Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
At the heart of the debate over intelligent design is this question: Can a scientific explanation of the history of life include the actions of an unseen higher being?
The proponents of intelligent design, a school of thought that some have argued should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools, say that the complexity and diversity of life go beyond what evolution can explain.
Biological marvels like the optical precision of an eye, the little spinning motors that propel bacteria and the cascade of proteins that cause blood to clot, they say, point to the hand of a higher being at work in the world.
In one often-cited argument, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a leading design theorist, compares complex biological phenomena like blood clotting to a mousetrap: Take away any one piece - the spring, the baseboard, the metal piece that snags the mouse - and the mousetrap stops being able to catch mice.
Similarly, Dr. Behe argues, if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient, as happens in hemophilia, for instance, clots will not form properly.
Such all-or-none systems, Dr. Behe and other design proponents say, could not have arisen through the incremental changes that evolution says allowed life to progress to the big brains and the sophisticated abilities of humans from primitive bacteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You paint with a very, very wide brush.
***You're right. There appears to be a difference between Social Darwinists and People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution (PWTDFE). Please insert PWTDFE where I said Social Darwinism. If it is too broad a brush, recall that I was mirroring your own words, and that I also qualified the statement as “Before the Scopes trial, one could have said…” If that is still too broad a brush, consider that it really isn't that big of a deal and I can just concede whatever you're trying to say and I still have my experience as well. It's interesting that the post directly afterwards has another example. I think there are a lot of people like me who have had to sit through classes where some teacher in the field of [fill in the blank, unrelated to biology] spouted off on their perspective derived from evolution. Usually one just has to sit & take it.
Since when do "evo teachers" advocate and teach Social Darwinism? I doubt if any but a small renegade fringe of "evo teachers" advocate Social Darwinism.
***Assuming that Social Darwinism is a small subset of Social Theories Derived From Evolution, yes you're right. But my experience has been that teachers from all kinds of unrelated fields are using evo as a backdrop for their favorite PWTDFE philosophy. It would be nice to be in a position to force them to take it to a philosophy class. Kind of like the freeper derogative to Hollywood “Just Shut Up & Sing”, Just Shut Up and Teach.
Such generalizations make a reasonable discussion impossible. But it's about what I've come to expect.
***If someone makes wide generalizations, call them on it, just like you did. How does that make reasonable discussion impossible? If they respond in reason, you have what you want. If they don't, you get to ridicule them, having given them a chance.
Astrology has been around a lot longer than ID and has at least the potential to generate testable predictions (which would of course be instantly falsified by testing). It thus has a leg or two up on ID.
****When astrology gets to the point that the president of the US suggests it should be taught side by side with prevailing scientific theories of origins, then I will reconsider my position on it. Until then, it has not gotten that far.
So you didn't dispense with diddly as far as making anything go away. Your wave-aways are breezy, but nothing you're saying bears up under examination as true or logical or sensible.
****Wow, you really don't get it, do you? Thank you for displaying your genuine attitude. For your colleagues' sake, I'll spell it out just a little bit. Let's say the pres took a position that Astrology should be taught side by side with evolution. In one stroke, it becomes a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). With responses like yours, you really let the cat out of the bag. But… come on… you're just toying with me, right? You know that I'm not a biochemist so you're just moving in for the kill like a Viking kitty… ;-)
So your "frustration" before was in never bothering to Google?
****My “frustration” was with the tone of the argument. And when I google “crevo” I get 13,400 hits. I don't have the time to drill down. Whenever I had the time and looked at the crevo threads on FR, they seem to spiral into flame wars. But now that it becomes a social policy discussion, the tone SHOULD change. If it doesn't, the side that finds itself fighting against the pres tends to lose. Call him dumb if you want, but it hasn't worked so far.
Your frustration was in never having been on a crevo thread before in your life
***I've lurked. I've seen some of the questions I have that others asked & they got slammed. There are people who are lurking right now, thinking the same things I am, and wondering you're your response will be. When I was up against an abiog on a SETI thread, he didn't answer my pointed questions. Recently I saw on another abiog thread that they don't hold the SETI folks in high regard due to their unmerited assumptions. I think both issues are coming to an interesting head.
or made the tiniest effort to see what mainstream science thinks of ID? Here's what you said:
***I've made the effort, but the mass of data is so large that it takes an expert on each area to drill down. I don't have the time, nor do most others. I have given it the time it was due for myself, and stayed away from the discussion on FR for several reasons. The whole thing changed when GWB stated his position. If you can't see how that changes things, that doesn't really concern me. I'm going after certain facts. I'll spend the amount of time that I can. There are probably a thousand other people like me. If I get slammed, they figure they would have gotten slammed, and that's that -- you find yourself facing a public policy position down the road that you disagree with, without knowing how it happened. Chances are, many scientists didn't see this one coming.
New story! OK. Now your frustrations are over.
****Well, I wouldn't say that my frustrations are over. So I suppose I shouldn't let you say it either.
BTW, the President is the head politician, not the head scientist.
****Ya think? We all might want to chew on that one for just awhile. Here's a hint: An illustration between the difference between public policy and science policy is DNA evidence at the OJ Simpson trial. Those 12 votes count the same as 12 scientists' votes.
Jaw-dropping.
****Really? You folks have been debating numbskulls like me for 5 or 6 years and you find that “jaw-dropping”? Nooo… you're just toying, right? Hyperbole? If not, you might have a rude awakening headed your way. This is becoming a public policy issue, so the doors are opening for more jaw-dropping, knuckle-dragging boneheads like me to enter the debate. If you lost patience before, dude…
You were claiming that mainstream science has not been answering ID. That was wrong. Understand? Wrong.
***You have your way of seeing it and I have mine. I wasn't claiming that unless that's what I wrote. But if you want to discuss that straw claim, you will need to address the fact that the president of the US consulted his science advisers on a public policy issue and chose differently than how you and they see it. If mainstream science was answering ID properly at that point, the pres probably would have seen it in a more scientific light. Mainstream science failed at that point. Take it up with George if you don't like it.
Mainstream science thinks ID has no claim to being science and it has a very good set of arguments for its position.
****Apparently not good enough for the guy I voted for. It really is a mystery to me at this stage how & why he chose his position, because I had actually started to think that ID was losing intellectual ground to abiog. I was caught kind of by surprise.
I was linking a sample of that material.
****I'll get to it when I can.
"Not on this thread?" It's on there now and it shows ID is a crock.
****Good. That saves me a lot of time. Try to have patience. 2 years from now, when people Google for ID & abiogenesis, they'll come to this thread.
The President putting his foot in it doesn't change anything. You're either clueless or desperate.
****Clueless is closer to the truth than desperate. But thanks for the false dilemma. Keep throwin' them fallacies at me. I happen to believe that it did change things, and that's why I'm here, now.
Does it matter for the purposes of science class whether a thing is science or not?
****I think it does. If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it shouldn't be allowed in a science class. It should be put into a philosophy class. That goes for evolution as well as abiogenesis and creation, Astrology, and any other philosophy. Maybe that's what GWB is hanging his hat on. I think it has merit. It would be healthy for science to encourage discussion in this area and get rid of that tendency to ridicule people just for their faith.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468966/posts?page=12#12
Why are there no valid ID arguments?
****I don't know. I'm here for the numbers for now. As far as valid ID arguments, I'll just hang my hat on trusting ol' George that he found them valid, with his high-falutin' Harvard education & all.
Why is there no theory of ID?
****I don't know. See previous comment. Perhaps there is no theory of ID for the same reason that there is no theory of gravitation: There just isn't enough known yet to postulate. But I really do not know, and it doesn't matter to me for purposes of social policy discussions. It would have mattered to me for purposes of entering the crevo threads prior to GWB stating his position. But that's just me.
The only material the prestigious Discovery Institute can suggest for HS classes is something called "the controversy," a grab-bag of squawks that somehow evolution has not occurred or is not important if it did occur whether or not common descent is true.
****Um, I'll take it that your use of the word Prestigious is sarcasm. From what I can see, it is a legitimate scientific controversy for purposes of discussing public policy. It was legitimate enough for the president to come out with a position on the controversy.
"The controversy," BTW, is a political phenomenon quite outside the science journals. No, there has not been a raging controversy inside science. There still isn't, unless you call 70 nutcases worldwide a raging controversy. How many "Steve"s do you know?
****It appears that the abiogs' problem is that the president of the US, being the political authority that he is, has listened to scientific “nutcases” in determining his public policy. Do I have that correct? How do I verify that they are nutcases? Actually, the Project Steve thing is worthwhile to comment on, because I never heard of it till this thread. It is a “tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of 'scientists who doubt evolution' or 'scientists who dissent from Darwinism.'” That makes my task even more difficult, trying to find the trusted creat/ID sources that the abiogs give the nod to. Does anyone know who the creats were that GWB spoke with in determining his policy stance?
"***Yikes, he's your president, too. "
Nope. I'm Canadian.
Sorry about that. Presumptuous of me.
There appears to be a difference between Social Darwinists and People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution (PWTDFE).
I'm not going to get into a discussion about either of these. If you think the TOE is bad, wrong, should be suppressed, etc. because people abuse it, then you must be one of those people that think that all things that a small minority of people abuse should be outlawed.
The truth can always be abused and used and distorted for unsavory ends.
I was mirroring your own words
So you don't think an ID teacher should tell a student that it's possible the ID'er could be a space alien? IIRC, the ID crowd doesn't dispute this.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your fingers-in-the-ears restatement and just say this. What gets taught in science class should be reflective of the current understanding of science as reflected in the professional journals, etc. It is not particularly legitimate to worry about what parents think or even the current President thinks.
For sure, the history of life on Earth is what it is and will not depend on your vote one way or the other.
First of all, it's not cowardice to keep your eye on the ball. You have more influence with your degree than as a flunk-out because of a nutty prof.
I had my share and so did my sons. Only one time was a moral principal involved and speaking out required. All the rest were various forms of nuttiness, intolerance or nastiness.
I am bothered though that you seem to equate this writing prof with a biology prof. As a rule Science departments are far less idiosyncratic and one simply doesn't get away with teaching inappropiate material. This does not include fuzzy studies semi-sciences where anything goes.
Your college profs may have had power, but their authority has to be earned and demonstrated.
I am sorry that you do not seem (emphasis "seem") to have enough biology background. At a certain point, say after at least one class beyond basic college biology for science majors, it becomes clear that the foundations of the theory of evolution are quite solid.
... If you think the TOE is bad, wrong, should be suppressed, etc. because people abuse it, then you must be one of those people that think that all things that a small minority of people abuse should be outlawed.
***Well, I'm not one of those people, so your logic fails. For instance, I don't think cars should be outlawed, but people who use cars for criminal activity should go to jail. I can't really identify the fallacy, but since it doesn't make sense to me, I'll just consider it to be a non sequitur and leave it at that. I don't think the TOE is bad, wrong nor should it be suppressed. I think the TOE is the POE, that it doesn't hold water as a true scientific theory and is more of a philosophy, well on its way to becoming a religion. It is a fascinating one at that. And I think it should be taught in P classes, not science classes. I think there is evidence for the time being for both sides of ID/abiog, and that neither of these are really addressed by the evo "theory". But that's just what I think, and it doesn't really matter all that much what I think as it does what the pres thinks and what he's going to do to make it happen. I agree with his stance.
The truth can always be abused and used and distorted for unsavory ends.
***And I have been on the abused end when it comes to evo being bloviated by professors to students under their authority. It's interesting that you call it "the truth". That's more of a sign of a philosophy discussion than a scientific one. Scientists tend to say, "facts can always..."
So you don't think an ID teacher should tell a student that it's possible the ID'er could be a space alien? IIRC, the ID crowd doesn't dispute this.
***I don't have a strong position on that just yet, it isn't all that important to me at this point in time. It sounded like you were making a kind of sarcastic point that the kooky astrology-level ID teacher is nodding his head at any ridiculous idea that floats by, so I felt that turnabout was fair play and that teachers with evo philosophical leanings have been doing that kind of thing all along. By the way, I don't really care what the ID crowd thinks about a particular point (for the most part), that's probably a form of appeal to authority fallacy or playing to the gallery.
I am bothered though that you seem to equate this writing prof with a biology prof.
***I also had a Woman's Studies Prof saying similar things, proceeding from an evo standpoint. But at least I had respect for her because I had challenged her on a couple of things and she listened, without zapping my grade. She was one of the rarest feminists I've met, a true bull feminist who acted and thought like a man, a fascinating individual. Ok, so let's move on to my (First Year, First Semester Required Course) biology prof. He said, point blank, that the findings on the Galapagos Islands proved Darwin's theory. I think there are higher scientific requirements for proof than that.
As a rule Science departments are far less idiosyncratic and one simply doesn't get away with teaching inappropiate material. This does not include fuzzy studies semi-sciences where anything goes.
***One reason why I liked engineering. We had almost none of that nonsense. It has its own level of nonsense, but I didn't run into this garbage. Engineers build things. You can hold whatever philosophy you want as long as your circuit works.
Your college profs may have had power, but their authority has to be earned and demonstrated.
***And their authority was abused. I am in favor of empowering individuals to say, "shut up and teach."
I am sorry that you do not seem (emphasis "seem") to have enough biology background.
***Is that your way of saying you're sorry for the day you ever met me? ;-) This is the situation, such as it is. Now that this is becoming a public policy debate, I have as much footing as the next guy.
At a certain point, say after at least one class beyond basic college biology for science majors, it becomes clear that the foundations of the theory of evolution are quite solid.
***One could say along the same vein that, if someone were an antievolutionist, they would start to stand out in such a program and their grades would start to reflect it, regardless of the person's capability as a scientist. That's a true shame, and I think science should stick to science and GWB probably sees it similarly.
So far, no one has bitten on my Ivan Sanderson Astrology stuff. I'm reposting here on this thread.
To: bobdsmith
Interesting stuff. But, since I'm not an astronomer, I have no idea whether this stuff follows the scientific method. My suspicion from the tone of your post is that it isn't all that scientific.
That's one of the problems I have with the whole debate on ID/abiogenesis/evolution. It very quickly moves to areas where the high priests need to take over. I have heard in the christian circles in the silicon valley that there is relentless pressure to keep one's mouth shut so that funding is not at risk.
OK, so let's assume that the astrology stuff does follow the scientific method. Then it should be allowed in the classroom. If it doesn't follow scientific method, it should not be allowed.
23 posted on 08/20/2005 8:22:43 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I only have time to hit a couple of points here.
First and most important I mean nothing derogatory when I say you seem not to have enough background. There's no reason at all why you should. The only circuits I do are small electric appliances with easily accessible screws.
It's just that it's easier to have a shorthand conversation with someone who can pick up on the bits without needing backgrounding. The subject is actually not as easy as it is made out to be.
My other point is that in a science class the student is there to learn what the scientists think.
Disagreement is fine, but in exams or in labs there is always...always the unspoken "What we currently believe" as part of the question.
But all the best research comes from questioning the current. Secondary research comes from expanding it a bit.
No more responses until much later or tomorrow.
Tasty, tasty noodle placemarker
Beware the Collander of Creation.....
I'm going to ignore the rest of your fingers-in-the-ears restatement
****First of all, it's not "fingers-in-the-ear", but thank you for the obvious ridicule which suggests that you are a true holy warrior for your chosen philosophy. Secondly, it is more than a restatement, it points out an obvious difference in the level of political authority on a social policy issue. Is it that you really can't see that?
and just say this. What gets taught in science class should be reflective of the current understanding of science as reflected in the professional journals, etc.
***I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. But I draw the line at philosophy; I consider evo/abiog/creat to be philosophical in nature. From the level of someone with an engineering degree, the Ian Musgrave article seems pretty advanced for some high school kid to learn in his first biology class. Origins is really more suitable for a 2nd year bio class, if at all (better suited for philosophy). All this attention on getting it into the first bio class a kid takes is just indoctrination attempts for adherents to a philosophy.
It is not particularly legitimate to worry about what parents think or even the current President thinks.
***Very interesting. I happen to think that it IS legitimate to worry about what parents think, and I imagine most of the electorate in the United States probably agrees. Am I missing something here, should I repeat that this is becoming a social policy discussion? Are you saying that you don't agree that it's becoming a social policy discussion? That is true head-in-the-sand thinking, so I doubt that is what you're saying. Perhaps you think that since the president doesn't hold a science degree, his opinion is invalid? That's where you're wrong, and he's gonna drive a truck right through that opening you leave him. I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.
For sure, the history of life on Earth is what it is and will not depend on your vote one way or the other.
***True enough. But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.
It's just that it's easier to have a shorthand conversation with someone who can pick up on the bits without needing backgrounding.
***A very good point indeed. My suggestion to all, creats & abiogs & evos is to have one page where you post articles that everyone agrees are even handed and bring one up to speed on the debate. Patrick Henry's home page is very interesting, but it is a bit overwhelming. One thing to keep in mind, also, is that PatrickHenry might lose his posting privileges and then all that work goes down the drain. A beginner's FAQ that everyone acknowledges would be a good idea -- it would save everyone a lot of time.
The subject is actually not as easy as it is made out to be.
***And hereby you reinforce a point that I made earlier. Origins belongs in a 2nd year bio regimen due to its advanced nature (of course I think it should be a philosophy class, but that's just wandering off on a tangent).
My other point is that in a science class the student is there to learn what the scientists think.
***This is kind of interesting. My impression was that one was there to learn facts first, and what scientists think might come later. I don't mind a philosophy professor telling me his philosophy, nor a poly sci professor telling me his political views. But I do mind a bio prof telling me his religious/philosophy views, and the bleedover that has been resulting where other profs take their cues and proceed from evo to lay in their pet philosophies.
Disagreement is fine, but in exams or in labs there is always...always the unspoken "What we currently believe" as part of the question.
***Hmmm, that's interesting also. In electrical engineering, folks are likely not to tell you what they currently believe because a research grant or paper might be at stake. I'm gonna have to chew on that one for awhile.
But all the best research comes from questioning the current.
***If you question evo in an anthropology department, your funding will likely dry up. I wonder if some good research is lost because of that.
No apology needed.
http://www.talkorigins.org
A bottomless source of well written articles, and a forum.
Fortunately, much of the work confirming evolution is being done by the medical industry. It really doesn't matter WHY the research is being done.
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.