Why I Care About Teaching the Controversy

_{johnnyb
March 8, 2010

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I realized after my previous post about Academic Freedom legislation that I did not mention why it is that I care about the ability for teachers to “teach the controversy”.

I have been told by several research leaders that any attempt to change curriculum, or do anything with public schools, is a Bad Idea™. I understand where they are coming from. But let me tell you my personal story, and why it leads me to think that biological science itself needs the controversy to be taught.

When I graduated from high school, there were three things that interested me – theology, computer science, and chemistry. I had trouble choosing degrees, so I just decided to get a B.A. in theology and a B.S. in computer science. It was a hard choice, but I decided to drop chemistry.

Now, you see, biology was not on my radar screen. Why not? In a word, the problem was neo-Darwinism.

The problem wasn’t evolution, per se. I did not believe in evolution at the time, but that wouldn’t have prevented me from entering into biology. The problem was that I actually believed what they said about the nature of biological change. That is, that biological change occurs through random mutations and natural selection.

How Boring!

The two sides I knew of biology was either (a) memorizing names of organisms or their parts, and (b) waiting for and observing pointless (by definition!) changes in organisms.

So, basically, if I wanted to mess with something dynamic, I should choose a different branch of science.

Really, what is cooler than the non-Darwinian research? Bacteria which re-engineer their biochemistry to respond to specific threats? Tuning knobs in the genome? Genomes that plan for the future using targetted randomness? Untemplated genetic changes being thrown in to accomodate for stress? Systems which are made from a metaprogramming template and then refined through highly targetted mutations?

Now, of course, none of these things are going to be taught. Not because they aren’t believed by everyone in biology, but because they don’t support the standard neo-Darwinistic viewpoint. If they are taught, they won’t be taught as the awe-inspiring mechanisms they are, but rather as just another instance of random mutation and natural selection. That’s not only untrue, it’s also HIDEOUSLY BORING.

If you want to bore kids out of their mind and get them to major in something else besides the biological sciences, by all means don’t teach the controversy.

Comments

hruno815, If you are trying to ultimately establish consciousness "emerged" from a material basis, you may want to carefully consider this following evidence: I've recently posted this before on another post but it bears worth repeating here: Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has called people who believe in God delusional. Yet, people who are delusional resolutely deny reality. Then the truth is that materialists, such as Richard Dawkins, are the ones who are delusional, in the purest sense of the word, since quantum mechanics has revealed, in no uncertain terms, that reality is a “consciousness centered” reality that precedes the 3 dimensional “material” reality in the first place. i.e. It is impossible for a 3 dimensional material reality to independently give rise to that which it is absolutely dependent on for its own reality in the first place. Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/dr_quantum_double_slit_experiment_entanglement/ The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4240304/the_centrality_of_earth_in_the_universe_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation/ of note: The only way to “geometrically” maintain continuous 3D spherical symmetry of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, within the “3D universe”, from radically different points of observation in the universe, is for all the “higher dimensional” quantum waves of the universe to collapse to their “uncertain” 3D particle state, universally and instantaneously, for/to each individual conscious observer in the universe. The 4-D expanding hypersphere of the space-time of relativity is grossly insufficient to maintain 3-D integrity/symmetry from radically different points of observation in the universe.
“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963
Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for “spooky” forces, as Einstein termed them—forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience – Pim Lommel – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/blind_woman_can_see_during_near_death_experience_pim_lommel_nde/ Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their NDEs. 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/ Intelligent Design – The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/bornagain77_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

hrun, at 10, I think it is no use discussing this matter with you.
That's fine. I will attempt to address your arguments, no matter how ridiculous they are or how much they are lacking in actual facts.
I never pay any attention to Wikipedia, [...]
Your loss. Can you actually refute that the 'reptilian brain theory' means that the reptilian brain PRIMARILY reacts to direct stimuli (thus it means it does as well react to secondary ones).
Like many pop authors, you need to believe in a construct called “the reptilian brain.”
I don't. In fact, I never came across the reptilian brain before. If it does or does not exist does not matter to me one bit. What matters to me is somebody disseminating falsehoods.
Also, hrun at 11: It matters to me [...]
Why. I ask again: Is my argument more or less valid if I am funded by taxpayers? Is your argument more or less valid if you are not? ---- Finally, just as a reminder to everyone: First you claim that "the primitively evolved “reptilian brain” guarantees that the cow alligator shows no concern for her eggs." I ask again: who claims this? I have shown you that what is generally understood as the reptilian brain actually does have the capacity of memory and reaction to secondary stimulus. You simply ignored this fact because it does not fit in your narrative. All those other links and snippets you posted simply redirect from this very fact. Btw. there are many evolutionary biologists that study memory in fish. A brain supposedly even more primitive that the reptilian brain.hrun0815_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

O'Leary @13, What hrun0815 is pointing out is that you are using the term reptilian brain as if it were the actual brain of a reptile. This is the same type of error pointed out by johnnyb in another thread where OT slavery was compared to 19th century slavery. A reptile's brain is not the "reptilian brain".
ARE you funded by my – or any citizen of a liberal democratic society’s – taxes? Yes, it DOES matter.
The other side of the sword, is that if he is right, the taxpayer got a benefit.Toronto_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

hrun, at 10, I think it is no use discussing this matter with you. 1. I never pay any attention to Wikipedia, and would think the less of any teacher or prof who authorized its use. (For some months, if not years, I was "Diane" O'Leary there - an easy matter to fact check - but which of their zealots or ideologues would bother with plain, easily verifiable facts? As opposed to Darwinists' fanciful speculations, my personal info is a matter of public record, and so far the record has never been contested by me or anyone else.) 2. Like many pop authors, you need to believe in a construct called "the reptilian brain." I don't care, as long as it does NOT find its way into public policy, as it threatens to do. As understood in popular culture, it is a myth, period. Also, hrun at 11: It matters to me because I must shortly file my tax return. I resent paying for publicly funded nonsense about the natural world - on behalf of all good citizens of the Western world, only to support the worthless ideology of Darwinism and fund the persecution of dissenters. ARE you funded by my - or any citizen of a liberal democratic society's - taxes? Yes, it DOES matter.O'Leary_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

I believe this woman has something very powerful to say about "teaching the controversy" Radical Marxist, Radical Womanist, Radical Love: What Mother Teresa Taught Me about Social Justice http://vimeo.com/8896410 The Three Dominant Worldviews in the University and Their Relationship to the Christian Worldview http://vimeo.com/9170297 Justice: Christian and Secular http://vimeo.com/9162329 Jesus and the University http://vimeo.com/9191623 What Mother Teresa Can Teach You That Your University Can't http://vimeo.com/9192066 Seeking Truth: The Radical Conversion of a Professor http://vimeo.com/9193119bornagain77_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

By the way, just so I know, are you funded by taxpayers? I'm not.
I just saw this part. How does this matter? Have my arguments more or less merit if I am funded by taxpayers? Does it matter to your arguments who funds you? I made observations on what you wrote and what links you used to support your argument. They are lacking. It was pointed out to you. In return, you misrepresented what I wrote. How does taxpayer funds play a role in this?hrun0815_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

<blockquote?Not so far as it has been interpreted, and if you have further info, please post it. Just look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain) and take it from there. For example "The R-complex, also known as the "Reptilian brain", includes the brain stem and cerebellum. The term "Reptilian brain" comes from the fact that a reptile's brain is dominated by the brain stem and cerebellum which controls instinctual survival behaviors and thinking. This brain controls the muscles, balance and autonomic functions (e.g. breathing and heartbeat).[1] It is, thus, primarily reactive to direct stimuli."
Wake up, hrun [...]
I didn't argue what you think I argued. Read again.
No, I didn't have any trouble at all. Check my post at 5. [...]
I read you post at 5. It is completely irrelevant. Again: I did not argue what you think I argued. Read again.
I do a lot of fact checking.
If that is true, then things are really sad. First you misrepresent the evidence and then you misrepresent what I wrote.hrun0815_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

As a high school student, you said you wanted to major in theology and didn't believe in evolution. What you thus reveal is that you were already religious and had been taught by someone not to believe in evolution. So you didn't examine the evidence and decide that evolution wasn't true. Someone told you, for religious reasons, that it wasn't, and you've been looking for reasons to prove it false ever since. That, my friend, is called rationalizing. As for your opinion that evolution is boring, well, how can that mean anything to anyone but you? Personally I find it fascinating. To each of us, the answer is "so what?" It's about whether it appears to be true or not. One doesn't teach science in science classes in order to entertain.Retroman_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

hrun at 6 and 7, you wrote "Or… one has to take the term reptilian brain and try to understand it better (something that is most likely done in that particular lecture at McGill)." [Not so far as it has been interpreted, and if you have further info, please post it. Popular culture would be in your debt, provided the McGill team wishes to issue a statement disclaiming "reptilian brain theory" as currently understood.] "Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary." [Wake up, hrun! Many people have got themselves killed or maimed trying to outsmart an adult breeding reptile in its own territory, so I would not suggest that anyone count on the idea that reptiles do not have memory.] "In either case, you will most likely be hard-pressed to find biologists that claim (or teach) that reptilians show no concerns for their eggs." [No, I didn't have any trouble at all. Check my post at 5. But I must go back to my deadline job. I only get short breaks. By the way, just so I know, are you funded by taxpayers? I'm not.] "As always, I am puzzled by the fact that (in particular as a journalist) you can simply claim and announce things without actually fact-checking." [I do a lot of fact checking. Darwinists, by contrast, hunt and peck, looking only for what supports their desperately needed theory. By the way, I would wager that crocodilians are not the only reptiles that defend their eggs. Just the ones with the most impressive jaws. Granted, it is hard for a human to understand any reptile's emotions, apart from a trip to the ER. I strongly recommend that all humans stop short of that.]O'Leary_{March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Crocodiles are closer to birds than to snakes and turtles. (4 chambered hearts, and like birds, they care for their young)Fross_{March 8, 2010
March
03
Mar
8
08
2010
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

re #5: I realize that you write all, so I assume that nothing you write actually addresses what I wrote earlier?hrun0815_{March 8, 2010
March
03
Mar
8
08
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

re #4: How in the world is your challenge going to address what I wrote earlier?hrun0815_{March 8, 2010
March
03
Mar
8
08
2010
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Hi, all, Cold reptilian brain theory (now that I have my fifteen minute break): Reptilian brain theory as espoused by a neuroscientist is here, and here, and also here. Oh, and here’s another one. Here, in an Explorations in Neuroscience book, we are informed that the mammalian but not the reptilian brain adds emotion. I defy anyone to watch some of the YouTubes of alligators and crocodiles that I have linked and claim that the cows do not show emotion with respect to their young. Here is a neuroscience mention of protection of self and territory but not protection of young - which alligators and crocodiles evidently do. Now I gotta go back to work again. But if I can do this stuff on my break from a marketplace job, .... what about a Darwinist tax burden somewhere? What's the big problem with just updating his thinking? My sources for alligator cows defending their eggs are mainly people who work or have worked to conserve alligators (and are not called "Lefty" of necessity, or otherwise, "The Dear Departed"). I do not claim that all or most reptiles show concern for their offspring. Probably, the majority do not, as there is no need. Many young reptiles are live born replicas of their parents. But if any reptiles do, claims for the "reptilian brain only" as preventing the show of emotion must be appropriately qualified. It is not hard to see why the alligator cow would evolve to show concern for her eggs/offspring. The eggs must incubate (and any creature could come along and eat them). Then the hatchlings must be carried to the water, in her mouth. Usually, they hang around mom for a while, as they would otherwise just be eaten. There is, I am told, nothing unusual about them r iding on her back. One can say it is all an instinct if one wants. But the instinct is there and it needs to be there. I will try to post some more links. Here are some I found pretty quickly: Alligators caring for eggs or young: “You can see just how protective she is of her nest” Crocodile mom releases hatchling from egg Alligator gathers unhatched eggs in her mouth (= purse, I suppose) and takes them to the water, cracking them open to release the hatchlings. Crocodile feeding her young Study on alligator moms Note especially the call and response. More on alligator moms Riding around on the mom-mobile: Riding on mom’s back, according to San Diego Zoo However, unfeeling reptilian brain theory: Notes on reptilian brain theory Why it matters: Notes on use of reptile brain theory in courtroom (Great ... ) Reptilian brain in shrink’s office. (Note: Hey, some human moms would not be in the courtroom or on the shrink’s couch if they had a bit more reptilian (alligator) brain re protecting their kids.) Promotion of what sounds to me like a fruit n’ nut sundae via reptilian brain theory. Hey, I gotta go back to work now. I am on a deadline. Basically, it is no use telling me that all this - and a lot more I can find -can be written off. The problem is that responsible scientists do not denounce it. Some choose to denounce people like me who expose it. This is the same principle as with “evolutionary psychology”. To the extent that evolutionary biologists take no responsibility for bizarre or occult uses of their work, they differ from, say, physicians, who are quick to denounce apparent quackery. That suggests that physicians’ work has a basis in science, but evolutionary biologists’ doesn’t.O'Leary_{March 8, 2010
March
03
Mar
8
08
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

hrun0815, re your [3], I am afraid it is you, not O'Leary, who is "making it up as you go" and I will prove it. I bet I can go on the internet and within 30 minutes find a dozen credentialed scientists who claim that certain reptiles have no care for their eggs. If I win, you will post a contrite apology to O'Leary. If you win, I will post a contrite apology to you. Do you take the bet?Barry Arrington_{March 8, 2010
March
03
Mar
8
08
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Also, the primitively evolved “reptilian brain” guarantees that the cow alligator shows no concern for her eggs.
Really, a website from a course taught at McGill is the standard for the conventional scientific view of reptilian brains? Why don't we look at the actual scientific literature? There we find hundreds of papers that deal with the memory of fish (e.g. goldfish and zebra fish). And many papers deal with exactly how memories are formed. Or... one has to take the term reptilian brain and try to understand it better (something that is most likely done in that particular lecture at McGill). Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary. In either case, you will most likely be hard-pressed to find biologists that claim (or teach) that reptilians show no concerns for their eggs. As always, I am puzzled by the fact that (in particular as a journalist) you can simply claim and announce things without actually fact-checking them.hrun0815_{March 8, 2010
March
03
Mar
8
08
2010
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Exactly, bored the tears out of me when I was a child. Had anyone told me working in biology would be like working on a car engine, I'd been much more interested. But it was always about collecting, categorizing and then making up stories about what "may have happened." And what is worse is how curiosity is killed in truly bright kids. I was in advanced classes. Yet, I was not able to think advanced thoughts or questions outside the ruling paradigm of Darwinism. I think it is changing today as children are seeing the reality of life unfold before them like we never did. Engineering breakthrus in nano cellular realities has caught up over the last several decades with other sciences. This naturally transfers to more kids interest and will advance the ID paradigm as they enter the field. Being concerned more about how life works as a design is a very fruitful exercise and should be encouraged at all levels, not just special collegiate fields of biomimicry. Science, despite all the handwaving and scare tactics of Darwinist to the contrary will march on, with IDist and/or even more Creationist doing great work. One only need look at people like John Sanford to know that "religion" does not stop science, nor does it require control. These Fear Tactics, attempted to smear IDist are silly propaganda. Propaganda has no place in science.DATCG_{March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

A young cognitive scientist told me years ago that one problem in his field was that he couldn't study a given feature of the human brain without stating "how it evolved" - via Darwinism, of course. "Evolved" never means anything else. No one likely knows how a feature unique to humans really evolved, so he couldn't study such a feature without bullshipping about it. There are still people out there - not Darwinists or evolutionary psychologists, I gather - who find randomly generated bullshipping an insult to everyone's intelligence and a waste of research time. Oh, and did you KNOW that people max out their credit cards (or don't), eat or drink to excess (or don't), chase other people's spouses (or don't), go to church (or don't) entirely due to natural selection acting on random mutation? Also, the primitively evolved "reptilian brain" guarantees that the cow alligator shows no concern for her eggs. Oh, wait ... if you decide to test that last one, make sure you have left your legal and financial affairs in good order, and have a Cadillac health plan. Darwin and his supporters are, of course, always right, except where they are simply wrong. But that doesn't matter if they have got the law and the tax funding on their side.O'Leary_{March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply