FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 06/07/2002 11:35:28 AM PDT by jennyp
To Seattle area residents the struggle over how evolution is taught in public high schools may seem a topic from the distant past or a distant place.
Don't bet on it. One nearby episode in the controversy has ended, but a far-reaching, Seattle-based agenda to overthrow Darwin is gaining momentum.
Roger DeHart, a high-school science teacher who was the center of an intense curriculum dispute a few years ago in Skagit County, is leaving the state. He plans to teach next year in a private Christian school in California.
The fuss over DeHart's use of "intelligent design" theory in his classes at Burlington-Edison High School was merely a tiny blip in a grand scheme by promoters of the theory.
The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.
Who is this unnamed being? Well, God, I presume. Wouldn't you?
As unlikely as it may seem, Seattle is ground zero for the intelligent-design agenda, thanks to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).
Headed by one-time Seattle City councilman and former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute is best known locally for its savvy insights on topics ranging from regionalism, transportation, defense policy and the economy.
In the late '90s, the institute jumped into the nation's culture wars with the CRSC. It may be little known to local folks, but it has caught the attention of conservative religious organizations around the country.
It's bound to get more attention in the future. Just last month, a documentary, Icons of Evolution, premiered at Seattle Pacific University. The video is based on a book of the same name by CRSC fellow Jonathan Wells. It tells the story of DeHart, along with the standard critique of Darwinian evolution that fuels the argument for intelligent design.
The video is part of the anti-Darwin agenda. Cruise the Internet on this topic and you'll find something called the Wedge Strategy, which credits the CRSC with a five-year plan for methodically promoting intelligent design and a 20-year goal of seeing "design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
Last week, Chapman tried to put a little distance between his institute and the "wedge" document. He said it was a fund-raising tool used four years ago. "I don't disagree with it," he told me, "but it's not our program." (I'll let the folks who gave money based on the proposed strategy ponder what that means.)
Program or not, it is clear that the CRSC is intent on bringing down what one Center fellow calls "scientific imperialism." Surely Stephen Jay Gould already is spinning in his grave. Gould, one of America's most widely respected scientists and a prolific essayist, died just two weeks ago. Among his many fine books is one I kept by my bedside for many weeks after it was published in 1999, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life."
In "Rock of Ages," Gould presents an elegant case for the necessary co-existence of science and religion. Rather than conflicting, as secular humanists insist, or blending, as intelligent-design proponents would have it, science and religion exist in distinct domains, what Gould called magisteria (domains of teaching authority).
The domain of science is the empirical universe; the domain of religion is the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of life.
Gould was called America's most prominent evolutionist, yet he too, was a critic of Darwin's theory, and the object of some controversy within the scientific community. There's a lesson in that: In the domain of science there is plenty of room for disagreement and alternative theories without bringing God into the debate.
I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.
That's what they continue to do in Skagit County. Last week, the Burlington-Edison School Board rejected on a 4-1 vote a proposal to "encourage" the teaching of intelligent design. Bravo.
Despite proponents' claims of scientific validity, intelligent design is little more than religion-based creationism wrapped in critiques of Darwin and all dressed up in politically correct language. All for the ultimate goal — placing a Christian God in science classrooms of America's public high schools.
Yes, well. The fact is that we have issued innumerable such search warrants, and our hit rate has been extremely indictable. Every summer, grad students scour the earth in particular places because of predictions made by the fossil record. For example, we did not find the intermediate fossils between eohippus and horse scattered with uniform distribution around the paleological landscape--we find them in concentrations only where the record predicted they will be found--in the mesozoic layers between where eohippus and horse can be found.
There are groups in Europe who are also "racially the same" yet who also speak very different languages. The Finns and the Basques come to mind. So this is not a unique phenomenon.
The question that arose was regarding odds computation, and my contention that you don't know what you need to know to calculate the odds that abiogenesis is impossible, any more than you can calculate the odds that divine intervention is impossible. Both tasks are safely beyond the computational capabilities of finite beings, though for different reasons. This is not a hidden mystery motivation. I stated the issue quite plainly. Why not follow the argument instead of making me rehash it?
Personally, I consider a belief in God to be faith, as I do a belief in abiogenesis.
Personally, I consider a belief in anything, including anything formally proved, to be a total act of faith. The interesting question, and the one that has driven scientific philosophers from Hume on, is: how objectively reliable (or sharable) are the reasons for one's faith?
Abiogenesis does not have a scientific basis.
Of course it does, its pretty anemic, and totally uninteresting to the vast majority of scientists, but it meets all the important criteria: it is a thesis that has implications that can drive research or field work to look for counter-examples, or fundamental functional contradictions.
Now, God's existance should be considered axiomatic since our culture and values are based on this belief. But that still doesn't make it science.
Belief in God or divine intervention differs from belief in abiogenesis in the following important way: God is posited to be an immaterial entity. Sciences are about material entities. Abiogenenisis has, therefore, a material existence that could be dis-proved by material means. An immaterial God could His Wonders work in an infinite number of ways. Abiogenensis may have a thorougly worked out natural explanation, and still require Divine Intervention all unknown to us. For all we know, God has to personally intervene to find every sperm its Chosen Egg. Miracles may abound in every grain of sand. Science has no handle with which to come to grips with this.
The interesting difference for me is that abiogensis is an attempt to answer a question in a satisfactorily detailed material way. That's what a curious mind wants to eat. Divine Intervention is just the adult version of "shut up and eat your porridge,-- damn kids."
You've peered and peered into the vast empty space between Andromeda and Milky Way, for years, and what do you have to show for it? Not a single reading anywhere. Obviously, the only gravity that exists is local, or micro-gravity, macro-gravity hasn't a shred of actual evidence to back it up.
Science works by induction on the state-space of its subject matter, not by exhaustion of the state-space. Even if you hold your breath until you turn blue. Induction has its pitfalls--that's why scientists are paid salaries to do stuff. I am really, really sorry induction is such a fallable tool, but, as they falsely say about democracy, it's saving grace is that it beats out the available competition--which is pretty much casting astrological tables and reading sheep guts.
Are you saying we should keep "proof” out of science?
proof:
1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved
4. LAW trial evidence: the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court's decision
5. BEVERAGES strength of alcoholic content: the relative strength of an alcoholic beverage measured against a standard and expressed by a number that is twice the percentage of the alcohol present in the liquid
Were you talking about definition 5?
Of course not, there's no "should" about it. If you can come up with a formal proof of the law of gravity, "Nature" will publish immediately, and your plush academic life at any number of institutions can begin. An inductive demonstration is NOT a proof, unless it is exhaustive. If you have such a thing to hand, for any non-trivial natural science thesis, don't be shy about sharing it.
If you are going to talk about the ontology and epistomology of science, than loose civilian definitions of proof, such as you have offered, are not on the table for discussion. What is on the table is what is classically meant by proof: a tabulature of basic axioms and derived corollaries leading step by step to the hypothesis.
The alternative definition: "proof" by induction is quite obviously not proof at all, if you have even a mild passing regard for the history of natural science, with it's long panopy of inductive proofs that ultimately stumbled on a counter-example and failed--such as when Newton's law of gravity failed to accurately predict the perihelion of Mercury, dispite a generations long history of accurate prediction.
Kindly show me an example of a formal scientific proof in a natural science, and I will continue this charade. My statement is straightforward and easy to examine. Copies of "Nature" abound in every library. If you can cop an example of a formal proof in natural science, than I will revisit my contention--otherwise, my statement is straightforward, simple, and stands appallingly obviously on the available evidence: Natural science has little to no use for proofs--examine it as exhaustively as you like.
Beyond that, (natural science) what is your ‘theory’ in regards to why a tree is not a rock.
Natural science has little to no use for proofs--examine it as exhaustively as you like.
My position is that as a science, abiogenesis has fallen. The odds are exponentially against it occurring by accident.
and my contention that you don't know what you need to know to calculate the odds that abiogenesis is impossible, any more than you can calculate the odds that divine intervention is impossible. Both tasks are safely beyond the computational capabilities of finite beings,
In otherwords, it has fallen as a science.
Personally, I consider a belief in anything, including anything formally proved, to be a total act of faith. The interesting question, and the one that has driven scientific philosophers from Hume on, is: how objectively reliable (or sharable) are the reasons for one's faith?
Concerning abiogenesis-- next to nill. According to Carl Sagan, the odds are 1 to 10^2,000,000,000 for it having occurred.
Of course it does,
OK, you need a great faith to bet on abiogenesis.
God is posited to be an immaterial entity. Sciences are about material entities. Abiogenenisis has, therefore, a material existence that could be dis-proved by material means.
If abiogenesis didn't occur how did life get here?
An immaterial God could His Wonders work in an infinite number of ways. Abiogenensis may have a thorougly worked out natural explanation, and still require Divine Intervention all unknown to us.
Well, since you bring Divine Intervention into it, I'll switch sides to the pro -abiogenesis party. Ashes to ashes etc.
The interesting difference for me is that abiogensis is an attempt to answer a question in a satisfactorily detailed material way. That's what a curious mind wants to eat. Divine Intervention is just the adult version of "shut up and eat your porridge,-- damn kids."
That depends on the motive of the questioner. If the one seeking the answer just wants to find out how the heck God did it, you are right. If, however, the motivation is a futile wish to disprove God's existance, then one needs to be reminded of the Divine.
My apologies for not being clear. When I said "environment" I was making a general reference to any external influences that might precipitate the destruction of another species.
Suppose that you offer a theory about the height of the average person in ancient Egypt. Let us also suppose that you have based this theory on some well-grounded research into prior and later human settlements in the same region. Extensive unearthing of fossils indicates that the average person in the earlier civilization was 5'4" tall (based on a sample of 100 fossils), and the average person in the later civilization was 5'8" (again, based on a sample of 100 fossils). Based on this apparent progression, you offer a hypothesis that the average person in the Egyptian civilization in question was 5'6" tall, as follows:
Since the average person of Civilization A was 5'4" tall, and the average person of Civilization B was 5'8" tall, and the civilization in question flourished at a time midway between these two other civilizations in the same geographic area, the average person in the Egyptian civilization was about 5'6" tall.
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? In an attempt to test your hypothesis, we go out and engage in a search for fossils indicating the height of various people who lived during the civilization we are studying. The first fossil we unearth is of a person who was 5'2" tall. We then unearth fossils of people who were 5'1", 5'5", and 5'4" tall. Within a few months, we have assembled a group of 100 fossils with an average height of 5'4".
At this point, I will call your original hypothesis into question. The evidence we have gathered clearly indicates that the average person in this Egyptian was 5'4" tall, not 5'6". I suggest that while there may be some sort of continuity between Civilization A and Egypt, there doesn't appear to be any direct relationship between Egypt and Civilization B (at least insofar as the height of the citizenry is concerned). Now consider the following scenarios that may result:
1. In response to my contention that your original premise was incorrect, you claim that the 100 fossils we've unearthed represent too small a sample size to use as the basis for our conclusion that the average person in this Egyptian civilization was 5'4". Maybe that is a valid point, but that would also invalidate the first part of your hypothesis, in which you claim that the average heights of people living in Civilizations A and B are 5'4" and 5'8", respectively.
2. You claim that "we haven't looked hard enough," and you insist on digging for more fossils in the hopes of finding taller people from this Egyptian civilization. Perhaps, you reason, these Egyptians revered their basketball players and didn't bury them among the normal citizens. After an exhaustive search for a trove of 6'0" skeletons in a special predecessor to the NBA Hall of Fame, we unearth 100 more fossils and find that the average height is still about 5'4".
3. You suggest that maybe these Egytians seem so much shorter in stature than you estimated because they conducted special cremation ceremonies for their basketball players, thereby causing a substantial portion of our potential fossil record to vanish without a trace. I would find it quite convenient for you to have developed a theory that is based on the premise that we cannot find the evidence we are looking for.
4. When all else fails, you develop an interesting theory called "punctuated growth," or "Punk-Gro," which states that the people living in this region were always 5'4" tall until a very brief period of time in which they grew to 5'8" in height. If we look hard enough, you claim, we will find evidence of that "transitional" period between Egypt and Civilization B. But it will be very hard to find these fossils, you warn, because the transitional period was very short and therefore the pool of fossils will be very small.
At some point, even you would have to admit that you are really grasping for straws here. On the other hand, MY simple explanation would seem much more reasonable:
"There isn't any 'transitional' phase, Don, because there is no relationship between Egypt and Civilization B. Civilization B is nothing more than a bunch of tall people from a foreign land who settled here after Egypt declined."
Forget about reversals. Of the anomalies I note on the page in question, the biggest is really the non-relationship between the IndoEuropean and Semitic language families. The two groups are racially the same and could not have split up more than a few thousand years ago and the languages should be strongly related given anything like standard theories.You don't know the interval of separation between Semitics and Indoeuropean ancestors; it could be fifty thousand years. There are linguists who think they see superfamilies and even traces of an "Eden-speak." (See The Origin of Language by Merritt Ruhlen.)
That's the basic disconnect between anthropology and linguistics. There's no evidence of modern man being around that long even using conventional dating schemes. To my knowledge, there's no evidence of caucasions being around more than about 10K or 12K years even using conventional schemes.
Moreover, the entire notion of language superfamilies such as nostratic is on very shaky ground. Many experts claim the similarities which comprise nostratic do not amount to more than you'd get by pure chance, i.e. they do not pass any sort of a null hypothesis test.
It's an area where we may never get much more evidence. I like the single-origin hypothesis simply because I suspect Homo erectus had some sort of primitive language by the time it diffused out of Africa.
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.