Posted on 12/09/2005 3:55:11 AM PST by mlc9852
Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.
Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
For the same reason its opposite should be feigned. You asked "why" a designer would create something with the appearance of evolution. That question impinges upon the volition of whatever intelligence is involved. Although I am reticent to suggest science will ever know the mind and will of God, I am happy to leave that question out of science class.
Introducing Occam's razor into biology class is introducing philosophy into biology class. As long as you're going to introduce it, why not ask which is simpler: To attribute cohesiveness and predictability to a single intelligent agent, or to attribute the same to random mutations, natural selection, and physical laws that came from unguided processes?
ping
I'd not heard that before. Perhaps that is why later passages of Scripture state that "the life is in the blood," and why "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin," and why the Creator had to take on the form of human flesh and shed blood in order to bring about a new creation which is yet to be manifest.
Something like SETI?
Nooooo kidding??? LOL
" ...In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?
Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.
Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science." ~
Michael Crichton ( Excerpted from his lecture at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA - January 17, 2003 )
You: For the same reason its opposite should be feigned.
But the "opposite" is not being feigned. We know that ERVs (and other genetic markers) are inherited. The pattern they display across species is consistent with the already-deduced family tree. So, this is simply one more bit of evidence to support the theory of common descent. See, no new hypothesis.
Introducing Occam's razor into biology class is introducing philosophy into biology class. As long as you're going to introduce it, why not ask which is simpler: To attribute cohesiveness and predictability to a single intelligent agent, or to attribute the same to random mutations, natural selection, and physical laws that came from unguided processes?
First, the Razor doesn't have to be in biology class; it's a general principle that applies to all sciences, and if it is discussed in class at all, it should be in that context.
Second, it's a bit unclear to me as to whether you're talking about biology or physics.
"cohesiveness and predictability". This sounds more like physics than biology, at least judging from what you said earlier
"physical laws that came from unguided processes". We don't know where physical laws "came from", or even if that is a sensible question. We do know that they have been observed.
To attribute ... to a single intelligent agent, or ... to random mutations, natural selection, and physical ...?
Clearly the latter is simpler. We know that there are mutations and selection, and also regularities in physics and chemistry. The theory is that these can account for all known biological phenomena. So far so good.
And I don't see what's simple in postulating an "intelligent agent" with (if it's the Christian God) infinite intelligence and power, or (if it's some other god or ET or whatever) with lots of intelligence and power, and then coming up with limitations on what it did (like make the biotic world look evolved), speculating on its "motives" (assuming that its intelligence is akin to human intelligence), and so forth. Seems like a lot more work than using what we already have.
What we know about this is exceedingly limited in view of the time and effort involved with observing it. Connections in morphology do not necessitate connections in history. It is not unreasonable in the least to assume them, but if you do, be advised that the evidence will fit every time. The deduced family tree of which you speak exists because one has already assumed (induced) a historic chain reaction that progresses from the simple to the complex. If one approaches science from such a standpoint it is a simple matter to "explain" all things without reference to a deity.
. . . the Razor doesn't have to be in biology class; it's a general principle that applies to all sciences . . .
It may or may not be applied in these disciplines. It is by no means a self-evident truth. Just another handy tool that may or may not have explanatory power. It would be a mistake to make Occam's Razor a test of what constitutes objective reality from case to case. There are times when a more complicated explanation not only fits in theory but also represents what is happening.
. . . it's a bit unclear to me as to whether you're talking about biology or physics.
It is even more unclear to me how one could treat the subject of biology without reference to physical laws. Same with chemistry. Maybe you can compartmentalize the sciences and maintain strict boundaries between them. I would think that to be tough and unnecessary. But you are free to accept and propound whatever kind of science you wish.
Public schools ought to provide classes and textbooks that accomodate atheistic, theistic, and agnostic science, for the students (whose parents' tax dollars support the schools to begin with) each begin with one of these sets of ground rules which in turn color the interpretation and explanation of the universe as we know it.
If it proves untenable or impractical to accommodate multiple starting points, then it is best to stay away from positive statements that conflict with them, or at least make the points with qualifying tone.
Science is loath to declare it has all the answers. It needs to keep that message at the fore.
What is 'theistic' science? And shall we give Islamic, Buddist and other creeds equal time?
Islamic, Bhuddist, and other beliefs, like the Christian belief, do not need science to make a point for their beliefs. At the same time, science does not need to declare itself, or conduct itself, as atheistic in belief in order to be science.
FC: What we know about this is exceedingly limited in view of the time and effort involved with observing it.
Huh? ERVs are part of the genome; by definition they are inherited.
Connections in morphology do not necessitate connections in history. It is not unreasonable in the least to assume them...
True
...but if you do, be advised that the evidence will fit every time.
False in at least two ways. 1) Sometimes a new fossil requires that the tree be redrawn in places; for example, was archeopteryx an ancestor of modern birds, or a late cousin of them? 2) There are hypothetical fossils that simply wouldn't fit; eg half amphibian and half bird. These have never been found.
The deduced family tree of which you speak exists because one has already assumed (induced) a historic chain reaction that progresses from the simple to the complex.
This is verging on the incoherent. (sticking with primates) the observed facts are things like the shape of a human and (non-human) ape jaw, and also the shapes of fossil jaws which are intermediate between these two. Based on this, these fossils appear to be intermediates or common ancestors. Repeat this analysis for many other parts besides the jaws, and you get the family tree for primates.
The "historic chain reaction that progresses from the simple to the complex" is not needed here. All we're doing is classifying things, and the simplest classification that includes the fossils just happens to look like a family tree.
The fact that ERVs and other genetic markers show that the details of the genomes of living creatures fit exactly into this scheme makes the common descent hypothesis even stronger.
[Occam's Razor]
... is by no means a self-evident truth. Just another handy tool that may or may not have explanatory power.
It doesn't have explanatory power exactly, it simply eliminates "explanations" with redundant/meaningless hypotheses.
It would be a mistake to make Occam's Razor a test of what constitutes objective reality from case to case.
Objective reality just is, the Razor only deals with hypotheses and theories.
There are times when a more complicated explanation not only fits in theory but also represents what is happening.
Please give a few concrete examples of this, preferably from contemporary science.
It is even more unclear to me how one could treat the subject of biology without reference to physical laws. Same with chemistry.
One can't. Always and everywhere biology has to be consistent with physics and chemistry.
. Maybe you can compartmentalize the sciences and maintain strict boundaries between them. I would think that to be tough and unnecessary. But you are free to accept and propound whatever kind of science you wish.
"Specialize" and "focus" are better than "compartmentalize". For a long time the rules of chemistry were simply laws (valences, combining energies, redox, periodic table, etc) with no theoretical basis. Since the time of Bohr et al, we now can describe chemical bonds in terms of quantum theory. This makes a few things clearer (bond angles, stability/existence of benzene rings, etc), but it is still profitable to study chemistry just using the old rules. This is basically what is done in high school, as highschoolers aren't in any position to learn QM.
Similarly, Mendel posited laws of genetics without knowing a thing about genes or DNA. It is still worth studying.
Public schools ought to provide classes and textbooks that accomodate atheistic, theistic, and agnostic science
How about just plain science? You know, observe the natural world, hypothesize, experiment, theorize, that sort of thing. Theism or the lack of it simply doesn't come up.
Science is loath to declare it has all the answers. It needs to keep that message at the fore.
We agree. However, it does provide detailed predictions about the physical world, and local school boards and the NEA should be loath to attempt to redefine this successsful enterprise, lest they kill the golden goose.
The key words being "appear to be."
How about just plain science?
Great. But ruling God forever out of the square is not "just plain science."
I have just one thing to say: "Give me 'Mountain,' or give me death."
;-)
Next stop: rest of the country.
Merry Christmas
Just how old are you? Don't answer that; I don't think we really want to know.
While my friends were still listening to the Beatles and the Rolling Stoned, I was listening to Jefferson Airplane, Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin and 10 Years After. I have no idea what the Big Bopper even sounded like. I can imagine what his last song sounded like but that would be too tasteless a joke even for here.
Hmm, let's see now:
"Effects of angels on SN-2 reaction mechanisms in apolar solvents"
"Estimating miracle frequencies in Miocene backarc basins"
"A simple proof to Cauchy's second inequality: God Did It"
Or how about this as a general approach:
"God might exist. However, that appears to have no influence in telomeric gene expression in the species Anamargaris Capreii..." (etc etc)
Frankly, I can't see how the hypothesized God would fit into any credible scientific discussion, other than gratifying certain eveangelical types and their cronies...
Maybe the point is to change a vote, not a mind.
So the "birds and grass and fishes, ect..." are created first. Okey doke.P> ... but when he decides to make man he TAKES A VERY DIRECT ROLE IN THAT! "Let US make man in our own image and likeness and stating that he forms the man from the very RED DUST(Adam means red dirt man or red mud man) of the Earth. Why was red dust significant...it has to do with the heme molecule of red blood cells being iron based. It was never a skin color issue. The iron oxide in the dust was used to make the very blood of man...as well as the blood of animals and fish.
So Man was created first and then the critters created afterwards ?
Interesting.
God may have used and may be using a natural selective process in the world....but man was not a part of this process at least it never was the intent for him to be so!
And you've been appointed to proclaim what God intends.
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.