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
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.
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. "
Saw this after I posted - it doesn't seem to change my question in my last post, though.
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.
That's the scientific method.
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: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.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.
Such tissues of lies have no place in the classroom.
Not really. It may be time to list a few points about science for those of religious mindset:
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.
Lying with accurate quotes is still lying.
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?
Or evolution. LOL
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.
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.