Posted on 09/06/2005 5:11:42 AM PDT by billorites
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves. One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to choose controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were required to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, give a fair account of both, and then come to a balanced judgment in their essay. The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." As teachers, both of us have found that asking our students to analyse controversies is of enormous value to their education. What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state. Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of the "both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and evolution? What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of "it is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy. Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at night. Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened? So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real scientific theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote among scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why. If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect. The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection. In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish. What, after all, is a gap in the fossil record? It is simply the absence of a fossil which would otherwise have documented a particular evolutionary transition. The gap means that we lack a complete cinematic record of every step in the evolutionary process. But how incredibly presumptuous to demand a complete record, given that only a minuscule proportion of deaths result in a fossil anyway. The equivalent evidential demand of creationism would be a complete cinematic record of God's behaviour on the day that he went to work on, say, the mammalian ear bones or the bacterial flagellum - the small, hair-like organ that propels mobile bacteria. Not even the most ardent advocate of intelligent design claims that any such divine videotape will ever become available. Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent "cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water. As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours. Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is too complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a lamentably common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" intelligent design theory by default. This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created. If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs. In fact, the bacterial flagellum is certainly not too complex to have evolved, nor is any other living structure that has ever been carefully studied. Biologists have located plausible series of intermediates, using ingredients to be found elsewhere in living systems. But even if some particular case were found for which biologists could offer no ready explanation, the important point is that the "default" logic of the creationists remains thoroughly rotten. There is no evidence in favour of intelligent design: only alleged gaps in the completeness of the evolutionary account, coupled with the "default" fallacy we have identified. And, while it is inevitably true that there are incompletenesses in evolutionary science, the positive evidence for the fact of evolution is truly massive, made up of hundreds of thousands of mutually corroborating observations. These come from areas such as geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, ethology, biogeography, embryology and - increasingly nowadays - molecular genetics. The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the fact of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a fraction of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics or the heliocentric solar system. Why, finally, does it matter whether these issues are discussed in science classes? There is a case for saying that it doesn't - that biologists shouldn't get so hot under the collar. Perhaps we should just accept the popular demand that we teach ID as well as evolution in science classes. It would, after all, take only about 10 minutes to exhaust the case for ID, then we could get back to teaching real science and genuine controversy. Tempting as this is, a serious worry remains. The seductive "let's teach the controversy" language still conveys the false, and highly pernicious, idea that there really are two sides. This would distract students from the genuinely important and interesting controversies that enliven evolutionary discourse. Worse, it would hand creationism the only victory it realistically aspires to. Without needing to make a single good point in any argument, it would have won the right for a form of supernaturalism to be recognised as an authentic part of science. And that would be the end of science education in America. Arguments worth having ... The "Cambrian Explosion" Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until about 530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many diverse marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the geological sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the great radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises fascinating questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms with hard parts (which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" of eyes, and the development of new genes that allowed parts of organisms to evolve independently. The evolutionary basis of human behaviour The field of evolutionary psychology (once called "sociobiology") maintains that many universal traits of human behaviour (especially sexual behaviour), as well as differences between individuals and between ethnic groups, have a genetic basis. These traits and differences are said to have evolved in our ancestors via natural selection. There is much controversy about these claims, largely because it is hard to reconstruct the evolutionary forces that acted on our ancestors, and it is unethical to do genetic experiments on modern humans. Sexual versus natural selection Although evolutionists agree that adaptations invariably result from natural selection, there are many traits, such as the elaborate plumage of male birds and size differences between the sexes in many species, that are better explained by "sexual selection": selection based on members of one sex (usually females) preferring to mate with members of the other sex that show certain desirable traits. Evolutionists debate how many features of animals have resulted from sexual as opposed to natural selection; some, like Darwin himself, feel that many physical features differentiating human "races" resulted from sexual selection. The target of natural selection Evolutionists agree that natural selection usually acts on genes in organisms - individuals carrying genes that give them a reproductive or survival advantage over others will leave more descendants, gradually changing the genetic composition of a species. This is called "individual selection". But some evolutionists have proposed that selection can act at higher levels as well: on populations (group selection), or even on species themselves (species selection). The relative importance of individual versus these higher order forms of selection is a topic of lively debate. Natural selection versus genetic drift Natural selection is a process that leads to the replacement of one gene by another in a predictable way. But there is also a "random" evolutionary process called genetic drift, which is the genetic equivalent of coin-tossing. Genetic drift leads to unpredictable changes in the frequencies of genes that don't make much difference to the adaptation of their carriers, and can cause evolution by changing the genetic composition of populations. Many features of DNA are said to have evolved by genetic drift. Evolutionary geneticists disagree about the importance of selection versus drift in explaining features of organisms and their DNA. All evolutionists agree that genetic drift can't explain adaptive evolution. But not all evolution is adaptive.
Name and author, please.
Red Zone, I hesitated in posting a reply to your point here before, because I didn't want to seem like I was attacking your religious beliefs--honestly, I'm not. I have religious beliefs of my own, and also the deepest possible commitment to the freedom of worship (that is a cornerstone of our nation). But I do have strong concerns (noted in my other posts) when religion seeks to enter inappropriate realms.
I hadn't come across the claim you make above for the Bible, but I think it is a little dubious. For my part, where I find merit in the Bible, it is not through a literal reading--but that's just a personal belief of mine, I won't argue that. But your suggestion here seems to be that the Bible has superior authority to other scriptures because it has some unique aspect in its account of creation--but I think that claim is open to challenge. I'm no expert, but a simple Google on 'creation world myths' turns up all sorts of interesting stuff, more than I wish to plow through. And while it appears true that many such creation myths do start with a cosmos composed entirely of, say, water, many others do not; in fact, commence with a diety or dieties (or indeed, even 'ideas') that pre-exist matter etc. For just one example, consider the Hindu holy texts, the Upanishads, which give this account of the beginning of the cosmos:
1. There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. By death indeed was this covered, or by hunger, for hunger is death. He created the mind, thinking 'let me have a self' (mind). Then he moved about, worshiping. From him, thus worshiping, water was produced. . . . 2 . . . .. That which was the froth of the water became solidified; that became the earth. On it he [i.e., death] rested. From him thus rested and heated (from the practice of austerity) his essence of brightness came forth (as) fire. 3. He divided himself threefold (fire is one-third), the sun one-third and the air one-third. He also is life [lit., breath] divided threefold, . . . (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, 1, 2, 1-3.)
Many other examples can be found--but I don't wish to belabour this. My real point is, neither the Bible, nor Christianity, nor any other specific religion is granted special status by our Constitution, and that, I feel passionately, is as it should be. ID is a dishonest attempt to insert religion (and ultimately, a rather specific religion) into a sphere where it neither stands up nor belongs. By all means, follow your faith and practise your religion--but not in a science classroom!
I mean this posting with respect, I hope it is not misunderstood!
Your usage of the moon is not relevant as we have proof of what the moon is.
To evolutionists anyone that questions that theory is suspect, there is no allowance given that the theory is questionable. Evolutionists fit the profile of survival of the fittest as they believe the wholly own the answers.
Evolutionist find, claim, and profess evidence for what they claim to be common descent all hindged upon one theme God had no part in it.
Darn. Never can find the "Not this **** again," guy graphic when I need it!
Main TalkOrigins FAQ:
On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery
This one has lots of fine pics of the specimins:
Archaeopteryx a forgery? Again?
Here's one short enough to post inline (source):
Claim CC351:
The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx specimen were forged. Evidence for this is that
- The feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.
- The surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas.
- Slightly elevated "blobs" appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab.
- The feathers show "double strike" impressions.
- Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.
- Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen.
- Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.
- An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.
These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil.Source:
Watkins, R. S., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L. M. Spetner, 1985a. Archaeopteryx -- a photographic study. British Journal of Photography 132: 264-266.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985b. Archaeopteryx -- a further comment. British Journal of Photography 132: 358-359,367.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985c. Archaeopteryx -- further evidence. British Journal of Photography 132: 468-470.
Hoyle, Fred, N. C. Wickramasinghe and R. S. Watkins, 1985. Archaeopteryx: Problems arise -- and a motive. British Journal of Photography 132(6516): 693-695,703.
Hoyle, Fred and C. Wickramasinghe, 1986. Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.
Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz, 1988. Archaeopteryx -- more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.Response:
- There are six other Archaeopteryx fossils discovered at different times and places under well documented conditions. Five of these also have unequivocal feathers [Charig 1986; Wellnhofer 1993]. On the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue under the bones and are overlain with dendrites that sometimes form within bedding planes, precluding the possibility of forgery [Charig 1986]. In addition, several other feathered dinosaurs have been discovered.
- Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together [Charig 1986]. These fractures are invisible to normal vision; a nineteenth-century forger would not even know they existed, much less be able to replicate them.
- The "double struck effect" on the counterslab is due to the fossilization method. Feather-degrading bacteria grew under the feathers, causing the sediments beneath to lithify, and so preserving a hardened feather impression. When the feathers decayed away, the sediments above pressed down to create a cast of the surface below [Davis and Briggs 1995]. Evidence of this process, including lithified bacteria, is visible under high magnification and could not plausibly be forged.
Other lack of detailed impressions results from the Archaeopteryx body resting on a flat surface without sinking into it much. The bulk of the fossil projected above the sea floor into the sediments that settled around and over it. When the shale split along the original seafloor surface, the upper part contained the bulk of the fossil, while the lower part showed only the impression which the body made on the sea floor. This pattern is typical of Solnhofen fossils. [Swinburne 1988]
- The difference in surface texture in the area of the fossils is due to the impression of the animal body [Charig 1986].
- The elevated "blobs" are natural irregularities. There are none which don't have corresponding depressions on the counterslab. The two halves fit together well except where one surface has been destroyed by subsequent preparation. [Charig 1986]
- The double-strike impressions are not imprints; they are underlying feathers. A double-strike impression would be harder to forge than a single impression.
- The hairline cracks are infilled with calcite both in the original slab and in the area Spetner claims was cement. Plus, the cracks match between the slab and counterslab [Charig et al. 1986]. None of this would be possible if the cracks formed after a cement layer were applied.
- Differences in appearance are due to different resolutions used in the SEM photography [Nedin 1997].
- The unknown materials are clearly not within the limestone matrix [Spetner et al. 1988, Figs. 4b-f]. The carbonate grains on top of them are simply dust.
- The chemical differences between the fossil and non-fossil areas are likely due to residues of preservatives applied to the fossil areas. [Nedin 1997]
Links:
Nedin, Chris, 1997. On Archaeopteryx, astronomers, and forgery. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.htmlReferences:
- Charig, Alan J. et al., 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science 232: 622-626.
- Davis, Paul G. and Derek E. G. Briggs, 1995. Fossilization of feathers. Geology 23(9): 783-786.
- Nedin, Chris, 1997. (see above)
- Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz, 1988. Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.
- Swinburne, N. H. M., 1988. The Solnhofen Limestone and the preservation of Archaeopteryx. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3(10): 274-277.
- Wellnhofer, P., 1993. The seventh specimen of Archaeopteryx from the Solnhofen Limestone. Archaeopteryx 11: 1-47.
Further Reading:
Majka, Christopher, 1992. Archaeopteryx - is this bird a fraud? New Brunswick Naturalist http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html
I'm taking a risk here, but would you please do me a favor? Would you please define for me 'rationalism'? And under what circumstances, if any, would you say rationalism, as a way of coming to intellectual conclusions, is untrustworthy or inadequate?
I'm sure it took you a lot more time to find those accurate references than it took to say "Archaeopteryx is a hoax". I'm sure you'll have another accusation of hoax thrown at you again as a result, which you'll have to put more work into to debunk. These kind of "scatter-shot" attacks, which take little effort on the part of those who initiate them, are the reason I usually don't like to talk science with creationists.
I usually like to know what someone thinks about the age of the earth before I start talking evolution with them, anyway. Anyone who thinks scientific evidence points to a 6000 year-old earth has even deeper problems with scientific literacy & isn't even ready for Evolution 101 yet.
I grew up being taught Creation (or intelligent design) and there ain't nothin' wrong with me!
With respect, I don't think that is an accurate characterisation of 'evolutionists.' Darwin himself is as good an example as any: born on precisely the same day as Abraham Lincoln, he grew up in Shropshire (a beautful part of the world, btw) and developed a keen interest in the natural world, and considered for a time entering the priesthood. As ship's naturalist aboard the Beagle for nearly five years, he made careful observations and measurements of many natural phenomena (biological and geological)--throughout this time, he professed a basic Christian belief. He spent two decades evaluating the evidence he had gathered, from which he assembled the (incomplete) theory published in 'Origin of Species.' He was reluctant to publish for fear of the inevitable challenge TOE presents a literal reading of Genesis, and the possible upset to his wife Emma, who was particularly devout.
It is true that Darwin 'lost' his Christian faith, though probably as much through the emotional crisis of the death of his daughter as anything else, but it is simply wrong to claim that Darwin, or indeed any of the multitude of serious scientists who have built on his work and insights, have set out with an agenda to banish God (or Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) from the universe. Evolutionists do not have a religious agenda.
But it is the case--and I think some of the postings in this thread demonstrate the fact--that proponents of Creationism/ID (and let's be honest, they come to the same thing) are pursuing a specific religious agenda, and in the inappropriate venue of the science classroom. I am as alarmed by that as I would be if an Iranian ayatollah were put in charge of the science curriculum, and I think you would be too!
4.55 billion years +/- ~1-2%; not exact, but pretty certain. Radiometric dating gives us our most accurate determination, but is certainly not the only evidence along those lines. Link Here
The Bible doesn't explicitly state the earth is 6000 years old, but if every word is taken exactly to be literal, it does say that the age of the earth up till the creation of man is 6 days, and lists a complete lineage from Adam through Christ (actually 2 lineages that differ, curiously enough). If this is taken to be literal fact, it would mean an upper limit on the age of the earth somewhere in the thousands of years (maybe not 6000 exactly, but certainly not millions or billions).
You are putting words in the authors mouths. At no point do they either state nor attempt to prove that.
Last I checked there was no complete theory of abiogenesis. Any evolutionary biologist will admit that to you. The presence of gaps in our knowledge, however, is not sufficient evidence of supernatural intervention, nor is it evidence that the evolutionary theories we do have are incorrect.
Your statement won't get you called any kind of name by me, at least, and I hope you can accept that I absolutely defend your right to profess your beliefs without intimidation! It is not only possible but necessary in this area to respect the freedom to hold beliefs which we ourselves do not believe, otherwise we might as well all give up and surrender to communism.
But I still maintain the issue here isn't the truth or otherwise of religion--it is the place of religion that is at issue. If it were true that TOE were taught in the science classroom as 'religious belief' rather than as a line of scientific enquiry--that would be wrong. But I honestly do not see that happening. What I do see happening is that holders of religious beliefs (and I am myself one, though perhaps not everyone would agree--but no matter) see an incompatibility between 'truths' that can be demonstrated by science and 'truths' available through religious revelation. But the problem arises from the fact that all the various 'truths' of all the various religions are incompatible with one another; choosing between them is what we do in our churches, or temples, or private meditations, any other arena is simply inappropriate. And claiming, as ID does, that religious 'truths' are on a par with scientific 'truths' is a huge category error: they are derived by different means, by different and wholly incompatible standards. That is why each must be kept to their own spheres.
Many who have posted here would clearly favour 'equal time' in the science classroom for Jesus; would they also like to see 'equal time' in the science classroom for Allah, or Shiva, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I don't think so. I don't wish to "force" (your own word) you or anyone else to believe TOE, or make it secondary to your own religious beliefs--but I also do not wish anyone to "force" their religion on me. And I am grateful our Founding Fathers took such pains to protect us all from such force!
I think Bush's understanding of science is basically that of Marvin Olasky.
You claim to know what the moon is, but proponents of the Cheese Moon Theorytm (CMT) say otherwise! This controversy can only be addressed by teaching both beliefs! What are you afraid of? If you are so sure you are right, then what's the harm in teaching CMT as well? Let the people have the information to make up their own minds!
By dismissing CMT without even considering it you show yourself to be nothing more than a rock moon worshiping, religious zealot! You hate anything that dares to question your precious rock moon god!
May His Cheesiness Who Art In Luna (second cousin twice removed of the all-seeing FSM), who's cheddary glow bathes the night, have mercy on your wicked, arrogant soul.
Rock vs. Cheese Moon Theory -- Taste the Controversy!
ok, we have a story of a god popping himself into being.
100
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.