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
Such a disclaimer didn't work for Michael Bellesiles. Not everything is a matter of opinion. You'd probably be embarrassed if your Morton's Demon stopped working and you could see yourself as others see you on these threads. You can pretend to be wearing the emperor's robes if you want. We don't have to pretend to be fooled.
When you paste together such a fabrication as that bibliography and represent it to the Ohio board in the manner that Meyer and cohorts did, that's lying about the state of scientific opinion. That the scientists who were cited say so should give you a clue but doesn't. He does the same thing in other places, so I'm not surprised.
From the NCSE page:
Moreover, in light of Stephen C. Meyer's declaration that the Bibliography contains publications "that raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution" — a declaration that significantly postdates the disclaimer — the sincerity of the disclaimer may be doubted.[8]Meyer continues to misrepresent even as he denies doing so. You continue to pretend not to understand. I continue to disbelieve the whole performance.
There is no science and no honesty in searching publication after publication for just the juicy quotes you want, disregarding tons and tons of totally contrary evidence, and presenting a false picture with the result. I've said it already and it's still true. Meyer is a charlatan and a cradle-robbing charlatan at that.
This is precisely the disillusioning thing about arguing with creationists. It's not pretty and there's no glossing it over.
Presumably on His blessing, you have the right to pretend that your objections are about science when they're obviously not. You have the right to pretend that you don't understand why your arguments are wrong, so you can keep trolling for suckers with them again and again and again. You have the right to ignore anything inconvenient and focus only upon what you imagine helps you. You have the right to pretend not to have assumed any of the preceding rights.
Very disillusioning. Faith in things unseen isn't good for everybody.
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.
This is precisely the disillusioning thing about arguing with creationists. It's not pretty and there's no glossing it over.
Everybody who disagrees with you is a liar or dumb.
Presumably on His blessing, you have the right to pretend that your objections are about science when they're obviously not.
Because you disagree you resort to ad homenim.
You have the right to pretend that you don't understand why your arguments are wrong, so you can keep trolling for suckers with them again and again and again.
I have the right to be objective and think for myself. You on the other hand demand everybody think like you do.
You have the right to ignore anything inconvenient and focus only upon what you imagine helps you.
Healthy disagreement is good and I encourage it. You on the other hand think anybody who disagrees with you is dumb or lying and resort to attacking the person.
Grow up VadeRetro, grow up.
14. David P. Mindell, Michael D. Sorenson, and Derek E. Dimcheff, “Multiple independent origins of mitchondrial gene order in birds,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95 (1998): 10693-10697.
The genetic information possessed by mitochondria, cell organelles with their own small complement of DNA (in a circular chromosome coding for 37 proteins, usually abbreviated as “mtDNA”), has been widely viewed as a good marker of phylogeny: the historical branching pattern that links organisms. In this study, however, David Mindell of the University of Michigan and his colleagues found that the specific order of mtDNA in birds “has had multiple independent originations...based on sampling of 137 species representing 13 traditionally recognized orders.” This suggests that -- contrary to expectations -- patterns such as gene order may be under functional constraints. If so, mtDNA may be subject to the same kind of historically misleading similarities that affect other types of systematic data. “Our finding of multiple independent origins for a particular mtDNA gene order among diverse birds,” conclude Mindell et al., “and findings by others of convergent evolution for mt sequence duplications in snakes and lizards...suggests that some constraints on gene order mutation are in effect” (p. 10696). This may considerably complicate the use of mtDNA as a historical marker in evolutionary studies.
What from the above misrepresents the authors views?
Placemarker;)
The words enclosed in quotation marks are accurate. However the quotes are entirely misrepresented and taken out of context.No examples are given. I'd like to see the context, especially since the Discovery Institute replied with
Mindell does not explain how the summary misinterprets his publication or quotes it out of context. This is not surprising, however, as a closer look at the article in question provides additional support for the accuracy of the summary. The summary notes that Mindell et al.’s findings suggest that “mtDNA may be subject to the same kind of historically misleading similarities that affect other types of systematic data”—thus complicating “the use of mtDNA as a historical marker in evolutionary studies.”And that is exactly what Mindell himself said. Again, this is hardly surprising, as the summary was simply a precís of the main points of his article. Can convergent similarity affect molecular data (in this case, mitochondrial gene order) and be historically misleading? Yes; here is what Mindell et al. wrote in their “Results and Discussion”:
Our discovery of multiple originations for a particular gene order in birds is analogous to the discovery of parallel inversions in chloroplast DNA (23) and points to the need for greater sampling of taxa in phylogenetic analyses based on gene order. Without such sampling, convergent similarity among gene order characters will be more easily mistaken for similarity because of common descent, thereby confounding phylogenetic analyses. (pp. 10694-10695; emphasis added)We invite Professor Mindell to explain how this differs in any significant way from what the summary said.
Done that...
Testable Creation Model
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/749062/posts
You are too smart to pick origin of life. Still, look at every known genetic error mechanism from point mutations to pseudogenes to extra chromosomes. There is no known genetic mechanism that can produce the vast volume of change that occurred at the Precambrian explosion, or any one of a half-dozen lesser explosion of variation that occurred after a long period of stasis.
I challenge YOU. Name the genetic mechanism that has produced a new family of animals. You need something that explains not the slowest rates of changes, not the average rate of change, but the fastest. So fast that we should have bred coon dogs that can climb trees like a cat if we had wanted to.
You guys don't have an answer to the number of families/time allowed point. Not that holds up. I haven't "forgotten" anything, in fact I saved the original thread to hard drive because I found it so one-sided. But you go ahead and post your response to my point rather than just throw out more demands and accusations about my rationality. Go ahead, tell me what I "have forgotten".
I'll just cut and paste my answer from the original thread.
1. Did the Supplementary Bibliography, or Meyer and Wells, say that the authors of the cited articles thought they were providing “scientific evidence for intelligent design?”The answer to both is supposedly "No." When convenient, however, Meyer pretends that the answer is "Yes." Again, from the NCSE page:2. Did the Supplementary Bibliography, or Meyer and Wells, say that the cited articles “provide scientific evidence against evolution?”
Moreover, in light of Stephen C. Meyer's declaration that the Bibliography contains publications "that raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution" — a declaration that significantly postdates the disclaimer — the sincerity of the disclaimer may be doubted.[8]And one has to wonder what the idea of listing a bunch of articles many of which in fact support evolution and not ID would have been, given the goals of Discovery Institute.
The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.Even that low bar is not crossed, according to most of the authors. This rebuttal quibbles endlessly about the word-for-word accuracy of its quotes, meaning only that everything they did say is based on something in the article. I haven't checked carefully enough to see if even that is true. They and you make a point of not getting something that this thread is about:
5. Then why are these scientists so upset about the Supplementary Bibliography?Just turn the situation around and accuse everyone else of dishonesty! You're OK, it's the word that accuses you which is lying!In three words: fear, intimidation, and politics.
In the individual commentaries, author Erwin had raised this charge:
“Citing a paper from 1994 is decidedly poor scholarship, however, given how fast this field has moved. The rapid advances in comparative developmental biology have rendered much of this pretty outdated. We now have a very well substantiated metazoan phylogeny, at least in general outline, allowing some of the tests suggested at the end of the cited passage. Moreover, comparative developmental studies have only served to emphasize the fundamental unity of bilaterian animals.”The attempted reply:
Erwin does not challenge the accuracy of the summary. Rather, he says that his article is “pretty outdated.” Erwin’s colleagues, however, continue to cite this 1994 publication. In a major review article published in 2000, for instance, paleontologist David Jablonski of the University of Chicago cited the article (D. Jablonski, “Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolution biology and paleobiology,” Deep Time (Paleontological Society, 2000), pp. 15-52; see pages 23 and 44). Graham Budd, a paleontologist at the University of Uppsala, cited the paper in another major review published in 2000, “A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla,” Biological Reviews 75 (2000): 253-295; see pages 257 and 290.Merely citing that someone else cited the article two years ago without a quote of what was cited looks suspicious. Is the article mentioned in a historical context? It is possible to mention old articles when describing an "ongoing" debate, especially when providing "context." And what about this part of Erwin's objection?Jablonski and Budd say nothing about the paper being out of date. Both refer to the paper in the context of ongoing debates in paleontology.
We now have a very well substantiated metazoan phylogeny, at least in general outline, allowing some of the tests suggested at the end of the cited passage. Moreover, comparative developmental studies have only served to emphasize the fundamental unity of bilaterian animals.Not a word addressing the core issue. The real problem is that Discovery is still trying to paint a picture of things not adding up, at least not in an evolutionary way. That's a false picture and it's not right to do that no matter how artful your weasel-wording gets.
I could go on, but I find I don't have patience for this. The truth isn't anything you want it to be. A lie is a lie, no matter how you tell it.
David P. Mindell (coauthor of [14]): "The words enclosed in quotation marks are accurate. However, the quotes are entirely misinterpreted and taken out of context. This is just as the scientific community, and at least some of the public, has come to expect from the Discovery Institute."Now recall that Discovery's whole first paragraph containing the disclaimer was added to the copy on their web site after they had learned of NCSE's questionaire. It was not in the representation to the Ohio board. It is also falsified by Meyer's citation of the bibliography as a list of articles "containing challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution."
Mindell is dismayed to find himself, however accurately quoted, wielded by Luddites against science, as he explains in more detail elsewhere. You see, he knows something you don't, the shabby nature of the people trying to exploit him.
Generally, when you attach a bibliography to your presentation, it refers to supporting materials, books and articles upon which your presentation is based. That's not what a Discovery "bibliography" is at all. The Ohio board could be excused if they thought it was a list of pro-ID research and I'm sure that was Discovery's intent. That they added a caveat on their web site's copy after the misrepresentations should fool no one.
You guys don't have an answer to the number of families/time allowed point. Not that holds up. I haven't "forgotten" anything, in fact I saved the original thread to hard drive because I found it so one-sided.I want to see you reproduce it in your own words. I want to see your demon let it into your brain. I can spout every creationist argument ever made. Can you tell me what I told you about why no new families popped out in the last twenty years and no new families are going to pop out in the next twenty?
Nope! You're off-message. The new story is that Discovery Institute merely wanted to present a bunch of cool articles outlining the challenges for science, etc. etc. etc. The answer to the following is supposedly "No."
Did the Supplementary Bibliography, or Meyer and Wells, say that the cited articles “provide scientific evidence against evolution?”Gee, Ahban! You were fooled, just like NCSE and the Ohio Board and me and everyone else who reads the DI "bibliography." The scientists cited therein are not represented as believers in ID or as providing evidence against evolution, you see.
After all, if they had been so represented, their protests that such representation is not true would have force and we can't have that.
A little Vade quote-mining
I've said it already and it's still true. Meyer is a charlatan and a cradle-robbing charlatan at that.
Mindell is dismayed to find himself, however accurately quoted, wielded by Luddites against science,…
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.
Vade,
I could go on and on and even point out your apparent need to invoke the term ‘creationist’ but I don’t have the patience for this.
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.
- Steven Meyers
You seem to think you know something about lawyering …
And still my favorite from your article:
Further, some people are deluded, perhaps to the point of fanaticism.
I posted the DI article and you rambled on and on from your apparent rebuttal from NCSE who seem a little upset that they didn’t get their way. You seemed to think that you struck gold with all of your quote-mining (and as an extra bonus – your extremely subjective opinions and personal attacks). I posted DI’s answers to NCSE’s allegations but you still continue. You must continue… you have no options within the walls you have put up and ignore simultaneously.
By the way Vade, don’t you attempt to sell fiction to people as part of your living and you seem a little frustrated that people aren’t buying it…
Isn’t it strange how life imitates art? (or is it life imitates life) LOL!
I suggest you get out of other peoples faces and take a long look at your own. Confront your apparent demons and, by all means, stop with the projection.
Hey, before you take a look at yourself in the mirror you might want to wipe that rabid naturalistic ‘fanaticism’ foam off the side of your mouth. LOL!!!
PatrickHenry Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Vade has rabies, though he exhibits all the signs. I do however suggest an old fashion rabies test just to make sure. LOL!
That's Jesus in Matt 5:44. I haven't prayed for VR lately although I've felt the tug to do just that and for others. Yes, there's hope even for those who curse us and say all kinds of false things about us.
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.