arguing against materialism and Darwinism, so ID takes the materialist view as the starting point. In materialism, there is the belief that nature is a random, mindless, independent force that requires no design. Everything in materialism is built from the bottom up - the smallest molecules accidentally combine and the result is the earth and various things. So, cloud formations, snow drifts, piles of leaves - these are claimed to be the product of random, mindless forces and they show no ordered design. Plus, these things can be replicated without need for a designing intelligence. So, it seems like there is "nature" versus "design intelligence". But another view will say that's an artificial distinction. "Nature" cannot operate by itself and all nature requires a designing intelligence. Plus, there is ordered function. Some would also say "ordered purpose" but I just said "function", but in either case - both require a design intelligence. That would be the Thomistic view, for example, that sees nature as an integrated whole. In that view, nothing can be created from the bottom-up without a design intelligence. Snow drifts, for example, are not independent actions. They are completely dependent on ordered, predictable, unexplained phenomenon. Nature cannot create the order required for snow drifts. Nature does not create the chemical bonds of Hydrogen and Oxygen that make water. Nature does not create the effect of temperature on water causing snow, or the fact that snow predictably falls to the ground or that snowflakes have amazing patterns. All of these things require a designing intelligence to create. Snow drifts are ordered, predictable and follow laws. The question of "purpose" is difficult here, but we can ask "what is the purpose of survival"? For bees, for example, do they really "want to survive and make beehives and create honey"? They just do this by instinct. It's part of their nature. From the ID perspective, we separate the intelligent activities of bees from what snowflakes do because bees have intelligence and snowflakes do not. But both bees and snowflakes and leaves are just acting according to their essence. Do snowflakes and blowing leaves exhibit "functions"? From the ID perspective we would say "no" - it's not a complex intelligent function. However, another view would say "Yes". It is just as complex to create a biosphere where there are chemical elements that bond, creating a substance called "water", which can freeze solid, form into mist, create clouds, fall from the clouds as rain or snow, create rivers and lakes … and dozens of other "functions" that water performs. All of these functions of water are dependent on predictable, ordered processes that had to exist at the beginning. Nature cannot create the rules and laws that bind molecules together and which make water have the properties it does. The existence of water, and even the ordered process of any molecules requires a designing intelligence to not only create, but to sustain in an ordered succession continually. Because a truly blind, mindless "nature", could not create any consistent patterns at all. Blind, mindlessness cannot create rules or laws. Without a design intelligence, there could be nothing but chaos - no laws, no order, no functions. For purposes of ID, we just forget that point and act as if nature could actually work as a blind, mindless process. Because that's what materialists think. So, we just take their starting point and then show that "blind nature" can't create beehives. But we give materialists the idea that "blind nature" could create the patterns of leaves blowing in the wind. But in reality, a truly mindless nature couldn't create leaves or the consistent powers of wind to move objects. The wind appears random but it actually follows laws of the atmosphere, chemistry, gravity.Silver Asiatic_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

ET, According to naturalist philosophy, you are incorrect. According to them, nature is everything there is. So, when an Evolutionist regurgitates 'Natural Selection' he means something different than you do. Which has been my point from the beginning. 'Nature' is defined by philosophy. Andrewasauber_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

What? That doesn't do anything to what I have said. The explanation of Stonehenge is found within nature itself. But it isn't nature itself. And the explanation for nature cannot be found in nature itself. Natural processes only exist in nature and because of that cannot be responsible for nature.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

ET, The most obvious version of nature that differs from yours is the definition the naturalist uses. "All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) Even within naturalism, there are shifting sands. Andrewasauber_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

There isn't an ordered purpose to the wind-blown leaves or snow drifts.ET_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Regarding "Nature" - some can argue that nature cannot produce anything on it's own, without an intelligent, guiding power behind it. There is ordered purpose found in every part of the universe, from the smallest sub-particles. This is the first cause argument that where we find something acting in a functional manner, something else has to provide the power to do that. All of "nature" has to be supported continually, at every minute. Whatever function is occurring, is dependent at that moment on other processes and powers, and all of these derive their function from something else. So, there has to be a First Cause that possesses the power to give to all of these functions.Silver Asiatic_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Mimus @ 47 I don't know if you've been able to validate that, but I was wondering about those similarities also. If this is true, with all respect to Pavel-jawa … it can be confusing to have multiple discussions from the same person. You can bring up multiple points, even contrary to ID from a single user-name.Silver Asiatic_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

PeterA - I can't see anything wrong with that, can you explain? Mimus - ah, thanks for the heads up. Let's see if I get an actual explanation of the grammatical issues.Bob O'H_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Just a heads up to anyone engaging, I am almost certain pavelU, jawa, PeterA and Pw are all accounts run by the same person (who once posted as Dionisio). They almost always post in quick sucession of each other, have some of the same peculiar obsessions (including grammar and spelling as above) and often talk to each other. Not sure they should be encouraged.Mimus_{January 30, 2020
January
01
Jan
30
30
2020
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @33: Is this statement grammatically correct? “little is know about the evolution of this patterning mechanism.“PeterA_{January 29, 2020
January
01
Jan
29
29
2020
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply