Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive

New York Times ^ | August 21, 2005 | JODI WILGOREN

[Nicholas Conradin]

By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.

After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.

[donh]

Not honestly, by any rational person.

Really? What claim of modern science belies the theory that we are visited by beings from other planets?

[2ndreconmarine]

On the contrary, all evidence now points to the Anthropic “argument”, or “Principal” as it is more commonly known, as being the best theory that fits the facts as we now know them (much like evolution, eh?). This became especially true when physicists recently determined that the universe will continue to expand forcer. That rules out the

I am replying to one of your posts, Left Coast, but I include all of your posts of excellent quotes on this thread. Clearly, some of the finest scientific minds alive have made the observation that the universe, as it is presently constituted, is highly improbable. The canonical number is 10^123.

HOwever, there are some other considerations.

1. You and donh mentioned the Anthropic Principle, without really discussing its implications. Basically stated, it means that if the universe did not have these precise values (decay constant, fine structure constant, c, etc.) then our universe as we know it would not exist and neither would we. There would be no one to observe that "other" universe. So, the only universe that we could possible observe is the one that we do observe.

The signficance is that the probabilities cancel out. We wouldn't be here to observe any of the 10^123 - 1 cases. Baysean analysis reaches the same result. Indeed, any theory that explains the observation is equally valid, including a Creator, the multiverse, or simple chance.

2. As a matter of faith, I choose a creator as the answer. However, that is a matter of faith. It is not science. A good scientist knows the difference.

Fundamentally, evolution, the big bang, and science in general is not anti-God or anti-religion as many have claimed (you have not). However, that claim is fundamentally uneducated. Science is not pro-God or anti-God, it is orthogonal. Orthogonal means independent with emphasis (if you are a scientist I am sure you know the mathematical definition, but my qualitative one is fine).

Therefore, while your arguments speak to me religiously and philosophically (as indeed I was familiar with them), they are not science and indeed do not address the issue of ID vs evolution at all. There is nothing in evolution that says a Creator did not create evolution. The issue is what mechanism was used.

3. As you pointed out in one of your posts, Weinberg, who made one of the probability arguments was himself an agnostic.

4. If we move from the realm of science to that of philosophy or religion, as indeed science cannot distinguish between the Creator and the chance or multiverse ocurrences, we can also address the issue of whether the "fine tuning" of the universe is suggestive that ID could be an explanation for life. Your argument implicitly, at least as I interprete it, is that if a Creator designed the universe, why could he not design life as well?? A reasonable argument on its face.

However, I can come up with an equally reasonable argument thst if the Creator created a universe that was so highly improbable, then He could have equally established all of the physical laws that establish Darwinian evolution and simple let the system run its course without any further intervention. Certainly the probabilistic argument you cite supports this proposition equally.

As a matter of faith I happen to believe this to be true because it is a more subtle, intricate, and elegant form of creation. But that is nothing more than my opinion.

Of course, this would be a religious and philosophic debate. It is not science since science can make no distinction.

5. The issue of the accelerating expansion of the universe is certainly a marvel. Indeed, the "scientific" explanations are exclusively in the realm of pure speculation. Most practicing scientists understand this without the explicit and rather pedantic qualifications. However, I don't see how it supports the ID viewpoint at all. It is just one more marvel of the universe like quantum mechanics and relativity.

6. Your citations of Nietshe and others who have used evolutionary theory to support atheism is simply unfair. You cannot generalize from the specific to the general. The identical counter-example would be if I were to argue that all religious people were frauds, liars, and adulterors simply because of James Bakker. Both statements are equally unfair.

[spinestein]

[...many school teachers are using biology class to proselytize atheism. ...what they teach is, "Here's the fossil record, and that proves not only that there is no God, but that people who think there is a God are drooling Neanderthal idiots."]


That is irresponsible (and unscientific as well) and should not be allowed in science classrooms any more than promoting religious dogma should be allowed.




[Therefore, because it is inevitable that atheists will be using the classroom to proselytize their students, I want at least some mention that there is another, at least equally reputable view.]

I disagree that it is inevitable or unpreventable. I think the vast majority of Americans (myself absolutely included) would support a ban on teachers who rip on religion in science classrooms and just as it's easy to enforce banning religious proselytizing it's should be just as easy to prevent atheist proselytizing. They both would be covered by the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

[dsc]

"Hooray for God!"

Looks to me like you stand in the same relationship to God that a 15-year-old who wants a tattoo has with his father. Time to put adolescent rebellion behind you and develop a healthy relationship with authority. Or, in this case, Authority.

"One of your activist buddy judges just ruled one for ya.
Atheism is religion."

That's not activism; it's just common sense. Oh, I know, atheists who are in rebellion against God because they never outgrew adolescent rebellion just hate that notion, but it's a fact nonetheless.

"That messy inconvenient and in the way Establishment Clause is History!"

On the contrary; the efforts of atheists to establish Atheism as our official state religion has been dealt a blow. The Constitution has been upheld, for once.

"No more freedom from Religion!"

What you call "freedom from Religion" is nothing other than suppression of the constitutional rights of others to practice their religion. You are an enemy of the Constitution.

"So you get Your "word of God" Thumper-Fundy-pseudo-science. Happy?"

I'm happy that the efforts of people like you to "vaporize" our freedom of religion have been dealt a blow. I'll be a lot happier when people like you and the ACLU start doing hard time for civil rights violations.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Some people like Semetic religions; other prefer European ones.

[Ex-expromissor]

"You can't make this ludicrously ignorant claim true by stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue."

"Ludicrous? Ignorant? Personal insults will get you nothing but disrespect. On the contrary, you are the one "stamping feet" and "holding your breath". Please refer me to the "Holy Grail" for evolutionists. You know... the "missing link." It simply doesn't exist, yet it should... based on the most basic evolutionary assumptions. And I repeat... this is a major problem for the theory of evolution. Surely you can't deny that evolution is still just a "theory" as is I.D. If you do, that will only prove you to be the "ignorant" one in this debate.

"When was the last time you saw a continent drift?"

1989 in SF. I lived there at the time. Scientist are still unsure of "why" the plates move and "exactly" how the process works. Yet they have a record of major movements going back thousands of years to help back up parts of their plate tech tonics theories.

Why are your "panties" all in a bunch anyway? All of my posts are based on fact. When you are mature enough to leave your emotions in check, I would be happy to debate you and enjoy further discussion of the subject. Until then, enjoy your narrow minded scientific "fantasy" world.

[donh]

If you can actually manage to deny it, nothing I say could possibly sway you.

Except provide serious cited evidence of this huge mass uprising of athiestic proseletizing, from, for example, mainstream newpapapers, of course.

I saw it in my own student days,

You saw what, exactly--the teaching of evolutionary theory, perhaps?

and have been reading about case after case on line since the days of UNEWS and BBSs back in the '80s.

Would that be zealous home-school creationist-run UNEWS and BBSs back in the 80s? I'd expect that to be cause for a teacher to be hauled before the schoolboard, and the accreditation committees, myself. But maybe that's just me.

[dsc]

"Namely what? That your religeous beliefs are superior to early greek, early roman, and american indian riff raff's religeon?"

Not even close. People get slammed for having uninformed opinions about science, but you're doing the same thing WRT theology.

If you're going to slam religion, why don't you learn something about it first?

[dsc]

"What claim of modern science belies the theory that we are visited by beings from other planets?"

As one prominent scientist asked, "If they're here, where are they?"

[pending]

You dont get it?
You won.
The desicion Atheism is religion, means, you can abuse all the kids you want with your thumper science!
Hooray for thumper science!

Just accept that there will not be A Single Accepted GodThing.
Got that?
So the
Kiddie Koran Klass is on!
Hooray for the Koran!
Get it yet thumper?

[Radix]

Pi is essentially undefined,

"If you are that stupid, just ask me to define it."

 

I am pretty stupid...it seems... go on and a define Pi...

 

While you are are at it...Please define stupid...

That is what you challenged me to do.... to dare you.. I think...

I dunno...I am not that bright...

I always wanted to know exactly what "stupid" is......I await  your key to enlightenment....

Please dazzle me......

[spinestein]

My experience regarding learning about evolution and religion in school is different from students in public schools because I spent grade school at St. Joan of Arc Catholic school.

We were taught the scientific principles of evolution in science class and we were taught about the book of Genesis as well as the rest of the Bible in religion class.

There was never any conflict between the two ideas that I can remember, and in fact, I remember being taught that evolution was the scientific explanation for the diversity of species on Earth and that it was the method that God used to get us where we are today.

We were also taught that much of the Bible is meant to be understood at a higher level than the sum of its words and to take away from it only its literal meaning would be to miss the point God was trying to make.

The creation of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark full of animals were specifically taught to us in this category of higher meaning through metaphor.

[dsc]

"any more than promoting religious dogma should be allowed."

Math class is for math, chemistry class is for chemistry. That said, I don't agree that erecting a "wall" to keep any mention of Christianity (or Atheism) out of the classroom is a good thing.

"I disagree that it is inevitable or unpreventable."

Okay, one can conceive of circumstances under which it would be preventable. However, those are not achievable in America today, as a practical matter.

"just as it's easy to enforce banning religious proselytizing"

It's easy to ban the blatant; the subtle is intractable.

"They both would be covered by the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Actually, neither is covered by that. That clause only prevents the US Congress from passing a law selecting one religion as the official religion of the United States. Period.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

Surely the free expression of religion includes expressions of religious opinion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[dsc]

"My experience regarding learning about evolution and religion in school is different from students in public schools because I spent grade school at St. Joan of Arc Catholic school."

You fortunate son, you.

[donh]

"Ludicrous? Ignorant? Personal insults will get you nothing but disrespect.

As will suggesting you actually try to understand the scientific evidence, or most anything else I might say, apparently.

"Holy Grail" for evolutionists. You know... the "missing link."

Science does not pin it's hopes for evolutionary theory on "missing links". The fossil evidence is pursuasive because of the massively correlated morphological, micro-biological, and geographic continuity between the species that are examinable. In like manner, we trust in our theories of universal gravitation, even though we have absolutely no observed phenomenon to look at in the vast regions of intergalactic space. your problem is with inductive reasoning, and the vastly simplified comic book version you have in your head of what science actually says.

It simply doesn't exist, yet it should... based on the most basic evolutionary assumptions.

Even this overly simplistic analysis is not in sync with the actual evidence; you are massively ignorant of the real state of affairs here. "Missing Links" are particularly plentiful for our ancestors, since we are recent, and inherently interesting to us.

And I repeat... this is a major problem for the theory of evolution. Surely you can't deny that evolution is still just a "theory" as is I.D.

Indeed, it is "still just a theory", as is every other natural science theory. such as plate tectonics and gravity.

If you do, that will only prove you to be the "ignorant" one in this debate.

It's not that you're right. It's not that you're wrong. It's that you don't have the tools to engage in this debate.

[dsc]

"You dont get it?"

I get that you are very confused about a lot of things.

Bye, now.

[Radix]

Hello Mr Know-It-All

"I'm just sort of mildly curious as to what further point you will be supporting if I concede to you that Pi is, in some significant manner, undefined?"

Twenty two  divided by seven.......   That is an irrational nbr.,

 Are you prepared to define numbers which are by (universally agreed upon) definition irrational?  

Do you really want to engage me in a dialogue concerning irrational numbers?

Honestly, I am not interested in such an engagement....High School math bores me even more than you do.....

[2ndreconmarine]

Please refer me to the "Holy Grail" for evolutionists. You know... the "missing link." It simply doesn't exist, yet it should...

That is really a silly argument. Creationists cite this as some kind of mantra even though there isn't a particle of truth to it. The simple fact is that there is a continuous evolutionary line from early hominids to man. At issue is only how finely resolved the fossil chain is. Creationists may argue that the fossil record isn't sufficiently fine structured, but one has to wonder whether they would only be satisfied if the fossil record were sufficiently resolved that it could include their personal family tree.

If you would like to learn a little about the fine structure of the fossil record, I refer you to the Ichneumon transitional post cited early in this thread. And no, I am not going to put it "in my own words"; it is pointless to retype the obvious. However, I will post one of Ichneumon's graphs, because I have found it particularly visual and graphic.

[dsc]

"from, for example, mainstream newpapapers, of course."

Don't listen to Limbaugh, eh? They had a lot of fun with that last week.

Mainstream newspapers, indeed. (Guffaw)

"You saw what, exactly--the teaching of evolutionary theory, perhaps?"

The ridiculing of Christianity and proselytizing of Atheism.

"Would that be zealous home-school creationist-run UNEWS and BBSs back in the 80s?"

Hardly.

"I'd expect that to be cause for a teacher to be hauled before the schoolboard, and the accreditation committees, myself. But maybe that's just me."

Yeah, it's just you. As long as the fiction that Atheism is not a religion is maintained, you can proselytize it till the cows come home without running afoul of today's PC distortion of the First Amendment.