Posted on 11/14/2002 2:36:06 PM PST by Heartlander
Evidence, not motive, weighs in favor of giving schoolchildren all sides
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-by Stephen C. Meyer
Cynical lawyers have a maxim: When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, question the motives of the opposition.
The latter seems to be the strategy of die-hard defenders of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, now that the State Board of Education in Ohio agreed to allow local districts to bring critical analysis of Darwin's ideas into classrooms.
Case in point: A few weeks ago in The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, Case Western Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss attacked the board's decision by linking it to a vast conspiracy of scientists who favor the theory of intelligent design. Design is dangerous, Krauss implied, because the scientists who favor it are religiously motivated. But Krauss' attack and his conspiracy theory are irrelevant to assessing the state board's policies. It's not what motivates a scientist's theory that determines accuracy; it's evidence.
Consider a parallel example: Noted Darwinist Richard Dawkins has praised Darwin's theory because it allows him "to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'' Does this scientist's anti-religious motive disqualify Darwinian evolution from consideration as a scientific theory? Obviously not. The same should apply when considering design.
The leading advocate of intelligent design, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, has marshaled some intriguing evidence: the miniature motors and complex circuits in cells.
But Krauss did not argue with Behe's evidence; he questioned the motives of Behe's associates. Krauss claims to speak for science in Ohio. Yet he stoops to some very unscientific and fallacious forms of argument.
Krauss also distracts attention from the real issue. The state board has acknowledged that local teachers and school boards already have the freedom to decide whether to discuss the theory of intelligent design. But apart from that, the board did not address the subject. The board does not require students to learn about the theory of intelligent design in the new science standards. Nor will students be tested on the theory. How, then, are the motives of scientists who favor intelligent design at all relevant?
The new standards do require students to know about evolution and why "scientists today continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.'' This is a good policy, one that has the facts and the law on its side.
First, the facts: Many biologists question aspects of evolutionary theory because many of the main lines of evidence for evolutionary theory no longer hold up. German biologist Ernst Haeckel's famous embryo drawings long were thought to show that all vertebrates share a common ancestry. But biologists now know that these diagrams are inaccurate. Darwin's theory asserts that all living forms evolved gradually from a common ancestor. But fossil evidence shows the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms in the Cambrian period. Biologists know about these problems.
The state board wisely has required students to know about some of these well-known problems when they learn about evolutionary theory. That's just good science education. Students have a right to know.
Law also supports the board's decision. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards vs. Aguillard that state legislatures could require the teaching of "scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.'' Last year, in the report language of the new federal education act, Congress expressed its support for greater openness in science instruction, citing biological evolution as the key example.
The state board's decision is very popular with the public. Knowing this, opponents argue that majority opinion does not matter in science. They are right. In science, it's evidence that decides questions. But, ironically, that is an argument for allowing students to know all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the view of the majority of scientists. Because evidence, and not the majority opinion of scientists, is the ultimate authority in science, students need to learn to analyze evidence critically, not just to accept an assumed consensus.
On the other hand, the majority does decide public-policy questions. And, according to many public-opinion polls, an overwhelming majority of Ohio voters support the policy of telling students about scientific critiques of Darwinian evolution. Others have complained that evolution has been unfairly singled out in these standards. Why not insist that students critically analyze other theories and ideas?
First, there is now more scientific disagreement about Darwinian evolution than about other scientific theories.
Second, evolution, more than other scientific theories, has been taught dogmatically. Scientific critics, as we have seen, are routinely stigmatized as religiously motivated. Fortunately, the State Board of Education's decision will make it more difficult to stigmatize teachers who present the evidence for and against evolutionary theory.
File Date: 11.11.02
It's fairly safe to say that many (not all) critics of Intelligent Design are enslaved to stereotypes. While this may seem a provocative claim, it is merely an observation based on much experience and familiarity with a rather large sampling of ID critics. For example, witness the widespread attempt to label those who propose ID as "Intelligent Design Creationists." Is this a label that adds light to the discussion? Or is it a label that adds smoke and heat to the discussion? Experience dictates it is the latter.
What possible clarity does the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" bring to the table? As stated, "Intelligent Design" acts as an adjective that modifies the noun "Creationism." Yet as far as I know, all "Creationists" accept some kind of Intelligent Design, as all Creationists believe God is both "Intelligent" and the "Designer." So what use is the redundant adjective? Creationists accept ID. Is this significant? Are there Creationists who reject ID? Who are they?
Yet the inverse is not true. That is, not all Intelligent Design proponents are Creationists. Of course, this all turns on how we define "Creationist." One may attempt to define "Creationist" as anyone who believes Nature or Life or some form of Life was "created" rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. If one waters down the definition in this way, they end up ensnaring various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of "Creationist." Yet imagine the ICR put out a pamphlet stating, "Creationist Francis Crick (who helped discover the Double Helix nature of DNA) was so incredulous of abiogenesis that he proposed the first life forms were designed and deposited on this planet." I think it obvious those previously proposing the watered down definition would now accuse the ICR of misrepresenting Crick as a creationist, indicating that they really don't take their watered down definition seriously. Clearly, if the definition of "Creationist" can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate.
The main problem with the term of "Intelligent Design Creationist" is that it fails to understand the essence of human communication. Words usually have connotations that are not necessarily part of an abstract, idealized philosophical definition. Imagine President Bush labeled leaders of the Democratic Party, and the special interest groups that supported them, as "Communists." Bush would surely get into much trouble with this rhetoric. But what if he tried to defend such labels by citing the dictionary definition of a Communist as one who engages in left-wing activities? Obviously, this would look like the shallow excuse that it is. Yes, one can abstractly define a 'Communist' as a person who engages in left-wing activities, but we all know that the word 'Communist' carries many negative connotations in our society. It's an issue of communication, not definition. The same situation holds for those who peddle the term "Intelligent Design Creationism." They are engaged in rhetoric for socio-political, not intellectual, reasons.
Any argument is an attempt to communicate - to your opponent and to those watching the argument. Thus, if one uses the term "Creationist", they are communicating. But what are they communicating? The sterile, abstract, watered-down philosophical definition? Or the far more popular notion of a creationist as personified by such people as Henry Morris, Duane Gish and various members of the Religious Right? This is a question that could be studied and answered from a sociological point of view and I am quite confident that what is being communicated is the latter. After all, the watered-down definitions are typically idiosyncratic and depend on the person defining the term (for example, I have seen some watered-down definitions that include reference to the supernatural and others that don't).
Why do some critics of ID insist on employing such rhetoric? Why would someone insist on viewing this debate through the filters of the "Intelligent Design Creationism" label? For one thing, it emerges from and taps in to their stereotypes. Many ID critics have much previous experience arguing with Creationists and thus their experience has shaped and conditioned their perceptions. This then leads to the psychological phenomena of transference, where anyone arguing for ID is perceived through the impressions acquired previously by arguing with Creationists. What's more, many ID proponents are indeed Creationists, thus such acts of transference are bound to be positively reinforced.
Of course, the problem is that such experience with Creationism usually entails the interaction with a belief system that a) is strongly anti-evolution; b) proposes the Biblical God as the Creator; c) interprets Genesis in a literal fashion. Yet it is at these three points that ID can part company with Creationism. There is nothing intrinsic to ID that makes it "anti-evolution," as evolution may not only be factored into the Design, but it some ways, may itself be designed. There is nothing intrinsic to ID that equates the intelligence with God. A speculation that proposes ETI as the designer qualifies as an ID hypothesis. And, of course, nothing about Intelligent Design need involve the Book of Genesis, let alone a literal interpretation of Genesis. Yet these distinctions depend on logical thinking that is dampened by the dynamics of transference at play in the minds of those using the label. The label "Intelligent Design Creationist" adds confusion, not clarity, to the debate.
At this point, the critics of ID often attempt a sociological argument, pointing to the religious beliefs of those in the "ID Movement." This is a way to rationalize one's transference. The erroneous "guilt by association" argument is then used to paint any ID proponent in similar light. It is understandable why many ID critics would want to focus on the "movement," as the intellectual concept proposing that some aspect(s) of life are intelligently designed is much more difficult to oppose than erecting arguments that have the flavor of old fashioned conspiracy theories, complete with concerns about the "motivations" of the "ID Creationists." The bottom line is that many critics can't help but see ID as some form of Creationism, as their minds have been conditioned to do just this. It's really quite a shame, as it imposes a stifling, one-dimensional perspective on the rich diversity of human opinion.
Another dynamic involved in sociological. The label "Creationist" has come to carry a negative connotation, especially in academic environments. To deny this is to be irrational. When you apply the negative label to someone else, you are attempting to set the contextual stage of the debate by imposing the words "Dangerous Nonsense" as the descriptors of that person's position. It is a pure rhetorical move that poisons the well in a subtle, yet powerful way. Witness the manner in which talk radio show host, Rush Limbaugh, labels his opponents when disagreeing with their political views. Those who throw about the label, "Intelligent Design Creationism," are doing the same thing. Both employ such tactics to sway public opinion. The difference is that Limbaugh is an admitted entertainer with purely political goals, while those who use the "Creationist" label often posture as being serious and objective.
There is one good thing about the term "Intelligent Design Creationism." Those who use the term to make sense of this debate give themselves away as being biased and incapable of considering this debate objectively. When one relies on stereotypes to inform their opinions about issues, it is fairly safe to say that you are dealing with a mindset that thinks the issues have been resolved and we should move on to labeling and fighting people who got it wrong. After all, is it a coincidence that every one who uses the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" also just happens to think that ID is nonsense?
Addendum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recall a psychology experiment from the 1970s, where two groups of observers watched a short film of a traffic accident. Group A was asked, "About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?" Group B was asked, "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" Group B estimated higher speeds than group A, apparently because the word "smash" affected how they recalled the film. A week later, both groups were asked if they had seen any broken glass from the accident (even though the accident did not result in any broken glass). Again, members of group B were twice as likely to "recall" seeing broken glass than members of group A, probably as a function of falsely remembering a more violent accident.
Another experiment from the 30s showed people a picture of two circles connected by a straight line. For group A, the picture came with the caption, "eye-glasses"; for group B, it came with the caption "dumb-bells." Later, they were asked to redraw what they saw. Instead of drawing two circles connected by a line, many members a group A drew eye-glasses and members of group B drew dumb-bells.
How we label things and how we describe things does shape our perceptions.
-Mike Gene Link
It's been known for a very long time that these drawings were fakes. But they still appear in some textbooks currently being used, because evolutionists are not terribly interested in promoting scientific truth.
In a discussion with Alamo-Girl, I analyzed a paper on the Cambrian authored by Meyer and his Discovery cohorts. At best, his scholarship reminds one of Michael Bellisles's. What Bellisles got run out of Emory for doing, creationists everywhere do every day.
The standards Bellisle was accused of violating were the standards of everyday academic scholarship. You are expected to diligently include caveats, conditions, and counterarguments to your thesis which are commonly encountered in the literature. You cannot be selective in your presentation of opinion or hard data. You cannot falisify or mislead.
When I was sixteen, I was a sucker for Velikovsky's World's in Collision. I can see why Meyer wants into the High Schools and not the Ph.D programs. Meyer is a scoundrel, and a cradle-robbing scoundrel at that.
The way evolution is presented every day in textbooks is correct?
“Douglas Futuyma's text (Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition) he writes: "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
" Purvis, Orians and Heller, (in Life: The Science of Biology, 4th edition) tell students that, "the living world is constantly evolving without any goals.. . .evolutionary change is not directed."
Who is the “cradle-robbing scoundrel” and beyond that, who is preaching religion here?
I haven't read a High School textbook on biology in some time, so I have no idea. Your response is a dodge. Meyer is a charlatan and would be investigated and fired had he published at a self-respecting college the tripe he publishes freely at the prestigious Discovery of Nothing Institute. He wants into high school because he's pretty sure he can hoodwink those thirteen-year-olds with his propaganda.
There are other objections. ID, as Dembski admits, has no actual content to offer, just criticism of evolution. People who haven't had the basics aren't ready for discussions that assume some prior knowledge.
But it's enough to note that Meyer couldn't write an honest academic paper to save his life.
On top of that, he'd told the kids not to say anything to parents, and mine was very reluctant to fess up. By the time I was done, his credibility with my child was shot.
You can't just take the paragraphs you like. You can't pretend you misunderstood the context. You can't cynically and blatantly pull the wool over the reader's eyes.
Meyer's writing fails all the same tests. He states only the most strawman version of the mainstream account of the Cambrian and ignores all supporting data for same. He ignores all interpretations of Anomalocaris that cast doubt on his thesis. He ignores the existance of Spriggina as a possible trilobite precursor. He ignores most of what hurts his cause and twists the rest. Well, I linked it above.
Charlatan! What Duane Gish and Henry Morris have been doing for decades, people get fired for doing in the serious academic world. You can't just hoodwink the dummies.
You can't tell me he doesn't know he's doing wrong.
Why shouldn’t the same critical examination you have apparently done towards those you see as critics of your precious ‘theory’ be applied to the ‘theory’ itself?
Is this ‘theory’ far too big of a part of your personal beliefs? Is this really nobility on your part for the sake of the children or a pure self serving interest?
Science be allowed to progress and examine everything.
Nonsense. There is far more disagreement about (to take but one of many examples) theories concerning the basic structure of matter and space-time.
Nope; singling out evolution is proof that this is nothing but creationism wearing Groucho glasses.
It doesn't matter that what we teach our kids is incorrect. It doesn't matter that the textbooks contain the imaginary, deplorable and particularly speculative horse fossils, or the Hackel fraud. It doesn't matter because evolution is a fact and you need to get used to it. </sarcasm>
“Douglas Futuyma's text (Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition) he writes: "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
I have that book - maybe not that edition. Think I'll re-read it. Thanks for pointing that out.
"Purvis, Orians and Heller, (in Life: The Science of Biology, 4th edition) tell students that, "the living world is constantly evolving without any goals.. . .evolutionary change is not directed."
Who is the “cradle-robbing scoundrel” and beyond that, who is preaching religion here?
Those who push the evolution agenda, of course. Oh, was that a rhetorical question?
But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
Who is going to do this critical examination and where? Meyer? Why him, given his level of scholarship? Why in the High Schools?
Why hasn't this critical examination already occurred within mainstream science by people educated in a strong tradition of academic integrity? Is it because there's little intellectual basis for it if you haven't bypassed the normal dialogue and written a few popular-press books to make money off of the credulous, superstitious-minded ... heartlanders?
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.