Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
Catching up on back news this past few days — I was out of the country for the first two weeks of August — I caught President Bush's endorsement of teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," President Bush told a reporter August 2, "so people can understand what the debate is all about."
This is Bush at his muddle-headed worst, conferring all the authority of the presidency on the teaching of pseudoscience in science classes. Why stop with Intelligent Design (the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic explanation)? Why not teach the little ones astrology? Lysenkoism? Orgonomy? Dianetics? Reflexology? Dowsing and radiesthesia? Forteanism? Velikovskianism? Lawsonomy? Secrets of the Great Pyramid? ESP and psychokinesis? Atlantis and Lemuria? The hollow-earth theory? Does the president have any idea, does he have any idea, how many varieties of pseudoscientific flapdoodle there are in the world? If you are going to teach one, why not teach the rest? Shouldn't all sides be "properly taught"? To give our kids, you know, a rounded picture? Has the president scrutinized Velikovsky's theories? Can he refute them? Can you?
And every buncombe theory — every one of those species of twaddle that I listed — has, or at some point had, as many adherents as Intelligent Design. The hollow-earth theory was taken up by the Nazis and taught, as the Hohlweltlehre, in German schools. It still has a following in Germany today. Velikovsky's theories — he believed that Jupiter gave birth to a giant comet which, after passing close to earth and causing the miracles of the Book of Exodus, settled down as the planet Venus — were immensely popular in the 1950s and generated heated controversy, with angry accusations by the Velikovskians that they were being shut out by closed-minded orthodox astronomers determined to protect their turf, etc., etc. Lysenkoism was state doctrine in Stalin's Russia and was taught at the most prestigious universities. Expressing skepticism about it could get you shot. (Likewise with the bizarre linguistic theories of Stalin's protégé N.Y. Marr, who believed that every word in every human language derived from one of four basic elements, pronounced "sal," "ber," "yon," and "rosh." I tell you, the house of pseudoscience has many, many mansions.) Dianetics was rebranded as Scientology and is now a great force in the land — try criticizing it, and you'll find out.
Nor is any of these theories lacking in a certain appeal, as Martin Gardner, from whose book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science I compiled that list, is charitable enough to point out. Of Lawsonomy — "The earth is a huge organism operating by Suction and Pressure..." — Gardner says generously: "This makes more sense than one might think." Pseudoscience is in fact a fascinating study, though as sociology, not as science. Gardner's book, now 50 years old, is still an excellent introduction, and great fun to read.
What, then, should we teach our kids in high-school science classes? The answer seems to me very obvious. We should teach them consensus science, and we should teach it conservatively. Consensus science is the science that most scientists believe ought to be taught. "Conservatively" means eschewing theories that are speculative, unproven, require higher math, or even just are new, in favor of what is well settled in the consensus. It means teaching science unskeptically, as settled fact.
Consider physics, for example. It became known, in the early years of the last century, that Newton's physics breaks down at very large or very tiny scales of distance, time, and speed. New theories were cooked up to explain the discrepancies: the special and general theories of relativity, quantum theory and its offspring. By the 1930s these new theories were widely accepted, though some of the fine details remained (and some still remain!) to be worked out.
Then, in the late 1950s, along came your humble correspondent, to study physics to advanced level at a good English secondary school. What did they teach us? Newtonian mechanics! I didn't take a class in relativity theory until my third year at university, age 21. I never have formally studied quantum mechanics, though I flatter myself I understand it well enough.
My schoolmasters did the right thing. Newton's mechanics is the foundation of all physics. "But it's wrong!" you may protest. Well, so it is; but it is right enough to form that essential foundation; right enough that you cannot understand the nature of its wrongness until you have mastered it. (Along with some college-level math.) Furthermore, it is consensus science. By that I mean, if you were to poll 10,000 productive working physicists and ask them what ought to be taught in our high schools, I imagine that upwards of 9,900 of them would say: "Well, you have to get Newtonian mechanics into their heads..." No doubt you'd find the odd Velikovskian or adherent of the Hohlweltlehre, but Newtonism would be the consensus. Intelligent high-school seniors should, I think, be encouraged to read popular books about relativity and quantum mechanics. Perhaps, nowadays — I couldn't say, I am out of touch — teachers have even figured out how to make some of that higher stuff accessible to young minds, and are teaching it. If so, that's great. The foundation, though, must be consensus science, conservatively taught.
I think intelligent teenagers should also be given some acquaintance with pseudoscience, just so that they might learn to spot it when they see it. A copy of that excellent magazine Skeptical Inquirer ought to be available in any good high school library, along with books like Gardner's. I am not sure that either pseudoscience or its refutation has any place in the science classroom, though. These things properly belong in social studies, if anywhere outside the library.
And what should we teach our kids in biology classes, concerning the development of living things on earth? We should teach them Darwinism, on exactly the same arguments. There is no doubt this is consensus science. When the Intelligent Design people flourished a list of 400 scientists who were skeptical of the theory of evolution, the National Center for Science Education launched "Project Steve," in which they asked for affirmation of the contrary view, but only from scientists named Steve. (Which they estimate to be about one percent of all U.S. scientists.) The Steve-O-Meter stands at 577 as of this July 8, implying around 57,000 scientists on the orthodox side. That's consensus science. When the I.D. support roster has 57,000 names on it, drop me a line.
And Darwinism ought to be taught conservatively, without skepticism or equivocation, which will only confuse young minds. Darwinism is the essential foundation for all of modern biology and genomics, and offers a convincing explanation for all the phenomena we can observe in the life sciences. It may be that, as we get to finer levels of detail, we shall find gaps and discrepancies in Darwinism that need new theories to explain them. This is a normal thing in science, and new theories will be worked out to plug the gaps, as happened with Newtonism a hundred years ago. If this happens, nobody — no responsible scientist — will be running round tearing his hair, howling "Darwinism is a theory in crisis!" any more than the publication of Einstein's great papers a hundred years ago caused physicists to make bonfires of the Principia. The new theories, once tested and validated, will be welcomed and incorporated, as Einstein's and Planck's were. And very likely our high schools will just go on teaching Darwinism, as mine taught me Newtonism fifty years after Einstein's revolution. They will be right to do so, in my opinion, just as my schoolmasters were right.
If you are afraid that your children, being confronted with science in school, will turn into atheists and materialists, you have a wide variety of options available to you in this free nation. Most obviously, you should take your kids to church regularly, encourage them to pray, say grace before meals, and respond to those knotty questions that children sometimes ask with answers from your own faith. Or you could homeschool them, or send them to a religious school, and make sure they are not exposed to the science you fear so much.
You really shouldn't be afraid of science, though. Plenty of fine scientists have been religious. The hero of my last book, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 19th century, was a very devout man, as I took pains to make clear. The same can be said of many Darwinists. I am currently researching the life of the Victorian writer Charles Kingsley, who was a keen naturalist, an early and enthusiastic supporter of Darwin, and also a passionate Christian, who preached the last of his many fine sermons from the pulpit of Westminster Abbey. (The last words of that sermon were: "Come as thou seest best, but in whatsoever way thou comest, even so come, Lord Jesus." I suppose this man would be considered impious by the Intelligent Design merchants.)
A great deal of nonsense is being talked in this zone recently. Science is science, and ought to be taught in our public schools conservatively, from the professional consensus, as settled fact. Religion is quite a different thing. It is not entirely unconnected with science. Many scientists have believed that in their inquiries, they were engaging with God's thoughts. Faraday certainly thought so; probably Newton did, too; possibly Einstein did. This has even been a strong motivation for scientific research, and it is probable that in a world with no religion, we should have much less science than we have. Those are matters psychological and motivational, though. They don't — they can't — inform the content of scientific theories, because those theories are naturalistic by definition. Whether miracles happen in the world is a thing you must decide for yourself, based on your own faith, study, and life experiences. To admit miracles into a scientific theory, however, turns it into pseudoscience at once; and while pseudoscience can be fun, it is not science. Nor is it religion, except in the widest and loosest possible sense of that word, a sense that includes every kind of supernatural baloney that any clever crackpot can come up with — a sense I personally will not accept.
"Well then it is only your opinion that Evolution somehow implies that life on Earth happened "by accident".
Dern, that one nearly slipped by me. It's Friday night here; it's been a long week, and ahm tard.
It is not my opinion that Evolution somehow implies that life on Earth happened by accident. I'm not going to repeat myself here, but there are several notes earlier in the thread in which I state the opposite.
Seeings as how you don't have any facts on your side it would be a short "squabble".
Not in the work you cited, thimble-brain. Did you even read the abstract? Or could it just be that reading comprehension is simply not your strong suit?
A strain of flies selected for starvation resistance over several generations could over 90% survive a starvation that would kill 90% of unselected flies.
Did you happen to pay attention to who it was in fact was doing the selecting as they designed the experiment? They were likely wearing lab coats on their backs rather then wings.
Did you pay any attention to the conclusions at all?
Whaddya say let's deconstruct the abstract, shall we?
A good place to start is the opening statement: "The measurement of trade-offs may be complicated when selection exploits multiple avenues of adaptation or multiple life-cycle stages.[ i.e., Yikes! This SOB be was harder to quantify than we originally thought"]
Notice first off he (correctly, I might add) uses the term, adaptation. This is exactly what he observes. Adaptation and evolution are not scientifically interchangeable terms or concepts... or didn't you know that? Well, your side does tend to be pretty sloppy with the semantics, even in the hallowed "peer reviewed" literature.
Check out the leap and the contradiction in the same abstract:
"...second, larval lipid acquisition played a major role in the evolution of adult starvation resistance;....Patterns of genetic correlation may prove misleading unless multiple pleiotropic interconnections are resolved."
Translated: So, without being able to attribute anything to any specific genetic modification across the generations they still carelessly use the term "evolution" to describe the phenomenon. How wishful of them.
Any evolutionist who so carelessly confuses the concepts of mere adaptation with evolution is wishing far too hard for the evolutionary explanation to be correct such that he fails to manifest any amount of intellectual honesty and objectivity about what he did in fact observe.
I guess when you are publishing in a rag entitled, "Evolution," one is forced to pay fealty to the premise just to get published, whether or not their data actually supports the premise.
They as much a said they didn't observe specifically attributable genetic change due to the inherent complexity of the issue. Had he been an objective scientist as opposed to a biased sycophant he would have honestly and more correctly stated point number 2 thusly: "...second, larval lipid acquisition played a major role in the expression of adult starvation resistance.
Check out his third conclusion: "finally, increased larval growth rate and lipid acquisition had a fitness cost exacted in reduced viability and slower development.
A fitness cost is an example of evolution by natural selection now is it? Where did the notion of survival of the fittest go all of a sudden? The logic on your side is certifiably self-impailing! And in your own biased literature no less!
"This study implicates multiple life-cycle stages in the response to selection for the stress resistance of only one stage. Our starvation-selected populations illustrate a case that may be common in nature [i.e., they didn't observe this in nature occurring under conditions that he could even remotely term "natural selection" so they are still only speculating.]
Let's reprise his self-contradiction once more: Patterns of genetic correlation may prove misleading unless multiple pleiotropic interconnections are resolved" [i.e., no genetic correlation can in fact be made because too many variables exist in the example to be able to conclude anything.]
I know how desperately you want it say "natural selection," but it just doesn't. Don't try to over sell the observations. Somebody like me will actually look it up and call you on it
An analysis of their genetics show that some genes were selected for and some against, so that the new strain of fly was genetically distinct from their progenitors or unselected flies.
And in the end were they or were they not still Drosophila melanogaster? Were they incapable of mating with each other thereafter? Since they're all still Drosophila melanogaster and we have no new genetically distinct species as even the title of the paper suggests, how can you say with a straight face that you are observing evolution by natural selection, dear evo-dweeb?
Genetic adaptation already programmed into a gene-pool's inherent capability to develop resistances is not evidence of evolution at all. 90% expressed their preexistent ability to adapt, and they didn't become an entirely different organism in the process.
For all your assumption that natural selection was afoot in the designed experiment, can you posit a reason the term itself nor even the suggestion of the possibility thereof appears anywhere in the abstract? I can, though you may not want me to. But I just can't resist...
It's because it's not natural selection by any evidence and not evolution by any stretch of the imagination!
It's just another a**wipe of a paper discredited by its own internal contradictions.
Nice try.
"Seeings as how you don't have any facts on your side it would be a short "squabble".
Facts? You're quibbling over the definition of the word, "accident."
So only if they are wearing wings rather than lab coats would it be evolution through natural selection?
And how precisely does your link support your contention that peppered moths are "bad science"? Did you actually read the article?
Here's an article you might enjoy:
Neo-Darwinism: time to reconsider
The author sure does love to stir the pot. :)
Maybe something with a title like "Neo-Darwinist proposes book burning -- will High Priests of Darwinism now strike a match to the faggots in their camp?" (OK, a few of you PC prudes out there got your panties in a wad over that header. As Rush might say, for all you folks out there in Rio Linda, "faggots" are bundles of sticks the same way "farding" is the act of applying one's make-up. Lighten-up.). Gotta admit -- the title will likely get the readership.
Or how about, "Neo-Darwinist Stephan Hawking attempts in vain to censor and supress open scientific debate on the merits of naturalism."
These threads will likely be humming, if not glowing red-hot and your valuable resource won't find itself only at position #427 on a thread where the opposition has already been so thorughly deconstructed.
Yes, but it is a fact that atomic formation in quantum mechanics are random. Does this imply that the universe formed "on accident" or just that it was formed using a random mechanism?
Do you think that quantum mechanics deny the existence of God?
"Yes, but it is a fact that atomic formation in quantum mechanics are random. Does this imply that the universe formed "on accident" or just that it was formed using a random mechanism?"
I don't see that it answers that theological question at all.
"Do you think that quantum mechanics deny the existence of God?"
No, although I think some people try to misuse them in that way.
Well I don't think quantum mechanics presupposes that the universe formed on "accident" either; just because the mechanism of atomic formation is random.
Neither do I believe that evolution presupposes that life evolves by "accident" either; just because the mechanism of DNA mutation is random.
See the analogy?
"See the analogy?"
Yes, I see the analogy, but I don't know why you're making that argument to me. I never took the opposite position.
Where you went with that is so far removed from what I intended that I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to answer.
For me, the answer to this...
"It all happened by accident."
"It happened the way it did because God wanted it to."
...is not to be found in any real or apparent randomness in the natural world.
I'm surprised to hear that you inferred that I think a random mechanism of evolution presupposes the nonexistence of God. Some people think so; I'm not one of them.
By the way, you have still to offer a meaningful explanation of the difference between a given photon randomly striking a given cell in a given living thing at a given instant, and the same thing happening accidentally.
The only part of the definition of "accident" that applies to my argument is the last: "Lack of intention; chance."
I would also point out that, WRT mutation, it is difficult to demonstrate that "all outcomes are equally likely." Further, mutations are only described by a probability distribution if their occurence is governed by chance.
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.