Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
Darwin's economic views are irrelevant to this debate. And Darwin had nothing to do with the foundation of social Darwinism, which has been an extension of his theory of natural selection to sociological and historical spheres, by figures like Spencer. If you believe social Darwinism is equivalent to capitalism, you haven't read them. It's just wrong. They apply their theories to many more spheres than economics. Now that's not to say some of the proponents of social Darwinism haven't tried to interpret capitalism as either reflecting or supporting their theory, because they have. I disagree with that characterization per my previous post.
You read my post incorrectly. It was Darwin who was influenced by the "invisible hand" in fashioning the idea of natural selection. Social Darwinism is much older than biological Darwinism.
The problem with social Darwinism is that it is cruel. Science describes how things work; it does not dictate morals and ethics. Saying that science leads to bad behavior is exactly like saying guns kill.
So, the Social Darwinism philosophy was cooked up before anybody had heard of Darwin or Darwinism???
Has Gilligan been into that special coconut juice again?
Saying that science leads to bad behavior is exactly like saying guns kill.
I think you missed the point of the discussion.
But in the long run, having a central authority set prices, by what ever means, for whatever justification, just delays the pain. The marketplace will find a way to get the lowest prices, just as most people will drift towards the store with the lowest prices.
Price setting is definately a bad idea...however, governments have always had the ability to control prices charged by foreign firms/businesses through the use of tarrifs, and even immigration! Yes, people find a way to get around those too, but it provides a means of allowing the domestic producers to get their acts together.
But the problem with the current wave of off-shoring has to do with the fact that the workers/producers in these countries have a whole different set of rules that they play by. Our labor laws, enivornmental laws, safety laws, and tax laws simply don't apply to them. All these laws, rules, and regulations create barriers and costs to American businesses that the foreign firms don't have to be concerned about. And the rational for all these laws and regulations were to PROTECT the American worker/consumer! Like it or not, protectionism exists at many, many levels in our culture and governement. We are "protecting" ourselves right into massive unemployment/underemployment as it is.
I'd much, much, much rather see an across-the-board increase in tarriffs than a national sale tax. At least then I could "vote" not to buy any foreign made goods. Right now, there isn't much of a choice.
I'd much, much, much rather see an across-the-board increase in tarriffs than a national sale tax. At least then I could "vote" not to buy any foreign made goods. Right now, there isn't much of a choice.
I'm all for abolishing income tax, sales tax and property tax. If it could be done tomorrow, I'd be very happy.
But the government needs money, so I'd be all for increased tarriffs on imported goods and services. Perhaps even on raw materials!
I'm a conservative, but more importantly I'm a conservative American. Allowing foreign goods and service to poor in in the name of "free trade" is just plain stupid. It's only a good idea if the other country is allowing our stuff in as well, like with NAFTA. I don't think India, Asia and Europe is as kind to us as we are with them.
NRST & Darwin? WTF placemark.
There are many kinds of mutation.
I went to the mutation web page that you linked to: ghr.nlm.nih.gov. (Our tax dollars at work!)
It seems as if mutations are either neutral in character, or cause problems--sometimes rather signficant problems. Is this true? Are there no truly beneficial mutations?
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your observations about the irony of a theory based on random chance becoming the foundation of a deterministic philosophy. I have also enjoyed and appreciated your other comments to other posters.
Thanks for the kind words, I've enjoyed your posts too c-t.
I argued on another Kansas crevo thread that Darwin's little theory is not just "science" but rather a metaphysical explanation that cuts across a broad range of disciplines. But more importantly, it has given tremendous aid and comfort to our arch enemies: liberals/socialists/marxists/communists/fascists and the like. I have no doubt Sanger was a big fan of Darwin, and it's a fact of history that Marx and Stalin thought the world of him and his theory.
Shoot, based on that sort of track record, no self-respecting conservative should have anything to do with evolution, whether or not it's "scientific."
One doesn't see this sort of thing due to Newtonian physics, or quantum mechanics. Socialists are not making policy based on the Heisenberg Uncertianty Principle.
...and the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man. It's all related...
... this Mr. Stay Puft's okay, he's a sailor, he's in New York, we get this guy laid we won't have any trouble.
Its interesting to me that the parts of Darwin's theory people fight the most over, an old earth, descent of species from common ancestors and genetic change leading to altered or new species, are not the parts of the theory that has led to the pernicious ideas you mentioned, but rather it's the theory that random mutation produces variations in a species that compete in the "fight for the survival of the fittest" is the agent of change in life on earth. And its that aspect for which there is such a dearth of evidence.
An old paleontologist friend of mine once told me we (scientists) know change has occurred (the "fact" of evolution, if you define evolution as change in life on earth), we just don't know what the change agent is.
Its interesting to me that the parts of Darwin's theory people fight the most over, an old earth, descent of species from common ancestors and genetic change leading to altered or new species, are not the parts of the theory that has led to the pernicious ideas you mentioned, but rather it's the theory that random mutation produces variations in a species that compete in the "fight for the survival of the fittest" is the agent of change in life on earth. And its that aspect for which there is such a dearth of evidence.
There is no evidence at all for the concept of mutation creating more complex, "successful" creatures. Even before the "natural selection" part kicks in, something had to be mutated into existence in a creature for it to be able to survive and reproduce in a manner far more effective than if that mutation never took place.
Sadly, the evidence for these sort of mutations in animals is zero. No one has ever observed even one. And yet if these mutations don't exist, than neither does a species creating evolution. At best, you get what we already know: variation on a theme.
For instance, we all know bats are mamals with incredibly specialized and unique characteristics well beyond that of any other type of mamal. So assuming some sort of common ancestor for the bat, how did a nice little ground loving furball of a mamal all of sudden begin producing wings, sonar, a love of caves and dark places, etc., when it was obviously doing a fantastic job of surviving without any of that stuff??? Evolution can provide some really fantastic "just-so" stories in an attempt to explain the origin of bats, but that's all it will ever be able to do.
The truth is, biologists know that DNA plays just a tiny part in the process of reproduction. The egg itself plays a MAJOR role in that process, and has all sorts of built-in limitations that keep reproduction within very strict bounds. You can't just feed an egg any old DNA strand you want, as eggs only use particular parts of the code for very particular parts of cell creation. If the code it's looking for isn't there, or is corrputed, then the egg either fixes the code (but no one knows exactly how) or it just produces something that will not be viable--it will be DOA.
There is a lot about the role the egg plays in reproduction that is completely mysterious. The egg plays the computer to the DNA's data. But exactly how that computer knows what to look for in that data stream, and what to do about it, is largely unknown.
But one thing that is apparent: there are very particular boundaries--at least in animals--that you cannot cross. A creature can be varied to a certain extent, and then no further.
But don't let the dogmatic neo-Darwinian evolutionists find out about this: it would spoil their whole carefully crafted metaphysical argument. Nothing is impossible where evolution is concerned--except, of course, anything that it can't explain...
An old paleontologist friend of mine once told me we (scientists) know change has occurred (the "fact" of evolution, if you define evolution as change in life on earth), we just don't know what the change agent is.
I have a friend who is a brilliant geologist. I asked him how do geologists know, exactly, how old rocks are. He gave a simple answer: faith.
Indeed, Darwin did not develop his theory in a cultural vacuum – nor has his theory been contained to “mere science” since then.
I strongly agree that the poison pill to the metaphysical naturalist (atheistic) exploitation of evolution theory is the repeated failure of the notion of randomness. For them, it was a fatal attraction to invite the mathematicians and physicists to the table. These investigators are epistemologically zealous and thus have no allegiance to prior dogma.
IOW, the evidence is that functional complexity emerged. Such complexity does not arise by happenstance – at the very least there was information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis and rules for self-organizing complexity. In the alternative, there was external agency or force(s) punctuating the emergence of functional complexity along the way.
Of all the disciplines, mathematics and physics are the most ideologically neutral. I predict that their influence on evolution theory will be such that in the very short future, hardly anyone will be speaking of random mutations as a primary cause of variation.
The absence of "randomness" from evolution theory will certainly dismantle the cultural meaning derived from it these many years.
I couldn't agree more, A-G.
In between appointments today I heard Dennis Prager interview Charles Murray about his new book, "Human Accomplishment." Murray argues that the unprecedented achievements in the arts and sciences over the last 500 years happened because of specific elements of the civilization of the West that came into being during the Renaissance and Reformation, most of which Christianity is responsible for, such as the value placed on the individual human being, that there is such a thing as good, both ethically and qualitatively, and our belief that we have one shot at accomplishing something in life. He blames the cultural decay that began to set in about 150 years ago for the awfulness in the arts and the slower pace of discovery in the sciences.
Your observation that mathematics and physics seem least affected by this is interesting because although I am not a scientist, my outsider's observation is that those disciplines seem most vigorous and most immune from the effects of social darwinism and kindred ideas.
I need to get that book.
The really great things about mathematicians and physicists (IMHO) are that (a) they accept the results no matter how inconvenient, (b) they follow the leads even when they'd rather not and (c) the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
IOW, the evidence is that functional complexity emerged. Such complexity does not arise by happenstance – at the very least there was information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis and rules for self-organizing complexity. In the alternative, there was external agency or force(s) punctuating the emergence of functional complexity along the way.
The fossil record is good evidence for the "punctuating" theory, as Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldrede would heartily agree--though I don't think they would agree with the "external agency" part!
Of course the problem with Gould's & Eldredge's punk-eek is that there is no proof that it can produce complexity, though there is some evidence that it can produce two species who can no longer breed with each other. Whether or not this speciation is a result of increased "complexity" seems to be mere speculation, as the species preserved in the fossil record often seem to be just more tips of the branches on the tree of evolution, rather than main trunks.
Of all the disciplines, mathematics and physics are the most ideologically neutral. I predict that their influence on evolution theory will be such that in the very short future, hardly anyone will be speaking of random mutations as a primary cause of variation.
The tremendous hole in neo-Darwinian evolution is the complete lack of evidence for randam, beneficial mutations that give an animal an extra edge in survival. But if mutations are not the answer to evolution, then are we really talking about evolution, or something completely different?
The absence of "randomness" from evolution theory will certainly dismantle the cultural meaning derived from it these many years.
It may just dismantle "evolution" entirely. Not even Eldredge's and Gould's punk-eek does away with the slow, gradual changes demanded by all types of Darwinian evolution, nor does it do away with randomness.
I find it very interesting that scientist aleady know that it is an entire fertilized egg, not just the DNA inside, the determines how a creature devolops from an embroyo, and what sort of characteristics that creature might have. DNA plays a role, but, surprisingly, not a major one! The DNA is just data for the egg's computer. A poor, but interesting metaphor would be DNA acting like an a list of options for a new car. The basic form of the car is unchanged by adding or subtracting options, just it's superficial appearance. A creature's form is derived from it's egg, not it's DNA. There's a LOT of information stored in the egg, apart from the DNA, that biologist's really don't know that much about; but they do know it's there, and it plays a huge role in a creature's embroyonic development.
They also know that the egg places tremendous constraints on just how much one creature can vary from another. In order for substansive changes to take place in a species, the entire structure of the egg needs to change. While this is certainly possible, I believe the research shows that a given creature's egg structure remains fairly consistent throughout multiple generations, though the DNA might change considerably.
What this means is that DNA alone is useless for creating new species. Unless the egg changes substantially, all you get are just so many variations on a theme.
Interesting note: until just recently, I did not realize just how little scientists know about the process of cell division. However, it does seems as if DNA has little to do with it, as there are other structures within a cell that control and organize it's reproduction. I imagine this lack of knowledge about the process of cellular division explains why there is no cure for cancer. This lack of knowledge may also explain why "randomness" is still a popular notion in evolution. Once more information is known about the process and structures of cell replication, I think we will find little or no room for randomness. Even with what little is known, it seems as if randomness in cell replication is, at best, very harmful; as cancer seems to demonstrate.
It may be the ultimate irony that a cure for cancer and the end of neo-Darwinian evolution might be one and the same!
Thanks for writing Alamo-Girl!
Your observation that mathematics and physics seem least affected by this is interesting because although I am not a scientist, my outsider's observation is that those disciplines seem most vigorous and most immune from the effects of social darwinism and kindred ideas.
That immunity is a good thing. I think I'll need to get that book too, if only as a companion to my copy of Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence: 500 years of Western Cultural Life."
Outstanding book, Ronzo! It's on my library shelf, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.