Evidence, not motive, weighs in favor of giving schoolchildren all sides

Access Research Network ^ | November 11, 2002 | by Stephen C. Meyer

[edsheppa]

Dude, is that what you consider brief? I mean, come on!

[Heartlander]

Sorry.
I meant to put “PLACEMARKER” at the bottom of the post.

[VadeRetro]

Anyway, thanks for dragging out more proof that Meyer would be considered a fraud in a real academic position.

[VadeRetro]

Another author responds:

David P. Mindell (coauthor of [14]), wrote, "I am appalled that the Discovery Institute would find anything in any of my work to support their unscientific views. I am of course familiar with them as a source of misinformation and misunderstanding about nature and propaganda for anti-science education legislation."

Michael Bellesiles was in the wrong racket. You don't write Discovery-style crap from a tenured professor position. You quit your day job, join an activist war-room like the Discovery Institute, and then you can write propaganda all day long.

[scripter]

Perhaps I missed something or Mindell is referring to something other than the bibliography, which states:

These 44 scientific publications represent important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution.

And the bibliography further states:

The publications are not presented either as support for the theory of intelligent design, or as indicating that the authors cited doubt evolution.

Mindell is "appalled that the Discovery Institute found anything in any of [his] work to support their unscientific views." Is there more to this bibliography? From what was posted I don't see where the Discovery Institute cites Mindell's work as support of their views.

Is the Discovery Institute saying anything other than Mindell's work "may considerably complicate the use of mtDNA as a historical marker in evolutionary studies."

It seems to me the Discovery Institute is merely citing Mindell's work as one of 44 that "represent[s] important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution. "

[scripter]

2) The caveat in bold italics ("The publications are not presented either as support for the theory of intelligent design, or as indicating that the authors cited doubt evolution") was added after the "bibliography" had been submitted to the Ohioans and gathered criticism for the creationist quote-mine that it is.

Saw this after I posted - it doesn't seem to change my question in my last post, though.

[VadeRetro]

Follow link, read text:

Although the publications listed in the Bibliography are valuable contributions to the scientific literature, the Bibliography itself is misleading. The staff of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) analyzed the Bibliography with the assistance of many of the authors of the publications listed in it, finding (1) that the Discovery Institute misrepresents the significance of the publications in the Bibliography, (2) that the Discovery Institute's descriptions of the publications in the Bibliography are frequently inaccurate and tendentious, and (3) that the Discovery Institute fails to present any principled basis for the selection of the publications or any pedagogical rationale for their use in the classroom. NCSE concludes that the only purpose of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography is to mislead members of the Board and of the public about the status of evolution.

Numbered charges are detailed and substantiated separately. Science classes have to give the kids enough background to resist snake-oil salesmen like Meyer as early in their education as possible. Meyer can lurk in a shabby overcoat outside, off of school property, and pass out pamphlets.

[scripter]

I followed the link and read 12 and 14 last night and didn't find the answer to my question. Again, from the bibliography, the Discovery Institute is merely citing 44 pieces of literature that

• represent important lines of evidence
• represent puzzles

that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution.

That's the scientific method.

[VadeRetro]

The downplaying happened later in response to criticism--it was not part of the package delivered to the Ohio Board--and is patently insincere. The "puzzles" do not even undermine evolution, much less support ID, althought that is the implied significance. Those authors who responded to the questionaire at all tended to show outrage at the misappropriation of their work.

The only point of similarity of the publications in the Questions of Pattern section appears to be that there are passages in them that, if taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented, seem to express doubt about phylogeny in general. But for the Discovery Institute to insinuate that scientific debates about how to determine which organisms are related to which are debates about whether organisms are related is misleading. As Peter J. Lockhart (coauthor of [13]) carefully explains, in responding to the Discovery Institute's summary of his work:

I don't think it is a good representation of our work — our work does not present 'a classic challenge to evolutionary analysis'. In our paper we point out that technically it is a hard problem to reconstruct the phylogeny of corbiculate bees regardless of whether you use morphological or molecular data (the reason for this concerns the pattern of radiation — four different lineages diverged in a short period of time a long time ago — given this pattern it is not surprising that different data types might suggest different phylogenies). In our article we do not say that interpretation of the molecular data is right and that interpretation of the morphological data is wrong (or vice versa). Instead we make some suggestions which we believe will help resolve why the different data types suggest different conclusions — we suggest that the bee morphologists relook at the interpretation of some of their data and we also encourage the molecular biologists to determine some additional data which would help test their hypotheses — we suggest that if these things are done then there should be a resolution to the controversy over which phylogeny is correct. We do not doubt that there is a phylogeny — in contrast, the statement by the Discovery Institute suggests that the bee controversy is evidence for absence of phylogeny. No scientist involved in the corbiculate bee debate has ever suggested this to my knowledge.

There's no dressing this up with your own inability to read and comprehend. Playing dumb does not give you the right to lie for the Lord. I get pretty disgusted with what He seems to be telling some people to do. I caught Meyer mischaracterizing the entire state of the evidence and debate on the Cambrian in one paper, also produced under the aegis of the Discovery Institute. This "bibliography" is a similar exercise, covering an even larger area.

Such tissues of lies have no place in the classroom.

[VadeRetro]

[Any picture you can weave by cobbling together unrelated quotes and citations to imply if not state a falsehood]
That's the scientific method.

Not really. It may be time to list a few points about science for those of religious mindset:

1. The evidence can't be anything you want it to be, because the truth isn't just anything you want it to be. In fact, nothing was tailored because of your personal preferences or what church you attend.
2. The writings of the historically important scientists aren't canonical; they're outdated. Corollary: scientists don't worship historical figures, even other important scientists.
3. Nothing in nature is about your ability to misunderstand, or misconstrue, or wilfully ignore.
4. Evolution involves variation and natural selection as an explanation for diversification of life on earth. It isn't cosmology, or political science, or a morality play.

That's a start. Perhaps my fellow evos can suggest a few others.

[VadeRetro]

Your input to the list in 491 solicited as well.

[PatrickHenry]

Characteristics of The Scientific Method.
What is Science?.
The Scientific Method.
Integrated Scientific Method .
Introduction to the Scientific Method.

[scripter]

Playing dumb does not give you the right to lie for the Lord.

Acting on your pedophilic urges will land you in jail, VR. I recommend you stop molesting children. Of course you're not really a pedophile and you don't molest children, just like I don't "lie for the Lord." I find your statements just as disgusting as you find mine. Knock if off or say it to my face.

[VadeRetro]

If you don't want to be quoted as saying something, the general rule is don't say it.

Lying with accurate quotes is still lying.

[VadeRetro]

I recommend you stop molesting children.

If I molest children at all, I don't do it right in front of your face while blandly denying that there's anything going on. In fact, I have given you no reason to think that I do it at all.

See the difference?

[MEGoody]

"Bad eyes, bad back, arthritis. Sounds like you guys aren't very good spokesmen for ID."

Or evolution. LOL

[scripter]

If I molest children at all, I don't do it right in front of your face while blandly denying that there's anything going on. In fact, I have given you no reason to think that I do it at all.

You've actually given me no reason to think you don't molest children. What do I know about you? You're intelligent, agnostic, male and I know your first name. That's not much. Do I think you molest children? Of course not.

You know I'm a Christian and you know I take that very seriously. My life revolves around my relationship with Christ and part of that means I find lying rather reprehensible.

Your problem is you think anybody who disagrees with you is dumb, lying or both. I'll let you in on a little secret, not everybody who disagrees with you is dumb or lying, they just disagree with you.

You need to stop with the personal attacks.

[PatrickHenry]

Even numbered post.