And now for the good news … somebody spoke up

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 18, 2012

News, science education}

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

In a column in Nature (17 May 2012), “Reach out to defend evolution,” palaeontologist Russell Garwood warns, “Creationists seize on any perceived gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary processes. But scientists can and should fight back, … ”

His evidence? The Tennessee schools bill which just gives teachers the right to consider both sides of explicitly science questions. He takes up one such question in his article: Does the fact that some dinosaurs had feathers establish that birds are descended from them? What about convergent evolution of feathers? He is clearly impatient with the scientists who are unconvinced, and would like them to just not be around – visibly failing to join in the consensus.

As further evidence of the evil that is done under the sun, he offers: “The national biology curriculum of Pakistan, for example, dictates that students be taught ‘that Allah … is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.’” So? What possible proposition in real science would that statement prevent anyone from researching? Of course, if one wanted to use the science curriculum to teach atheism, yes, that statement could signal a problem. But whose problem is it, exactly? The parents’? The students’? The atheist’s? Guess!

If the curriculum had said, “It is an article of faith with us that there are 427 gods, and no one knows which one makes the rules on any given day,” yes, one can foresee problems with teaching science. But monotheism has, if anything, always been an incentive to science, not a disincentive.

It goes on. The good news is that some commenters are taking issue with the nonsense underlying of Garwood’s position:

One of our authors, David Tyler notes pacifically there,

:Russell Garwood wrote: “yet good science thrives on unanswered questions. That papers frankly assess and admit shortcomings in current knowledge is vital.”

Yes, this is exactly right.

You also wrote: “the US state of Tennessee passed a creationist bill that encourages teachers to discuss the “weaknesses” of evolution.”

This is misinformation.
The bill reads: “Shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”

The bill does not take sides on controversial issues, but legitimises the work of teachers who are helping students develop a critical understanding of the issues.

I think this bill is implementing the ideas expressed in your article!

Yes, but if it weren’t for stuff like misrepresenting the Tennessee bill to Brits, the American Darwin-in-the-schools lobby wouldn’t have much of a strategy left.

Comments

I would say, it depends on what you ask of a theory. What should we make of the observation that humans share extensive parts of important genes with jellyfish (and sponges, and other primitive animals)? The notion of common ancestry strikes me as a fairly simple way to make sense of this, but of course common design works as well. As for "no way to test", this is perhaps misleading. It's certainly true that we have no way of going back into the past and observing slow processes over hundreds of millions of years. But what biologists CAN do is observe current processes in the lab, and using simple models show that the currently observed processes are sufficient to produce the historical record best indicated by other evidence. Is it legitimate to extrapolate current processes back into the distant past? Possibly not, but this is done for several reasons. If there is no good reason why processes might have changed over time, the best default is that they have not changed. And if those processes can be successfuly shown to be capable of generating what we observe today, this adds to the likelihood that they haven't changed much over time. In a sense, this is forensics. Is forensics scientific? Good question. I would say that "there isn't ANY way to test that" is a little too emphatic. There may be no direct way to test, but if multiple indirect tests considered together form a consistent model, that model becomes the best-fit explanation pending further discoveries. Enough circumstantial evidence had better be sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt, else knowledge is impossible to collect or increase.David W. Gibson_{May 20, 2012
May
05
May
20
20
2012
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Even the most simplistic models clearly show that where you have (1) variation; (2) replication with inheritance; and (3) resource scarcity, you get evolution.
Neither Intelligent Design nor baraminology is anti- evolution as they both accept (1) variation; (2) replication with inheritance; and (3) resource scarcity. However the alleged "theory" of evolution says much more than those three things. It says that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents. However there isn't any way to test that. Therefor it ain't science.Joe_{May 20, 2012
May
05
May
20
20
2012
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

DWG: I find it interesting to hear the striking contrast of your experience with mine:
when I was in 9th grade I was personally nowhere near ready to understand the problems of inductive reasoning, or the limitations and advantages of iterative approaches toward the probably correct. I was still at an age where I wanted straight binary answers. Was science right or wrong, multiple choice! And what I wanted was ENTIRELY right or wrong, none of this confusing “probably mostly right, as far as we know, pending what we learn tomorrow.” And I personally think this is the reason why the method of science is glossed over in favor of those issues science has long since determined beyond reasonable doubt. Even though this in practice tends to mean students memorizing factoids to regurgitate on tests, with no real understanding of what science is.
Ninth grade is roughly equal to third form (of five in basic secondary school, with a two-year "sixth form" that prepares for a three year first degree). By that time I had been taught "the scientific method," with an emphasis on how it progresses. Observation, hypothesis, testing and generalisation and acceptance. The case of Newton and his apple particularly stand out in memory. (And, decades later, in setting out to teach methods as a part of the IOSE, I still use Newton and his apple. I have used Galileo at some points too.) The importance of direct observations and inferences therefrom on the subject of those invisible but evident entities, atoms and molecules was also an emphasis. I would shortly be focussing on physics, with its emphasis on clear, well warranted concepts, mathematically expressed empirically reliable laws, and of course the revolution of 100 years ago. I can recall, the next year, sitting in a Chemistry class and daydreaming of a messenger coming to the door to announce the newest revolution, and the major revisions to thought that would be required. In short, the groundwork had been laid for understanding that scientific understanding is provisional and that it progresses by paradigm shifts. I also recall thinking, how maybe, that would not happen right away at fourth form level [after all it was reasonable that we would be maybe ten years behind events]; maybe in university. Maybe, I should say, the class was taught by a Catholic Priest and Chemist, a Boston Irish Jesuit. (I have long since learned to respect the learning and discipline of these men. The last conversation I had with one of them, when I saw him in his 90's in a wheelchair in Jamaica's main international airport, was about contribution to national development, and the logistical challenges likely to be encountered on a social entrepreneurship initiative.) Then, I recall professor Harald Neiderriter of Austria -- thank you, sir -- in my very first Math course in uni, teaching us how we were responsible to cross check and test for ourselves what our lecturers had to say, and on how in implication the true leads by correct implication to the true but from falsity, anything. The last, he put in Latin. In short, our experiences of learning science were in very different paradigms. And, when it comes to understanding the challenges of inductive reasoning, as an educator in my own right, I say that a true and fair view of key revolutions and careers in science, summarised in principles, would go a long way towards inculcating the inherent provisionality involved and the difference between empirical reliability in a given domain of tests and experience and truth in the full sense of accuracy to what is. Similarly, Lord Russell's story of the inductive turkey showing up for his hitherto 100% reliable 9:00 am feed on Christmas eve, has a depth of insight in it that students could profitably tap for years, starting at actually first form level. So, I beg to differ with your suggestion that third formers or the equivalent can legitimately be indoctrinated in the name of science education. That, sir, is a failure of duties of care on the part of educators. Not when the simplest survey of the history of sciences brims over with revolutions, including revolutions led by those on the fringe. I particularly think, here, of a certain third class Swiss Patents Clerk, publishing the pivotal four papers of 1905. As for the onward hint that the grand, metaphysically loaded evolutionary materialist account of origins is to be regarded as beyond reasonable doubt, that is a capital case in point on the reason why we must educate instead of indoctrinate. The exaggeration of stories about varying beak sizes, moth colouration, antibiotic and insecticide resistance into a narrative presented as practically certain, where software corruption accidents filtered for success are alleged to have caused the origin of major body plan features such as bird lungs and wings, the camera eye (several times over), or human ability to use verbal language, fails the duty of care to present the inherent limitations of the methods that would have to be used to ground such an account. The deep past is unobserved and unobservable. What is observable, traces of the past and processes in the present, would warrant the strong conclusion that functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] is a reliable sign of design. At least, if we were to genuinely respect Newton's uniformity principle that in absence of counter evidence, we should infer that the reliably tested adequate cause for an observed effect, can be generalised to cases where we may not observe the causal process directly. (Cf. here on.) On years of discussion, what hinders this well-supported inference to best explanation is not the methods of science proper. No, it is the a priori imposition of materialistic constraints on scientific reasoning, often disguised as methodological principles. And the same years of discussion show that the exposure of this ideological imposition is a flash-point. Not because it cannot be substantiated as an improper and question-begging constraint on inductive reasoning in science, but because it opens doors of thought that a materialism-dominated reigning orthodoxy does not want opened. Which is exactly what I see going on in how the voices of the reigning orthodoxy have reacted to the case in view, especially in their willfully irresponsible caricatures. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2012
May
05
May
20
20
2012
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Collin, I agree with DWG, inference to design is quite legitimate (in archaeology for example) if there is independent evidence of a designer. And this is what puzzles me the most about the ID movement: the reluctance to be more explicit about what exactly the claim is. The when, how and why. More specified hypothesis could be examined and accepted or rejected based on evidence. The contention is that many scientists are too intimidated to openly question the reigning paradigm but the ID community seems to suffer from this problem itself. Come out in the open and lets see what you've got.Jerad_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xkW4C7uOE8s98tNx2mzMKmALeV8-348FZNnZmSWY5H8/edit?pli=1Collin_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Mr. Gibson, You are basically using ad hominem reasoning. You are questioning the assertions of design theory because of the motivations of those asserting it. In arithmetic, I could have very bad motives to argue that 2 plus 2 is 4, but I would still be right. I have been told that when Big Bang theory was first proposed, it was opposed by some because it implied a creator. I mention this because you seem to believe that motives go only one way; the religious stifle science due to their a priori positions. Clearly, it works the other way as well. With regards to your contrasting with engineering, I think that the examples you cite only make the case more difficult for undirected evolution. The more working parts, the more complexity, the more likely a small error will cause significant problems. So the solution is to have error correction mechanisms, yet this compounds the problem because error correction mechanisms cannot evolve without errors (mutations).Collin_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

Gil Dodgen,
With all due respect, you are dead wrong, and I’m a prime example. When I read Michael Denton’s book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis in 1994, I was a devout Darwinist — born, raised, and indoctrinated through college and beyond in Darwinian orthodoxy.
Interesting that you should cast this former condition in such exquisitely religious terms!
Denton, who was/is an agnostic, and clearly had no theological predisposition, made no reference to religion, biblical books and verses, or anything of the kind. He talked about the science.
Yes, although he was not a scientist. And you might mention that he has changed his position quite drastically in the meantime.
I was flabbergasted. I had never heard any of this stuff before! I had lived in a Darwinistic educational cocoon for 43 years. Fortunately, my background in legitimate science (software engineering in particular) enabled me to understand that I had been fed not science, but unsubstantiated speculation that random errors can accumulate to produce advanced information-processing technology.
Well, I am a retired software engineer myself. So I think it's fascinating that your experience led you to the model of biology as being so directly analogous to software engineering, while my experience led me to the conviction that biology and engineering work according to entirely different principles. You sound very much like I was way back in high school - always looking for clear, absolute, binary answers to difficult questions concerning complex and messy systems. And oddly enough, I'm in substantial agreement with you. What decided me, more than anything else, that these different sorts of systems were VERY different was their resiliance in the face of variation. If I got a single bit wrong, the system generally crashed altogether, whereas biological systems are capable of, indeed dependent on, constant alterations of lots of bits. So I decided software engineering principles simply didn't apply. (And curiously, I've been interested to follow computer virus technology. Viruses today rewrite themselves on the fly, deliberately introducing variation with every copy, to defeat "pattern matching" anti-virus software. The arms race becomes increasingly biological.)
This, of course, should be recognized as utter idiocy and nonsense by anyone with any reasoning power who has any experience in information technology.
Yet biology works this way by simple observation. Look at your father. Are you a clone, or do you differ from him in countless details? Clearly, you are not a copy - you are different in many many bits. So you were not produced by anything near the principles of software engineering. I know that as an engineer, I struggled to avoid and eliminate bugs of all kinds. Biological systems NEED what would have been bugs in my code. Different, very different.
Yes, the guy who encouraged me to read Denton’s book is a Christian, and I did indeed convert from the religion of Darwinism to Christianity. But that’s another story.
I suggest it's a story very closely related. Many evolutionary biologists are Christians, but very very few (if any, really) ID proponents are NOT Christians. The correlations are more than accidental.
Oh, and one more thing: The world’s most notorious intellectual atheist of the 20th century, Antony Flew, apparently came to the same conclusion I did as a result of contemporary arguments from design, shortly before he died, although I believe he became something more of a deist than a theist.
Yes, apparently he did. He was very elderly at the time, and had never been a scientist, but as far as I can tell he did change his mind.
Based on evidence, rationality, and any semblance of scientific objectivity, Darwinian claims about the creative capabilities of the Darwinian mechanism should be rejected out of hand as completely unsupportable.
And I'm quite sure they would be, if they didn't explain observation so very well, and make such deucedly accurate predictions, and guide useful research in all areas of biology, and get reinforced by the results of every test, every study, every investigation. And I suppose we can look at this and say to ourselves "No, this can't be, it's inconceivable, it looks insane and absurd and totally unworkable, I refuse to believe it!" And doing so might make us feel better.
An inference to design is rational. Darwinism is quintessentially irrational.
You repeat this with the fidelity of a memorized catechism. An inference to design is very often correct, but not always. And inferences to design ALWAYS require some contextual knowledge - knowledge of the pre-design specification, the design's purpose, the motivations and capabilities of the designer, etc. Where contextual knowledge is unavailable, design inferences are basically impossible. If I see a rock used as a doorstop, can I infer the rock was designed as a doorstop? Well, not without some background knowledge of both doors (and what they're for) and rocks (and where they come from). So in scientific practice, non-design is always the null hypothesis. Sufficient background data can override it, of course, but if it isn't the null hypothesis we must truly live in a demon-haunted world.
Darwinism as taught in the public schools is not science education — it’s a lobotomy.
I find this sort of intensity disturbing. You may be right, you may be wrong. Science provides the tools to distinguish, and those tools show that most hypotheses are wrong. But your conviction is so unshakeably devout, so dedicated, so urgent, as to make one wonder just exactly what there is about it that has you so excited and upset. It has been said that nobody is more doubt than a convert, and your truly virulent rejection underscores the sincerity of your conversion. Even the most simplistic models clearly show that where you have (1) variation; (2) replication with inheritance; and (3) resource scarcity, you get evolution. Invariably. So it sounds like you are rejecting something quite trivially plausible, and doing so with such violence. Very odd.David W. Gibson_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

As I recall, when I was in 9th grade I was personally nowhere near ready to understand the problems of inductive reasoning, or the limitations and advantages of iterative approaches toward the probably correct. I was still at an age where I wanted straight binary answers. Was science right or wrong, multiple choice! And what I wanted was ENTIRELY right or wrong, none of this confusing "probably mostly right, as far as we know, pending what we learn tomorrow." And I personally think this is the reason why the method of science is glossed over in favor of those issues science has long since determined beyond reasonable doubt. Even though this in practice tends to mean students memorizing factoids to regurgitate on tests, with no real understanding of what science is. And I think the words of the law and the reason those words were cast into law are two different things. This is why I asked what this new law does that changes what was done earlier. Superficially, I don't think it changes a thing. Indirectly, I think it can legitimately be viewed as an attempt to undermine confidence in settled science the lawmakers wish would go away. Now, if you believe there is some sort of conspiracy implicitly joined for nefarious reasons by all those who disagree with you, this makes any discussion very difficult. I get the impression that there are two ways to understand this law - your way, and "deliberate misinterpretations" which includes every other possible way. And this is a misfortune, because it force-casts legitimate disagreement into either stupidy, or bad faith.David W. Gibson_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

DWG: Now, it might be legitimate to present students in high school with the actual controversy, which (let’s be honest here) has to do with one’s philosophical posture toward certain biblical books and verses. But while this controversy is real, it is most emphatically not a scientific controversy. With all due respect, you are dead wrong, and I'm a prime example. When I read Michael Denton's book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis in 1994, I was a devout Darwinist -- born, raised, and indoctrinated through college and beyond in Darwinian orthodoxy. Denton, who was/is an agnostic, and clearly had no theological predisposition, made no reference to religion, biblical books and verses, or anything of the kind. He talked about the science. I was flabbergasted. I had never heard any of this stuff before! I had lived in a Darwinistic educational cocoon for 43 years. Fortunately, my background in legitimate science (software engineering in particular) enabled me to understand that I had been fed not science, but unsubstantiated speculation that random errors can accumulate to produce advanced information-processing technology. This, of course, should be recognized as utter idiocy and nonsense by anyone with any reasoning power who has any experience in information technology. Yes, the guy who encouraged me to read Denton's book is a Christian, and I did indeed convert from the religion of Darwinism to Christianity. But that's another story. Oh, and one more thing: The world's most notorious intellectual atheist of the 20th century, Antony Flew, apparently came to the same conclusion I did as a result of contemporary arguments from design, shortly before he died, although I believe he became something more of a deist than a theist. Based on evidence, rationality, and any semblance of scientific objectivity, Darwinian claims about the creative capabilities of the Darwinian mechanism should be rejected out of hand as completely unsupportable. An inference to design is rational. Darwinism is quintessentially irrational. Darwinism as taught in the public schools is not science education -- it's a lobotomy.GilDodgen_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

DWG:
I read the law.
Then, please do not further misrepresent it. It should be quite plain that here has been a climate of intimidation that undermines the necessary reasonable freedom for teachers and students to understand the strengths and limitations of inductive reasoning and of its application in science. Not to mention misrepresentation of the actual state of the science. And in several fields. But then, I speak as one who has seen what happens when science, agendas and politics and economic consequences mix, close at hand, with a long dragged out volcano crisis. What is most significant is the refusal to acknowledge this fact. KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: Yes, I read the law. I don't want to discuss this at cross-purposes here, so let me try to explain what I'm looking at. The law, as far as I can tell, neither encourages nor discourages any teacher from doing what good teachers SHOULD have been doing all along. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, is there anything in current law, or policy, or curricula, which this law modifies at all. Good teaching remains good teaching, and the essence of science is to apply critical thinking wherever possible. Who could possibly object to this? WHY would anyone object to this? Now, as I read it, nobody is actually objecting to the text of the law, but rather to the subtext, and this is a subtle thing. In arithmetic, we are taught that addition has the properties of being communiative, distributive, and associative. We are taught what these things mean and (hopefully) why they are important. Now, imagine a law passed to encourage teachers to present the "strengths and weaknesses" of addition. Why would anyone even consider such a thing? Is there anything WRONG with arithmetic? Well, there must be, else why pass such a law in the the first place. Now, let's say that on further examination, we find that those who wrote and voted for the law are all devout members of a religious sect that finds arithmetic personally offensive. Would we consider that a clue as to what's going on, or would we blythely pontificate that teaching the "strengths and weaknesses of arithmetic" is nothing more than good pedantic technique? So where I would start, and where I'd like you to start, is by examining exactly what is being changed in the current curriculum, who is making this change (if any), and why they would be trying to do so. And if this law is only cheerleading teachers to continue doing what they've always done, why is it necessary? (Incidentally, I enjoyed section (d), which tells us that this bill is intended to "protect the teaching of scientific information" (protect it from WHAT? The teaching of scientific information is not only protected, it is REQUIRED!). And that the law is not to be construed as being religiously motivated in any way! But the legislative history makes the religious basis of this bill explicit, and this section does the same. Imagine a bill passed to "protect the teaching of hygiene", encouraging students to learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of washing their hands and brushing their teeth, and then saying "this is not intended to promote any religious doctrine or discriminate against any religious beliefs." As a sensible person, recognizing that good hygiene has been presented all along, and seeing all this disclaimer about religion of all things, where's the first place you'd look to find a motivation for such a law?)David W. Gibson_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

“Creationists seize on any perceived gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary processes. But scientists can and should fight back, …
They should, but they can't using science, so they made up a sciency-sounding narrative...Joe_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

F/N: Key section of the Tenn Amdt: _________ >> [Whereas:] (1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens; (2) The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning; and (3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectation concerning how they should present information when debate and disputation occur on such subjects . . . . [Therefore . . . ] The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education . . . . (c) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrators, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrators shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education. (d) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. [Amendment No. 1 to SB0893] >> __________ Please, read the whole law.kairosfocus_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

PS: Kindly, cf the definition of design theory under the references tab, top of this and every UD page. Kindly identify where it has anything to do with "one’s philosophical posture toward certain biblical books and verses." Similarly. look at the UD weak argument correctives under the same tab. Kindly explain why you wish to conflate:
(i) Concerns regarding the inherent logical and epistemological limitations of induction and abduction [inference to best current explanation] (ii) further concerns on ideological loading by imposition of a priori materialism [explicit or implicit] as a censoring constraint on scientific studies of origins (iii) concerns on the inherent limitations of attempts to reconstruct a remote, unobserved past of origins (iv) the scientific contention and school of thought that, per Newton's uniformity principle and tested, reliable induction on the observed cause of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [i.e. design] leading to the principle that we have a scientifically warranted right to infer from FSCO/I to design as best causal explanation . . . as opposed to inferring any particular candidate as the designer involved [Inference to arson, not to particular arsonist], with (v) Biblical creationism.
Failing a solid explanation, you are credibly enmeshed in yet another willful misrepresentation of the type Gil is highlighting, and are carrying forward a smear; probably not realising that it is a smear.kairosfocus_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

DWG: Have you taken the time to actually READ the Tenn law, which is all of 2 pp long? Or, have you instead taken the sort of willful misrepresentations that have been deliberately promoted (and which Gil is, quite properly, rebuking as lies) as if they were gospel? Do us a favour. Please read the bill, and please cf the five excerpts and notes here on how science is being redefined as applied materialism with naturalistic evolution as origins myth; then come back to us on the inherent limitations of inductive reasoning in light of Lord Russell's inductive turkey who showed up for his hitherto utterly reliable 9:00 am feed on Christmas eve. Similarly, explain to us the inherent limitations on attempting to reconstruct the remote and unobservable past of origins in general, and in particular as they relate to the origin of life and of major body plans. Do, make particular reference to the statements of the US NSTA and NAS, also taking a glance here on, at how they intervened in Kansas -- note the way a tendentious redefinition of science was used to threaten to hold the children of that state hostage. (The same sort of rumbles have cropped up in Tenn and Louisiana, BTW.) Let us hear your conclusions and rationale in light of a balanced overview of the evidence and issues. Thanks in advance KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2012
May
05
May
19
19
2012
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

I think the problem here is a disagreement about the nature of the public school curriculum. While it is certainly the case that science can never prove anything, and that science assumes that all theories are forever subject to refinement or even rejection, it is also certainly the case that some of what science considers to have established can reasonably be considered settled. Genuine scientific controversies tend to live at the forefront of research, which tends to be performed by specialists with advanced degrees. So the subtext here, when decoded, is that some of what science considers long since settled and not seriously disputed, is nonetheless objected to by people whose motivations are clearly not scientific, but rather social and political. At the 9th grade level, it really is the case that nothing in the domain of science is even slightly controversial within the field of science. Now, it might be legitimate to present students in high school with the actual controversy, which (let's be honest here) has to do with one's philosophical posture toward certain biblical books and verses. But while this controversy is real, it is most emphatically not a scientific controversy. So why would a social/religious/political dispute be considered scientific at all? Why are those who wish to inject such disputes into the high school curriculum almost always transparently religious, and why would they wish to inject religious disputes into science class? I think this would be an interesting discussion, perhaps rewarding for everyone. But the claim that the long-since settled scientific knowledge imparted to 9th graders is controversial within the world of science is simply false. I believe it's necessary to frame a dispute correctly before it's possible even to pursue it.David W. Gibson_{May 18, 2012
May
05
May
18
18
2012
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

“the US state of Tennessee passed a creationist bill that encourages teachers to discuss the “weaknesses” of evolution.” This is misinformation. This is standard operating procedure for the secular left: Willfully misrepresent (i.e., lie about) challengers and their claims, and then attack the misrepresentations. The fact that the secular left must resort to such tactics is evidence that they know they can't compete on the basis of evidence, logic, and rational investigation. Darwinism has become a state-sponsored religion, and whenever the state sponsors a religion, legitimate science is corrupted.GilDodgen_{May 18, 2012
May
05
May
18
18
2012
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply