Free Republic

You may have already seen this, but in case you haven't (or in case some others haven't), here's the best description I've read of the "Appearance of Age" problem for Creationists:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/appearance_of_age.htm

Same old witch doctors indeed. The parallels to the Edwards case -- where the Supremes squashed Louisiana's Creationism Act, which required that both evolution and "creation science" taught, or neither -- are uncanny:

"In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint. Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. . . . The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma." Id., at 106-107 (emphasis added). Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment."

I think Edwards is also where Louisiana (and Alabama before them) draws inspiration for these disclaimers:

"We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

I'm not sure simply singling out evolution for special criticism avoids the Establishment Clause problem the way that actively teaching competing theories (I know, I know, there aren't any, but bear with me) would, but that appears to be what the creationists are trying to hang their hats on.

>>He raised his daughter in a box and she killed herself! <<

Atypically coherent, but nonetheless incorrect: http://www.snopes.com/science/skinner.htm

I understand the issue, but I was hoping you could point out to me where Max (not Plaisted) makes the "one human and no apes" statement. I can't find it in Max's article(s). Without that statment, Plaisted's criticism loses a lot of weight.

>>>Actually, the LGGLO pseudogene (an inactivated Vitamin C synthesis gene) has been found in one human so far and no apes, according to Edward Max, but in his essay he predicts that it should be found in apes, too.
From: Shared Errors in DNA <<<<

Can you point out to me where Max makes this statement? Thanks.

>>>The bottom line IMHO is that "Intelligent Design" is neutral to religion and thus would not run afoul of the establishment clause<<<

I agree that ID is facially neutral as to religion. However, if the Cobb County School Board requires that it be taught in science class because ID happens to coincide with the religious beliefs of the Board (and certain vocal constituents) rather than because of its scientific merit alone, I believe that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause. And I believe that this is the real reason the Board is thinking about requiring the teaching of ID.

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the Board members want to mandate teaching ID because they believe it lends scientific support to the creation account in Genesis or to the notion that the JudeoChristian God created all life, do you believe that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause?

>>>I think Jones -- or Charles Mansen who could also illustrate your point -- would have used whatever means at his disposal to control his followers. <<<

Agreed.

>>>Remember, my opinion is primarily formed by the report concerning that book -- which specifically said Stalin gave up his religion due to Darwin -- and other reports which buttress that claim albeit less specifically.<<<

Actually, I don't think the book says that. I think it said Stalin (1) didn't believe in God and (2) said Darwin made it clear God didn't exist. Even if we assume the events recounted in the book to be true (an iffy proposition), it's not necessarily true that Darwinism led Stalin to abandon God; he very well could have abandoned God, then seized upon Darwin later. (Stated differently, the book doesn't describe causation, just correlation.)

>>>If Stalin had a JudeoChristian value system that he gave up due to a belief that Darwin showed that God didn't exist, then it's logical to believe he would have kept it if he had never been exposed to Darwin.<<<

As I mentioned above, I don't think the book makes as strong a case for Stalin's embrace of Darwin leading him to reject God as you do. Besides, I think if Stalin had "maintained" some sort of belief in Christianity, he'd have perverted it to serve his power. IMO, the problem of Stalin's evil goes much deeper than exposure to the ToE. But it's all speculation on both our parts.

I wasn't sure the Supremes had addressed the point either; hence my reference to the creationism cases of "the higher courts". And maybe I'm remembering a line from the Arkansas case (i.e., a district court case rather than a higher court case), but I seem to recall that at least some courts have held that the negative side of creationism --criticism of evolution, rather than just advocacy of Biblical creationism -- can lead to Establishment Clause issues for the reasons I mentioned in my original post.

>>>"Intelligent Design" is not associated with any religion or doctrine. <<<

Not overtly, no. But if you poll IDers as to who the designer was/is, I'll bet you the vast majority would pick the Judeo-Christian God. IIRC, such a poll was taken recently in Ohio -- whose school board was considering requiring ID instruction in the schools -- and something like 80 percent said they thought God was the designer. In theory, of course, it could be aliens or time travelers or what have you; but in the U.S. (and I haven't seen that ID has much of a following outside of America) most IDers are putting their money on the Almighty.

>>>The school board responded by keeping the biology textbooks but approving an insert that says: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."<<<

Unless the school board approved similar inserts addressing every scientific theory that the school touches upon during the course of the year, I'd be willing to bet this is unconstitutional. My reading of the higher courts' creationism cases is that singling something out for criticism because it appears to contradict a particular religious viewpoint is the equivalent of identifying with that religion and thus a violation of the establishment clause. Anybody else have any thoughts?

We at least agree that the only correct answer to most of these questions is "I don't know". :)

But I don't think you're being evenhanded in your treatment of the ToE as opposed to other ideas. Remember, we started out discussing your statement that we should beware of ideas that lead to evil. I can see Stalin accomplishing his evil without the aid of Darwinism (in fact, I think he did so), but I can't see Jim Jones committing his evil deeds without the aid of organized religion (perverted though his version was).

Assuming that the book portrayal is accurate (rather than just a PR ploy to demonstrate that Stalin was a good lil communist back before communism was cool), at most it has shown that Stalin used Darwin to justify his atheism; it hasn't shown that Darwin caused (or led to, or whatever) that atheism, much less his evil SOB behavior. So you still have that chicken-or-the-egg problem.

FWIW, I agree it's at least theoretically possible that Stalin could have been a good person had he not been exposed to Darwin. I regard it as extremely unlikely, mind you, but possible. I don't think that everyone who does evil is without the capacity to do good.

But if the positive exposure to Christianity of Jim Jones (who surely had to be exposed to it so as to pervert it) didn't turn him into a good person, how can you reasonably assume that the absence of exposure to Darwin (who makes no moral pronouncements at all) could have resulted in a good Stalin?

It seems we had similar reactions. Sorry for the redundant post.

>>>be suspicious of ideas which lead to evil.<<<

You have a chicken-or-the-egg problem here, don't you? To phrase it otherwise, do you really believe Stalin would have been a good person (or at least neutral) rather than an evil SOB if he hadn't been exposed to the theory of evolution? That's a hard one for me to swallow.

Along similar lines, does the Reverend Jim Jones make you suspicious of the ideas of Christianity or organized religion? Or do you agree with me that evil SOBs will adopt/pervert any convenient argument to serve their evil purposes? And if so, do you concede that it's possible Stalin declined to follow Christ's teachings because it would have cramped his evil SOB style, rather than because Darwin convinced him to do so?

>>> Are there any Jewish YECs? <<<

This isn't a definitive answer to your question, but I recall reading that one of the reasons for Immanuel Velikovsky's "popularity" (such as it was) was that his flavor of catastrophism allegedly authenticated the Old Testament and helped rationalize Judaism. If that's true, then it seems likely at least some Velikovskians (sp?) would be Jewish YECs.

I looked for a web article talking about this, and this one's the closest thing I could find (it's Martin Gardner talking about Velikovsky, L. Ron Hubbard, Reich and others of a similar stripe):

http://www.xenu.net/archive/fifties/e501200.htm

What's to refute? Most of this guy's stuff is gibberish -- such as the "previous steps" thing, which makes no sense -- or an outright misrepresentation of what the ToE predicts -- for example, the ToE doesn't predict that a cell is "simple" or came about solely by chance, which is what this guy's blathering implies. "Inheritance of acquired traits" sounds like LaMarckianism rather than today's ToE -- unless by "acquired" you mean "acquired from the ancestors' genes", which fits with the ToE but hasn't been refuted that I've ever heard.

And some of his stuff is flatly wrong, rather than just nonsensical. For example, Kettlewell et al showed that the coloration of the peppered moth population did evolve in response to predation.

And what's this?: "It was believed that great floods and other events that would deposit many layers of sediment in a short time had not happened." If he's talking about any kind of flood at all, that's just stupid. Geologists have known about floods forever. If he's talking about the Noachian flood, though, he's right -- that it had not happened (as literally described in the Bible) is still the opinion of every reputable geologist.

I'm no expert at this stuff, but this guy's not even an amateur. It sounds like he's trying to do a low-rent version of "Icons of Evolution" -- redundant as that would be -- but doesn't understand Wells' arguments well enough even to plagiarize them.

For those not familiar with Colby and Parry (see interesting conversation at end):



NYT May 12, 2001
Kenneth Colby, 81, Expert in Artificial Intelligence, Is Dead
By WOLFGANG SAXON

Dr. Kenneth Mark Colby, a psychiatrist known for his work with
artificial intelligence, died on April 20 at his home in Malibu,
Calif. He was 81.

Dr. Colby, a founder and chairman of Malibu Artifactual Intelligence
Works, a software company, was an emeritus professor of psychiatry and
behavioral sciences at the University of California at Los Angeles.

He created one of the early software programs known as chatterbots,
which simulate conversations with people. His program, called Parry,
for paranoia, appeared in 1971 and is said to be the only one to have
passed the "Turing test," named for the British mathematician Alan M.
Turing, who in 1950 suggested that if a computer could successfully
impersonate a human by carrying on a typed conversation with a person,
it could be called intelligent.

With Parry, Dr. Colby established that a computer chip could be
programmed to imitate a paranoid schizophrenic. In test interviews,
psychiatrists communicating with Parry by Teletype were indeed unable
to distinguish its responses from those of real paranoiacs.

Kenneth Colby was born in Waterbury, Conn., and graduated from Yale in
1941 and from its School of Medicine two years later.

Early in his career, he was a professor of computer science at
Stanford, where he also did research for the National Institute of
Mental Health. He created Parry at the university's Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory.

In 1974, he went to U.C.L.A., where he was affiliated with the
department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences.

At 31, Dr. Colby published "A Primer for Psychotherapists." He wrote
or contributed to nine more books and over 100 articles on psychiatry,
psychology, psychotherapy and artificial intelligence.

He and his son, Peter, founded Malibu Artifactual Intelligence Works
in 1989. Among the software they produced is a therapy program called
Overcoming Depression, which features interactive plain language
designed to help a patient understand, overcome and prevent
depression.

Besides his son, of Malibu, Dr. Colby is survived by his wife of 43
years, Maxine Hansbold Colby; a daughter, Erin Johnson of Santa Maria,
Calif.; and two grandsons.

Dr. Colby adapted Parry from another program, Eliza, created in 1966
by Dr. Joseph Weizenbaum at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Eliza was developed more as a language-parsing tool than as an
exercise in human intelligence. Named for the Eliza Doolittle
character in "Pygmalion," it was the first conversational computer
program, designed to imitate a psychotherapist asking questions
instead of giving advice. It appeared to give conversational answers,
although it could be led to lapse into obtuse nonsense.

Eliza and the paranoid Parry eventually met for a "talk," executing
different programs. One exchange went something like this:

PARRY In my opinion, you have a one- track mind.

ELIZA What makes you think I have a one-track mind?

PARRY I used to go to the track every week.

ELIZA What does that suggest to you?

PARRY I avoid racetracks now because the races are fixed.

ELIZA Is that the real reason?

PARRY I'd rather not discuss it.

ELIZA What else would you like to discuss?

PARRY That's something I don't want to go into.

And this casual reader thanks you -- and everyone else who continues to refute G3K's twaddle.

>>>I read gore3k because he's at least entertaining. With Ted you get the same stuff over and over again. Blah.<<<

See, I'm just the opposite. I stopped reading Gore months ago, once I figured out that, underneath it all, he's doing the same thing over and over again:

1) Quote or recite 5-10 facts about evolution (that may even be true). ("Humans have lots of genes . . .")

2) Draw an anti-evolution conclusion that is utterly unconnected to those facts. (". . . which disproves evolution".)

3) Repeat.

Even Gore's insults are repetitive and unimaginative. Medved, on the other hand, aside from those three or four spams, offers a different take most of the time. So I continue to check him out.

I think I see what's going on here. The sticking point is the bolded text from the preemption law: "A local unit of government shall not . . . enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to . . . possession of pistols or other firearms . . . except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state."

It looks like the court ruled that another "law of this state" -- one authorizing cities to protect their buildings -- 'provides otherwise' and allows cities to prohibit firearms in their buildings: "But according to the state law cited by Karie Boylan, a Livonia lawyer retained by the city, local municipalities "can enact and enforce ordinances and resolutions for the care, protection, control and management" of city-owned buildings."

If that's what happened, then I don't think winning on appeal is such a slam dunk. Of course, that begs the question of whether it's Constitutional or not; but it'll be the preemption statute, not the 2nd Amendment, that'll be argued on appeal, and there's a pretty good argument that the Ferndale ordinance passes muster under the preemption statute because of the "except as otherwise provided by state law" language.

OTOH, I've been wrong before.

Your geneticist friend doesn't know who Niles Eldredge is? And doesn't know that Gould wasn't a geneticist?

Hmmm.