Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

University indoctrination program launched, but one professor sees the light

Salvador Cordova
June 21, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Biologist Stanely Salthe at Binghamton University is at the top of the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin honor roll.

Stanley Salthe

I am a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory — which was my own erstwhile field of specialization in biology. My opposition is fundamentally to its sole reliance on competition as an explanatory principle (in a background of chance). Aside from being a bit thin in the face of complex systems, it has the disadvantage, in the mythological context of explaining where we come from, of reducing all evolution to the effects of competition. …
….
Being materially empty, it appears capable of explaining almost anything, and so we need to be cautious about its use. Is it a Borgesian cognitive poison?

The irony is this “cognitive poison” is being indoctrinated into young minds at his school:

Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution

Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory. Most people are familiar with the dismal statistics, showing how a large fraction of Americans at all educational levels do not accept the theory of evolution [1], how efforts to teach evolution often fail to have an impact [2], and how constant vigilance is required to keep evolution in the public school curriculum [3]. Even worse, most people who do accept the theory of evolution don’t relate it to matters of importance in their own lives. There appear to be two walls of resistance, one denying the theory altogether and the other denying its relevance to human affairs.

This essay reports a success story, showing how both walls of resistance can be surmounted by a single college course, and even more, by a university-wide program. It is based on a campus-wide evolutionary studies program called EvoS (http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~evos/), initiated at Binghamton University in 2002, which currently includes over 50 faculty members representing 15 departments. Enthusiasm at all levels, from freshmen students to senior administrators, makes EvoS a potential model for evolution education that can be duplicated; the basic ingredients are present at most other institutions, from small colleges to major universities.
…
Students who indicate exceptional interest are referred to books that are both authoritative and accessible, such as Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea [10–15].

What theory of physics or chemistry requires an indoctrination program to maintain it’s acceptance? Do theories of gravity and electricity require an indoctrination campaign like this to get students to accept it?

Thankfully, while students are indoctrinated at Binghamton, brilliant minds, like Salthe’s remain open.

Stanley Salthe

The following is a wonderful essay by Salthe. I don’t get the feeling however, that this essay will be studied by most students who sign up for university indoctrination into Darwinian evolution. Salthe makes a devastating critique of the idea he once espoused and studied diligently:

Analysis and critique of the concept of Natural Selection (and of the Darwinian theory of evolution) in respect to its suitability as part of Modernism’s origination myth, as well as of its ability to explain organic evolution.

(thanks to Teleologist for alerting me to the developments at Binghamton)

Comments

For the readers benefit my information comes from Hartl and Clark's, Principles of Population Genetics chapter 9.

In a strongly selective environment, one is killing off the creatures who are lacking the most desirable traits, thus the population tends to be more homogenous and lacking diversity. This sound sensible to me.

The discussion is how this is reflected mathematically.

A measure of diversity is additive genetic variance when dealing with a number of genes for a single trait

additive variance = Summation [ 2pq[a + (q-p)d]^2

d/a = measure of dominance
p,q = allele frequencies

and the summation is carried out over all genes involved in the trait

it was this equation where I said "variability of fitness" is not directly mentioned. Additive variance is an statistical aspect of the population's composition of genes and expressed traits.

But let say the "trait" we are looking at is something like the number of bristles or finch beak thickness, it does not relate to the emergence of novelty.

Salthe's thesis, suggests to me on the generous assumption novelties can arise, they would have to be below the radar of natural selection. If an organ for example is life critical, that's potentially the worst time for it to be participating in evolution.

I think Bob OH's comments helped clarify issues with Salthe's statement. However it seems to me, traits that are life critical tend to resist large scale novel changes. I believe that is Salthe's point, but I shall search for a better phrasing of the argument.

Salvador

scordova
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Mung, I'll look Sanford's book over again, but ReMine was in the acknowledgement section because he did some computer simulations for Sanford. I can't imagine the two didn't collaborate, and also Sanford mentions ReMine in conneciton with Haldane's dilemma. In any case, I thank you for your caution. I view the internet as an opportunity to iron out any kinks in our collective arguments. Salvadorscordova
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
...h^2 is the heritability (the additive genetic variance divided by the total genetic variance)...
Bob, Could you explain heritability to a layman, or refer me to some resources which would help me to understand it? Also, why is heritability important? Can you put some of this stuff in plain english, lol?Mung
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Salvador, Be sure to re-read Walter ReMine's coverage of Fisher's Theorem.
I invite you to get ahold of Sanford’s book, to study it dilengently. If you truly comprehend Sanford’s agruments, then at that point I think you’ll understand why I label what’s going on indoctrination.
Be critical of it thought, not blindly accepting. I think Sandford got two important issues wrong. Haldane's Dilemma and Cost Theory.Mung
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Bob OH, Thank you again for your comments. As I looked again at my textbook on the topic of additive genetic variance, it struck me that Fisher's theorem said nothing of the likely hood of the emergence of novelty but the frequency of various features.... Thus if there is no emergence of novelty, even high selection for that potential novelty will not be of any use. In any case, I think your criticisms were some of the best I've seen in several months on this weblog. Thank you. Salvadorscordova
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Sal - First, I should just correct something I wrote: "...and also the variation in fintess needs to be ..." is better as "...and also the variation in fitness needs to include ..." Second, on hte equivocation point, your comment here is wrong (albeit in an interesting way):
Variability implies changeability of trait, whereas variance in the case of additive genetic variance refers to a distribution of traits in an existing population.
The point behind Fisher's fundamental theorem is that additive genetic variation in a trait does imply changeability. In essence, if you select for larger/smaller trait values in individuals, then the trait mean in the offspring will change. We can calculate the change from the Breeder's equation: R = h^2 S where R is the response to selection, h^2 is the heritability (the additive genetic variance divided by the total genetic variance), and S is the strength of selection. It's obvious therefore that the traits that are most likely to evolve are those either with a high heritability, or a high strength of selection. I can only interpret Salthe's comment to refer to the high heritability. Variation in the trait will lead to variation in fitness if the covariance between the two is non-zero. Incidentally, you can of course) consider fitness as a trait in its own right. You're right that the "variability in fitness" needs to be additive genetic variance: this is one of the corrections I was making to that comment of Salthe's. BobBob OH
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT

Bob OH,

Thank you for your comments.

Given that some of the readers here have specializations in field other than population genetics perhaps elaborating some terms and concepts would be helpful.

I said:

Salthe demonstrated a fatal internal contradiction in the theory.

You said

No he didn’t. He points out that (additive) genetic variance is depleted by selection - something that is well accepted.

I disagree. Salthe stated well accepted fact but then argue why this fact leads to a contradiction.

But first, something that concerns me in your post is an equivocation

The concept of additive genetic variance is associated with mathematical concept of variance (as in standard deviation squared) and is tied to the the amount of variation in a phenotypic trait. It roughly is a partial description of the distribution of traits. It is not defined in terms of "variability of fitness" (as far as I can tell in the textbooks I have, though I'm willing to be corrected).

The word variance in additive "genetic variance" is not conceptually the same as word variability in "variability in fitness". That is an equivocation.

Variability implies changeability of trait, whereas variance in the case of additive genetic variance refers to a distribution of traits in an existing population.

A trait can be the result of genetic variance, but it does not imply the trait has "variablitiy in fitness".

In light of this, I think your comments on genetic variance are not consistent with what salthe is saying below. In essence, you probably knocked down an argument which Salthe did not even make.

Salthe said:

Now, at the same time, note that when asked which traits are most likely to be able to evolve, evolutionary biologists, again citing Fisher’s theorem, will reply, “those that have more variability in fitness”.

On inspection of the derivation of additive genetic variance as it is related to fitness, perhaps the proper perspective is to assert the variability of the genetic variances, which is a far more cicuitous expression than saying "variability of fitness".

If I am incorrect on this point, I welcome technical input.

But finally since we are talking in somewhat Mendelian terms, were talking about the shuffling existing genetic material and the change in gene frequencies, not the emergence of novelty. So in some sense, the bearing Fisher's theorem on the emergence of novelty is moot. scordova
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Are universities morally responsible to indoctrinate freshman life science majors about the inherent philosophical, theoretical, and scientific difficulties of Darwinism? Statements might be: 1) Understand that there are severe difficulties in the philosophical and scientific foundations of Your selected area of study. 2) As morally responsible scientists we strongly recommend using not our time , but that of other Professors in this schools philosophy department in order to explore these difficulties. Be advised , no difficulties are ontologic. 3) Cellular growth and processes occur entirely independent from any linguistic structures and information content in complex biostructures. The message in DNA’s instructions is of a material, purposeless, unintelligent origin. The proposition “unintelligent, random events cause an organism to attain goals, such as propulsion or vision is to be adhered to. (Any life science student found to visit or communicate with any linguistics or psycholinguistics departments will be expelled from this university)idadvisors
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Salthe demonstrated a fatal internal contradiction in the theory.
No he didn't. He points out that (additive) genetic variance is depleted by selection - something that is well accepted. He then writes
Now, at the same time, note that when asked which traits are most likely to be able to evolve, evolutionary biologists, again citing Fisher’s theorem, will reply, “those that have more variability in fitness”.
OK, first this is actually false: the strength of selection is important as well, and also the variation in fintess needs to be additive genetic variance. But even to the extent that it's correct (i.e. that additive genetic variation is important), there is no contradiction. Once something has become well adapted, there's little improvement that can be made (to be technical, it's at/near the top of a fitness peak), so it's not going to be able to evolve anyway. However, whilst it was evolving, there would have been genetic variation in the trait, but that's in the past and the variation may have been depleted. To use an analogy to show the poverty of the argument: bank accounts which have been important in paying out large sums of money are least likely to be able to do so in the future. BobBob OH
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
Sagebrush, well said. A living example opposed to such false exaggerated claims is Dr Sanford. He was lead by genetic research, practical commercial applications and years of study to belief in an Intelligent Creator. He didn't suddenly throw up his hands, shout Eureka!!! And then leave good science behind him. To the contrary, he continued to pursue science exploration and contribute excellent work. False statements that people suddenly become dumb, lazy and unproductive in scientific fields are mere forms of intellectual snobbery and putdowns. Its a psuedo-intellectual swipe of the heh heh, ahuh, heh heh heh Beevis and Butthead logic. Heh, eh, uhhh, they, snicker, snicker believe in God, snicker, snicker. Beevis says, Dude, lets go get beer and watch all the Christians go to church. We can belch, fart, and laugh, heh heh, snicker, huhhuhhuhh. Beevis yells across the road at Christians entering the Church... Hey Christian, who created the Dung Beetle? Butthead joins in, yeah, heh, heh, did like, God, like Dude, did he strike the ground with lightning and suddenly Bamb! Dung Beetle Dude! Why would anything eat elephant dung Dude? eehh huh, huh, huh... snicker, huhhhuhhuhhhuehehehehe... uhhhhhhhh.... accccccchhkkkk, coughs, cough, ackkkk, Beevis, help dude, cough, cough, I, I'm choking! Beevis panics! He crashes a beercan on Butthead's face. Butthead still coughing, turning pale, falls to the ground, hands waving, feet flailing, passing out. Beevis does a knee drop to the belly! Nothing! Beevis stares and drinks his beer and begins to laugh at the colors of Buttheads face. A Christian across the road, see's whats happening, leaps to action, saves Beevis with the Heimlich Maneuver as he upchucks a lodged vancamp beenie weenie and beer onto the road. Butthead had an epiphany while he was passed out on the ground. He saw utter darkness and red tailed demons with pointy horns and scary teeth(because this is the way media and artist portray satan even though the Bible itself does not). But then, he's jolted and lifted up, he see's a light, a small light at the end of a tunnel. He hears a voice beckoning him, saying, come away from the beenie weenie darkness Butthead, come away from beenie weenie land into the light Butthead, into the light of Design. The true light of God! For a moment he experiences purity, bliss and well being understanding fully all purpose of his being and others, before suddenly being jolted back again to life and light! This time with the Christians arms firmly wrapped around him after saving his life and the sun shining brightly in his face. Dude! He says to Beevis, thats some wicked beer and beenie weenies he says. I saw the devil and I think I heard the voice of God. Beevis says, really? Cool, heh, eheh, uhuh, hey, man, choke me, choke me! I want to see satan! Snicker, snicker, eh eh heh, heh. Give me, give me, give me some beenie weenies! Beevis laughs, Heh, ehhh, uhhh, wow Christian Dude, thanks... you Bible Thumpers are good for something.... saving lives... The Christians says, we're good at saving souls too....Michaels7
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
Leo wrote:
... “God designed it that way.” Scientifically, where do you go from there?
This is an argument that has always puzzled me deeply. "X is designed", therefore "X is not worthy of further study". This is often followed by dire predictions of The End of Science as We Know It: scientists will just say "goddiddit", throw off their lab aprons and go home. Is there anyone, I mean anyone who thinks like this? Maybe I have blinders on because my profession, for the past two decades, has primarily involved working with highly complex, intelligently designed systems (computers). But I can assure you in the strongest terms possible that my knowledge that the systems I work on every day are intelligently designed in no way whatsoever lessens my understanding, my curiosity, or my desire to learn more. Just the opposite, in fact. Knowing that I will find order and purpose within any aspect of the systems I work on encourages me to explore further - to determine the purpose, the function, and the thoughts of the designer. If one can be so intellectually absorbed in a system designed by men, how much more fascinating would it be to be studying a system designed by God? A large branch of Computer Science and other sciences as well, is Reverse Engineering, the process of analyzing complex, designed systems in order to discover their technological principles. Why should biology be any different?sagebrush gardener
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Salthe Rocks! Ditto that. I just finished the paper.tribune7
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Leo1787: "However when being critical and identifying gaps in our knowledge of the history of the universe, of which there are many, we should attempt to fill those gaps with naturalistic explanations, as those are the only ones for which we can find proof." At some point this philosophical approach produces absurdity, and its explanatory limitions should be admitted. Mozart's Jupiter Symphony is not the grand product of physics, chemistry and stochastic processes.GilDodgen
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT

Tribune7 wrote:

I liked this:

Salthe Rocks!

His corollary ion to Fisher's fundamental theorem may be getting some empirical confirmation.

More Darwinian Assumptions Shot Down

Harsh environmental conditions were associated with strong selection for increased birthweight but low genetic variance, and vice versa. Consequently, the potential for microevolution in this population is constrained by either a lack of heritable variation (in poor environments) or by a reduced strength of selection (in good environments). More generally, environmental dependence of this nature may act to limit rates of evolution, maintain genetic variance, and favour phenotypic stasis in many natural systems. Assumptions of environmental constancy are likely to be violated in natural systems, and failure to acknowledge this may generate highly misleading expectations for phenotypic microevolution.

Salthe was right on! He prophetically pointed out:

(10) The internal contradiction in its [Darwinism's] major theoretical cornerstone -- Fisher’s fundamental theoremAs mentioned above, Fisher’s theorem has it that population variance in fitness is exchanged over the generations for population fitness increase -- that is, for adaptedness. A corollary would be that traits having been subjected to heavy selection pressures, because of their importance in the lives of the organisms, should be less variable than less important traits. This has been found in traits judged to be of importance for jumping in frogs (Salthe and Crump, 1977), while these same traits were not found to be significantly less variable than others in populations of frogs that walk
but do not jump. Now, at the same time, note that when asked which traits are most likely to be able to evolve, evolutionary biologists, again citing Fisher’s theorem, will reply, “those that have more variability in fitness”. That is to say, traits that have been most important in the lives of organisms up to this moment will be least likely to be able to evolve further! So Fisher’s theorem is “schizoid” when one compares its postures facing the future or the past.

Salthe demonstrated a fatal internal contradiction in the theory. The guy absolutely rocks!

scordova
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
I liked this:
so we see that randomness is not really the best way refer to what the Darwinians need here. Richard Lewontin has suggested that they use ‘capriciousness’ instead. Each and every change must be capricious, reflecting pure contingency. This means also that choice is being made here between two major interpretations of randomness -- as being a result of ignorance on the part of the observer, or as reflecting a basic indeterminacy in a system. For neoDarwinians the choice must go to the latter. Otherwise, again, some external force, unknown to us, might be influencing relevant statistical moments.
tribune7
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Leo1787,
Leo wrote: In response to Salvador, thank YOU for welcoming participation from the other side of the argument...
You are welcome, and welcome as well to our weblog. I view the comminication of ID in approximately 2 phases: 1. ID-prerequisites (arguments against Darwinian evolution and prevailing naturalistic theories) 2. ID theory proper I think #1 can and should be admitted and discussed freely. Salthe makes a very good non-ID critique of Darwinian evolution. He is an author of evolutionary biology textbooks and has been published by MIT press. It is understandable he is listed prominently in the Discovery Institute honor roll. Whether one hesitates to explore #2 is understandable, but there is plenty of serious and legitimate science that can be done on #1 that should be far above any issue of metaphysics, religion, or philosophy.
Leo wrote: Even incomplete proof with further research is better than, “God designed it that way.” Scientifically, where do you go from there?
Simply knowing that a play, poem, or a work of music is designed by an intelligence does not discourage it's study, quite the opposite. In fact, it is so natural that when one is enamored by the genius of a musical composer, that one is strangely motivated to study even his most obscure and less prominent works. Such is the case if nature is designed. If nature is designed, particularly by God, a supreme intelligence, I find this to be a greater motivation to study nature and experience it, even the suppossedly "lesser works" of God. Finally from a practical standpoint, about 1/3 of freshman bio majors today are possibly design friendly. (the exact number would be a worthy poll question!). University administrators should be senstive to the fact they may be needlessly driving away fine minds away from the study of biology. Several of the students in the Virginia IDEA chapters are biology majors and had to endure a hostile academic environment. I'm very concerned that needless animosity is being generated and fine minds are being troubled if not even being wasted. I'd like to point out a related development at UCSD (home of IDEA): 40% of freshman in UCSD’s sixth college reject Darwinism Whether ID is right or wrong is an important question, but as it stands, I think schools systems (high school and college) could do a better job in their treatment of a substantial number of prospective pro-ID students. Salvadorscordova
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT

"Binghampton" is spelled wrong!!

It should be "Binghamton". I should know-I work at this school's bookstore.

Best regards,
apollo230

Many thanks apollo230! I fixed the problem. -- Salapollo230
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
idadvisors, good points all... "why do we need a law to teach it?" should be a banner held high for all to see and it should be an embarrasment to scientist. I do not mind teaching evolution as a theory. But for judicial tyranny to enforce certain science theory without rebuttal is a dictatorial relationship between the people and government. Judges should not be allowed to dictate local governing bodies over childrens education. The only perogative of federal, state and local governments is to insure students excel by standard, verifiable test that students are on par with national standards. As we see today, public education is a morass of poor planning and administration. Evolution is taught in our schools and look at the pathetic output. Yet evolutionist claim somehow it can get worse if you teach children it has flaws. This is the ultimate misdirection play. Can you imagine a law that enforces we must accept the Big Bang as the final theory for our universe? The ACLU sues Dover for allowing criticism of the Big Bang and recommending students read materials which argue for evidence against it! There are still many scientist who disagree with Big Bang, but its not singled out for legalistic maneuvering by the ACLU and others. Why not? Does not the Big Bang effect our very purpose for being here today, alive on this planet? If there's no Big Bang, then what? Teachers discuss openly the short-comings of Big Bang theory and look at other theories without fear of reprisal, job discrimination, possible job loss or lawsuits. This is how all science education should proceed. With open discussion of faults when found in all scientific theory. Evolution does not alone deserve special recognition.Michaels7
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT

In response to Gil, your reference to consensus is curious, considering most ID proponents use the same argument as support for teaching ID in schools, citing polls that show parents support the teaching of ID, etc.

In fact, the scientific community doesn't suggest we should teach evolution on the basis of polls or some other democratic process, quite the opposite. If you are suggesting there is consensus among the scientific community about the truth of evolution, I agree wholeheartedly, there most certainly is consensus on that point. But you can't have it both ways, so kindly clarify your statement.

We can all vote on whether we believe in the Theory of Gravity or not, and whether or not we should teach it in school. The result would have no impact on the truth of the theory, it would still be true even if 50% of the population voted not to teach it.

In response to Salvador, thank YOU for welcoming participation from the other side of the argument, such is not always the case on this blog. And you made a point to mention twice that Binghamton is a secular university, I am a Binghamton alum, I can assure you, the concept of ID would find very little safe harbor there. I also noted Slathe is a visiting scientist, his bio indicates he teaches at CUNY in Brooklyn.

So I don't find much irony in one person designated as a visiting scientist who is critical of evolution (though, as you astutely point out, no fan of ID). Being critical of evolution is fine, in fact its necessary to our learning. However when being critical and identifying gaps in our knowledge of the history of the universe, of which there are many, we should attempt to fill those gaps with naturalistic explanations, as those are the only ones for which we can find proof. Even incomplete proof with further research is better than, "God designed it that way." Scientifically, where do you go from there?

Considering there isn't any way to test or prove how, why, or when God did anything, you won't get very far.

In fact, the scientific community doesn't suggest we should teach evolution on the basis of polls or some other democratic process, quite the opposite. Correct. They rely on appointed judges to rule that any criticism whatsoever of Darwinian evolution violates a constitutional prohibition against government establishment of a religion. You're quite right in there being nothing at all democratic about that process. -ds Leo1787
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT

idadvisor,

They [Darwinists] are practicing ontologists before being scientists. As a judge in Arkansas said “If it’s science, why do we need a law to teach it?” Likewise, if Darwinian evolutionary theories are science, then why do we need indoctrination campaigns?

Thank you for you comment.

Robc,

Welcome to our weblog. Though we disagree, thank you for participating.

The point of my post was to show the curious fact a professor of biology at Binghampton university, a highly schooled former Darwinist, puts forth very devastating arguments against a theory that is simultaneously being promoted in school.

Electrodynamics, atomic chemistry, celestial mechanics, thermodynamics, information science, bio-chemistry: those are real scientific disciplines. Engineers build space ships and airplanes with these things. Scientists make pharmaceuticals with knowledge of biochemistry. Those are real and operationally useful sciences. Furthermore, they are very much open to serious falsification. If Maxwell's equations are wrong, well, we'd know right away. Students can experience the truthfulness of those theories every day of their life. That is not the case with Darwinian evolution....

As far as beliefs being threatened, Darwinism is not being rejected soley because of religious beliefs, it is being rejected today because it has failed as a scientific hypothesis. Darwinism is bad theology, bad philosophy, and bad science.

Salthe's essays should be part of that class as well as this book:
Genetic Entropy by Cornell Geneticist John Sanford.

What is distressing is there are such major problems with Darwinian evolution, it should not even be seriously considered scientific in it's major claims.

I invite you to get ahold of Sanford's book, to study it dilengently. If you truly comprehend Sanford's agruments, then at that point I think you'll understand why I label what's going on indoctrination.

It's indoctrination to claim Darwinian evolution is "as well established as any scientific theory" when it is not, and when the proponents know it's not. How can they be so shameless to make such claims when there is a university professor, a biologist, in Stanley Salthe, at that very school who points out otherwise. I hope you appreciate the irony of the situation.

And this peculiar irony at Binghampton plays out on numerous secular campuses either privately or publicly. We were just lucky enough to have information on what's happening out there.

Sanford was one scientist at a secular school who dissents from Darwin, Salthe is another, and here is yet another, Bryce Paschal, etc.

If I may ask robc, what makes you think Darwinism is the major vehicle for the designs in life? What scientific literature persuades you?

Salvador

PS
Salthe is not pro-ID, but he is clearly anti-Darwinian

scordova
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Darwinian evolutionary theory requires indoctrination because many of its basic tenets are full of logical and evidential holes, unlike the hard sciences. This is why consensus is constantly invoked in support of Darwinism, but never is for the hard sciences, which are solidly enough established that no one ever feels the need to invoke consensus.GilDodgen
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Robc, indoctrination campaigns exist because Darwinists adhere to naturalism before doing empirical investigations. They are practicing ontologists before being scientists. As a judge in Arkansas said "If it's science, why do we need a law to teach it?" Likewise, if Darwinian evolutionary theories are science, then why do we need indoctrination campaigns?idadvisors
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT

Rob, I've taught first year college students and in my experience, most of them aren't even close to being ready to make good arguments in this area or deal with the full implications of NDE. Maybe you teach at an elite college or university where the first semester freshman are on par with many of the seniors at my institution. In that case I'll hesitantly give you a pass, although having done my undergrad work at a school on the cusp of the elite, I still don't think students at such places show up first semester with solid grounding in logic or philosophy.

Many first year students don't know the difference between induction and deduction, let alone how to critically evaluate the specious reasoning involved in many of the more radical biological claims they'll encounter (for example: most of what's coming from the evolutionary psychology camp).

I also have to chuckle a bit at the idea that Dennett is being hailed as an authority. Again, if they're selling philosophical arguements to kids who haven't yet purchased their philosophical toolkit, how can this be a good thing?

Agreed. I took a class in formal logic at SUNY. I got a perfect score on every exam and didn't spend any more time on the class than the time spent sitting in the classroom and I cut class as much as I could get away with. Most of the class flunked out. I couldn't believe it. The same thing happened in a microprocessor architecture class where the only things you had to know were first year Fortran (a prerequisite) and Boolean logic (not a prerequisite that I recall). Boolean algebra was a course given to me in the military before attending college so I suppose I had a bit of an advantage there. -ds LowenheimSkolem
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT

It would be great if someone from this board could rebut the conclusions of this guy
At http://library.lib.binghamton.edu/evos/evoslecture/
Title:Intelligent Design versus Evolutionary Theory
Presenter:
Elliot Sober
E-Mail:
Date: Wednesday, February 01, 2006

About 40 minutes into his lecture he speaks about the watch and the human eye.

And dosn't even consider asking this question.

Which one is more complex (scientifically)? The watch or the Eye?

IF the eye is more complex , therefor the intellegince(human intelligence) that made the watch is LESS intelligent than the designer of the eye(Unknown intelligence)

IF the watch is more complex , therefor the intellegince(human intelligence) that made the watch is MORE intelligent than the designer of the eye(Unknown intelligence )
How do you define complexity from oberserved , measured observations, scientifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

Must have the follwoing properties

* 3.1 Relationships are non-linear
* 3.2 Relationships contain feedback loops
* 3.3 Complex systems are open
* 3.4 Complex systems have a history
* 3.5 Complex systems may be nested
* 3.6 Boundaries are difficult to determine
* 3.7 Dynamic network of multiplicity

Eye complexity = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Dynamic_range (secular source) and

Mechnical watch complexity = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch

You answer the above questions(3.1 > 3.7) with a weighed scale(say 1 to 100 where 100 is the maxium complex device) for each questions with your measuments, do come up with the answers of which is more complex. Hmmmmmm I wonder what would be the results

It would be great if someone from this board could rebut the conclusions of this guy Someone has. -ds heyman
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT

Scordova: Why is this indoctrination? Because the students at the end of the course in general display more support for the TOE? Is it remotely possible that these COLLEGE students could actually make their own decision in this direction after receiving more information about the evidence for evolution? Or are they just stupid sheep being shown propaganda by the evil machine?

By this logic, you might as well start calling physics and chemistry classes indoctrination as well. After taking the course, most students have a better understanding and more support for the theories being presented. Indoctrination!!

Or, is it possible that one cries "indoctrination" anytime a student makes a cognitive choice to support a theory that you have a problem with?

You also said:
"What theory of physics or chemistry requires an indoctrination program to maintain it’s acceptance? Do theories of gravity and electricity require an indoctrination campaign like this to get students to accept it?"
- No, they do not! Why is that? Because they are not under constant attack from those who's beliefs are threatened by them. As soon as "Intelligent Falling" theory starts to gain serious political momentum, we will be have to do the same for gravity! Then you will start to cry Indoctrination for every basic physics class...

robc
June 21, 2006
June
06
Jun
21
21
2006
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply