Evolution puts state in spotlight [Kansas]

The Lawrence Journal-World ^ | 22 April 2005 | Scott Rothschild

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution found a home Thursday in the oldest church in Kansas during a forum about the controversy over science instruction for public school students.

"There is no conflict between evolution and the Christian faith," said the Rev. Peter Luckey, the senior pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, 925 Vt.

Luckey was preaching to the choir during a five-hour forum that featured scientists, teachers and politicians who argued in favor of teaching students evolution because it is the foundation of science, knowledge of which will be needed to compete for jobs in the growing bioscience industry.

About 75 people attended the forum at Plymouth, which was founded in 1854 and was the first established church in the Kansas Territory. Attempts to inject intelligent design -- the notion that there is a master planner for all life -- into science class should be rejected, they said.

"Intelligent design is nothing but creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas University Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center.

‘Think critically'

The forum was another round in the debate that has thrust Kansas on the national stage.

With control of the State Board of Education in conservative hands [AAARRGGHHH!!], state officials again will consider science standards that will guide teachers.

A committee of scientists has drafted standards that include evolution teaching, but a minority report, led by proponents of intelligent design, wants criticism of evolution included. A State Board of Education committee, comprising three conservative [AARRGHH!!] board members, plans six days of hearings that will revolve around that debate.

The speakers at Thursday's forum were adamant that evolution instruction not be reduced, watered down or dumbed down.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' science adviser, Lee Allison, said when the state approved a $500 million bioscience initiative, it included a provision to recruit top scholars who met the standards of the National Academy of Sciences, which supports evolution without equivocation.

"The state really has taken a position on this in a broad, bipartisan way," Allison said.

Charles Decedue, executive director of the Higuchi Biosciences Center, said teaching evolution was critical because bioscience companies want to locate in places where the work force has received a solid education in chemistry, physics and biology.

"They want people who can think critically," he said.

‘Hayseed state'

Andrew Stangl, a Kansas University sophomore, said his high school science teachers in his hometown of Andover refused to teach evolution.

He bought books and taught himself. He said fear of teaching evolution would hurt the United States in the long term. "I don't want to see other countries pass us by. We are going to economically suffer as a result," he said.

In 1999, Kansas made international news, much of it negative, when a conservative [AARRGGHH!!] board de-emphasized evolution. The 2000 election returned moderates to power, and evolution was reinstated. But with conservatives [AARRGGHH!!] back in control, international criticism was starting again, several panelists said.

Rachel Robson, a doctoral candidate at KU Medical Center, said one of her friends was applying for a job with a Japanese company, and the company officials made fun of Kansas and questioned whether good scientists could come from there.

Thursday's forum attracted national attention from National Public Radio and NBC.

Krishtalka said even though the battle over evolution was going on in several states, "Kansas will be tarred and feathered by the media as the hayseed state."

Carol and Tom Banks, of Prairie Village, attended the forum, saying they were getting tired of conservatives [AARRGGHH!!] controlling the political agenda.

"If intelligent design were taught, that would be teaching religion in public schools," Carol Banks said.

But Jerry Manweiler, a physicist from Lawrence, said he supported teaching intelligent design. "It's important to know the theory of evolution, but it's also important to understand the nature of God," he said. Manweiler said he was put off by the forum speakers' "lack of humility."

Don Covington, vice president of networking for Intelligent Design Network Inc., said he disagreed with the speakers.

"They want their kids to know how to think, but you can't develop critical thinking skills when you tell them to memorize Darwin," he said.

---

Public science standards meetings:

• May 5-7: Science standards hearings in auditorium of Memorial building, 120 S.W. 10th St., Topeka. Time to be determined later.

• May 12-14: Science standards hearings, time and location to be determined later.

[bobdsmith]

If Intelligent Design is true we would expect nature to look differently than if it wasn't.

Why do you say that? An expectation about what Creation is supposed to look like is an a priori philosophical or theological premise rather than a scientific argument.

Intelligent Design in capitals is a movement that argues that it has a scientific model for life on Earth that best fits the current data (fossil record, genetics, etc).

Yet this proposed Intelligent Design model is so general and vague that it would actually fit any set of data, not just the set that actually is.

This means that no matter what discoveries are made in the future it is not possible that they would challenge Intelligent Design. Therefore Intelligent Design is not testable and so isn't science, as even hypothese in science must be testable (ie potentially falsifiable) given future data.

[js1138]

For example, how could the computational machinery present in single celled organisms give rise to to the very complex, specified cellular machinery of sexual reproduction?

The really big step was from cells without nuclei to cells with nuclei. Compared to that, sexual reproduction is a nit. There are dozens of intermediate forms of sexual reproduction still in existence, from bacterial conjugation through various forms and degrees of hermaphrodism, to heterosexual reproduction. We really don't need to speculate on the small steps required. They are still very much with us.

The big piece of complexity is not the changes from single cell to human. It's the basic machinery itself that interprets the genetic code.

[js1138]

I am not really discussing axiomatic systems. I am discussing theories and paradigms created to explain or help conceptualize large systems of data.

Science progresses the way an onion grows, by encapsulating previous knowledge and adding to it. If the previous knowledge was collected by careful methodologies, it will not be rendered incorrect by new knowledge. Rather it will be considered a valid description of a subset of conditions.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I am discussing theories and paradigms created to explain or help conceptualize large systems of data.

I'm o.k. with theories - but before one starts embracing paradigms, he ought to first have a Cosmology in mind else the whole structure could crash and burn.

[js1138]

Paradigms exist at different levels. I'm not sure what you are getting at, but cosmology in the literal sense is at the wrong scale to affect the observable processes of variation and selection. It may come in handy if science develops fruitful hypotheses concerning abiogenesis.

The reason science is not spending much time on things like group consciousness is that there is no known mechanism to support such a phenomenon, no data that require such an interpretation, and thousands of years of superstition, fraud and quackery in this arena.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm o.k. with theories - but before one starts embracing paradigms, he ought to first have a Cosmology in mind else the whole structure could crash and burn.

Vocabulary Time-Out!

A-Girl, before I get too lost, please let me know what you mean when you use the word "Cosmology" in this context, because I don't think you're talking about the Big Bang, etc. I'm well aware that in traditional philosophy, the term "metaphysics" means the nature of reality, and it's regarded as being prior to epistemology. And not too long ago you said, to much praise by me, that most of the arguments around here are actually about the nature of reality -- which I took to be a statement about the primary role of metaphysics. But now "Cosmology" is appearing in your posts, and I'm confused. (I'm often confused, but I'm getting used to it.) So help out an old freeper.

[betty boop]

The reason science is not spending much time on things like group consciousness is that there is no known mechanism to support such a phenomenon, no data that require such an interpretation, and thousands of years of superstition, fraud and quackery in this arena.

It seems obvious to me that a field is involved -- EM or other. Fields are universal in extention, but are susceptible to local organization and use by living organisms. That would be your mechanism. With respect to the social animals (bees, ants, etc.), it is apparent that the "real" organism or animal is the entire hive; the seemingly discrete, individual bee is analogous to a cell in the body of, say, the human organism. All the "cells" are coordinated, integrated, and organized into the forms and behaviors that advance the life prospects of the total animal, by means of "successful communication" with a source of relevant biological information that is mediated by a field.

We are all of us up to our eyeballs in fields of various kinds (e.g., quantum, EM, gravitational). But we do not notice this, of course.

Anyhoot, the above is an interesting conjecture that is receiving serious scientific attention. Believe it or not. I suppose you would be inclined to simply dismiss the entire affair as just another fraud or quackery in the making.... Me, I'll just wait on forthcoming developments before I make up my mind.

[PatrickHenry]

It seems obvious to me that a field is involved -- EM or other. Fields are universal in extention, but are susceptible to local organization and use by living organisms. That would be your mechanism.

I need some help here, in order to catch up to what you feel is so obvious. Let me give you an example of something that once seemed obvious to most people:

The ancients believed that after only the briefest walk in the woods, even the most insensitive clod becomes aware of the aura of enchantment, and must agree that every oak tree is inhabited by a Dryad -- a type of nymph -- who watches over the tree. Without its dryad, the tree withers and dies; and if the tree is destroyed, the dryad will not survive. They go together, the tree and the dryad, one depending upon and nurturing the other. It was once thought to be impossible to deny this.

But no one believes this now, because -- here it comes -- there is no objectively verifiable evidence for dryads, and trees exist very nicely on their own. I would very much like to know what objectively verifiable evidence exists for the phenomenon of a field for group consciousness.

[js1138]

I would like to see a specific example of some social behavior that requires that assumption of some phenomenon not being studied by mainstream science. I am particularly disturbed by the assumption that insects engage in some mysterious and unexplainable behavior.

Can you tell what specifically is unexplained by conventional science, say in the case of ants?

[betty boop]

But no one believes this now, because -- here it comes -- there is no objectively verifiable evidence for dryads, and trees exist very nicely on their own. I would very much like to know what objectively verifiable evidence exists for the phenomenon of a field for group consciousness.

Patrick, it seems you have no sensitivity whatsoever for symbolic language, for metaphor, allusion, myth. There is truth to these things, but not of the type that is susceptible to empirical tests. Which would suggest to you that such things as dryads do not exist -- and yet they do, in the conscious experience of intelligent human subjects. The important thing to note in your example is the relationship between the dryad and the tree. This is an attempt to articulate something about the nature of the life of the tree -- in symbolic language.

In short, if there is no objectively verifiable evidence for dryads, then how did you and I ever come to hear of them in the first place? The evidence is obviously there. It just isn't of a sort that science can have anything to do with. This is a matter for the "other" knowledge domain -- philosophy, cosmology, the arts, psychology, at al. -- the "sciences of the spirit."

However, I do not see any analogy between dryads and fields. If anything, the existence of fields seems to have been fairly well validated by science; e.g., quantum field theory. So, where's the dryad in what I wrote?

[betty boop]

I am particularly disturbed by the assumption that insects engage in some mysterious and unexplainable behavior.

I don't see that there's anything necessarily mysterious or unexplainable about the natural behavior of insects. You just think that fields are "spooky."

Conventional biological science, as far as I know, has not paid much (if any) attention to developments in the physical sciences and information theory. The existence of universal fields is uncontroversial in physics. Fields account beautifully for non-locality: with individual insects, it appears we have a dispersion of units that are coordinated from a global source in real time on a constant basis. If the queen is "in trouble," the whole colony "knows about it" virtually simultaneously; yet all the individual ants may not be in direct communication with each other or with the queen. How do you explain that?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'll be moving to a place with many oak trees soon. I'll check for dryads and report if any are found. (Similarly for the juniper and pecan trees.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

The mechanisms of insect communication are well known. You might try checking some of the literature on the subject. Some journals:

Archives of insect biochemistry and physiology
Insect biochemistry
Insect biochemistry and molecular biology
Insectes Sociaux
Journal of Insect Behavior
Journal of Insect Conservation
Journal of Insect Physiology

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for your replies and for raising your objections to my putting so great an emphasis on Cosmology to understand our growing body of knowledge.

js1138: cosmology in the literal sense is at the wrong scale to affect the observable processes of variation and selection. It may come in handy if science develops fruitful hypotheses concerning abiogenesis.

To the contrary, Cosmology is the "study of the large-scale structure and history of the universe. In particular, it deals with subjects regarding its origin and evolution. It is studied by astronomy, philosophy, and theology."

Here we are back to the "edges" in our exchange of metaphors. I see no edges - no boundaries - no seams - to our seeking and thus would never paste "there be dragons" anywhere on the sphere to keep people from "going there".

The boundary-less structure is "all that there is" and thus Cosmology is the background sphere on which our body of knowledge should be drawn. The context is what gives the knowledge meaning.

Evidently, in your view the quest for knowledge is "tiled" into subject areas - so if one is investigating biological evolution, abiogenesis is over the edge, ditto for fields (physics) and so on. Cosmology would be another tile (or sheet of paper with its own edges) in your view. And on each edge, there would be the warning "there be dragons".

I believe the tiled concept (or compartmentalization) is a false image of both reality and knowledge and thus cannot help us to derive meaning from it.

PatrickHenry: A-Girl, before I get too lost, please let me know what you mean when you use the word "Cosmology" in this context, because I don't think you're talking about the Big Bang, etc. I'm well aware that in traditional philosophy, the term "metaphysics" means the nature of reality, and it's regarded as being prior to epistemology. And not too long ago you said, to much praise by me, that most of the arguments around here are actually about the nature of reality -- which I took to be a statement about the primary role of metaphysics. But now "Cosmology" is appearing in your posts, and I'm confused. (I'm often confused, but I'm getting used to it.) So help out an old freeper.

Indeed, I am not speaking only of the Big Bang or other alternate explanations for the history of the corporeal universe. I am extending it to the metaphysics wrt reality or "all that there is" - because this is the background or context for all that we currently know or might discover in the future.

Without that context, our body of knowledge lacks meaning.

[Diamond]

The really big step was from cells without nuclei to cells with nuclei.

Now there's an understatement:^)

Compared to that, sexual reproduction is a nit...We really don't need to speculate on the small steps required. They are still very much with us.

With all due respect I think the fact of the matter is, notwithstanding the existence of bacterial conjugation or hermaphrodism, nobody has the slightest idea how (and why) in an evolutionary paradigm such an inefficient and incredibly complex process such as meiosis ever got started or what mutations and/or adaptive advantages made it possible in the first place.

Cordially,

[betty boop]

I believe the tiled concept (or compartmentalization) is a false image of both reality and knowledge and thus cannot help us to derive meaning from it.

I couldn't agree more, A-G! "Tiled concepts" (i.e., compartmentalized knowledge specialties) are "parts" of wholes whose meanings depend on their relations with the wholes of which they are the parts. No part -- taken singly or in any combination -- can explain the whole of which it is the part. This seems to be a difficult concept for many to grasp. But I don't know why that is.

[js1138]

Without that context, our body of knowledge lacks meaning.

I'm sorry to disagree with you so strongly, but this is New Age mumbo-jumbo.

Working scientists don't give a fig for philosophy, epistomology ot theology. Actual science proceeds by rules of thumb and by what instruments are currently available to investigate interesting phenomena.

Your introduction of cosmology into a discussion of what is basically geneology is just a distraction. If the geneology comes up with something that is impossible to describe as the result of variation and selection, then science will have to adjust its scale of analysis.

[betty boop]

Thanks for the reading list, Doc!

[Why didn't you just tell me what you think instead?]

[betty boop]

Your introduction of cosmology into a discussion of what is basically geneology is just a distraction.

Neo-Darwinist "geneology" is premised on a cosmology of its own: materialism. Funny thing is, you can't take the philosophy out of the science, for the philosophy -- the cosmology -- is the very ground on which the science ultimately stands.

[js1138]

Science has been successfully ignoring philosophy for a long time. Philosophy has more need to adjust to the findings of science than vice-versa.

I am not trying to ridicule philosophy. I would agree that science needs to be imaginative when hypothesizing. But hypotheses are a dime a dozen. If they can't be tested they are, at the very least, premature.

If you want to put ID on the map you need to do a bit more than point out unsolved problems. You need to predict the direction of their solution.

So far, ID has a lousy record on this front. Predicting that the flagellum is irreducible turns out to be counterproductive for ID. the next flagellum fiasco, I suspect, will be conserved non-coding DNA. Then, perhaps, turtles.