The article, "Evolution, What's the Real Controversy?" misses the mark by miles. By going to a series of evolutionary lectures the author of the article, John Timmer, apparently expected to hear a review of the YEC/ID v.s. Evolution controversy; instead he heard the science being debated, and concluded that there is no controversy, at least amongst those scientists. Timmer commits the error of looking in the wrong place. The controversy he claimed to be looking for is between two communities, not within a single. And the controversy between communties does exist, as he could have known with proper searches of both communities. His conclusion of "no controversy" is indicative of a bias toward one community.
No matter what you might think of one side or the other, there is a very real dispute between these two ideas. It has been incendiary for at least 150 years. But should be resolved, and could be if both sides would put up their guns for awhile. The shots fired recently by the science-only community have not served to promote a view of science as an objective pursuit.
The recent frontal attacks on ID in the form of ridicule and lawsuits against the movie "Expelled" have not served science well. Such attacks smack of the very thing that is the subject of the movie. This in no way serves to bolster faith in science, and will probably work against it.
I am no YEC/ID proponent. Neither of these can satisfy the requirements of empirical science endeavors. Both require large extrapolations, and wind up being abductive in a big way. This is not to say that I support macro-evolution, which also is abductive; but that is not the issue here.
It seems to me that the most intellectually honest and straight-forward approach would be to teach as follows: First, teach a short section on the philosophy, methods and history of science; include the basics of critical thinking and probability as applied to evidence. This section would then be followed by a brief section on science v.s. non-science, such as chemistry or physics v.s. say, philosophy and mathematics, and a differentiation between them. Then science-only could begin to be taught, and "evolution v.s. ID" would fall away quickly as an issue.
I suspect that many teachers already do this, in varying degrees. But if it became official, as "teaching the controversy", then the controversy might be defused to some extent. If not for this generation, then the next perhaps. If science organizations supported this, it would easily happen.
The problem that seems to be recurrent is the religious-like attacks mounted by the pro-evolution camp against any mention of YEC/ID in education. This is hysteria, and is not rational; as stated before, the attacks are in the form of ridicule and lawsuits. In other words, the attacks are fear-based, and in the form of warfare. Scare-mongering from the science side proves the point: it will NOT be required that science classes teach "stork theory" along with sexual reproduction.
Teaching the controversy need not - and should not - include the idea that religion is or could be scientific. The controversy should address the questions, what is science? And what is not? Is there a reason not to do this?
The only reason is fear. (Perhaps the fear is justified, in the case of evolution...?)
12 comments:
Samuel Skinner
Wow... couple things.
Micro evolution is cumulative macro evolution. I seriously don't see why you don't grasp it. There is really no difference between the two- it is a false dilemma.
Why bother? You do realize how many alternate theories there are, right? We have astrology, alien abduction, alchemy, new age stuff, ESP, dowsing, ghosts reincarnation... why should one nonsensical theory get special treatment? Last I checked, the ESP proponents may have been nuts, but they didn't insist their stuff should be taught at schools.
If I wasn't such a decent person, I'd accuse you of being a Neville Chamberland and bending over backwards to the religious groups because they complain so much. Wait- who am I kidding? I AM comparing you.
Or it could be seen as the education establishment supporting the idea. Why would giving a little appease these people- they want nothing less than an evolution ban. You think I'm kidding? Look at the history behind this.
No, it won't lead to stork theory. You know why? Because they have already eliminated sex ed. Idiot.
The reason the scientific community is acting is because they are facing an unscrupulous opponent who refuses to play by the rules and has the support of much of the country.
You know what they fear? Science being so distorted and destroyed that our schools become a joke. As it is we have to import foreigners for their technical skills- you think dumbing it down more will help?
I know, I know it is "sophisticated". Because every teacher can give a full and coherent explanation of what science is (even though the scientists disagree), and talk about an idea that blatantly contradicts it without offending anyone. They already do that- when I went to school and someone asked they were told bluntly "creationism isn't science. This is a biology class and so we are going to cover evolution".
Also, comparing chemistry vs math and philosophy is dishonest. It is suggesting that religion is like those two. A better comparison would be philosophy vs religion. Yes, compared to religion, philosophy is a science.
You see in philosophy there are no preconceived beliefs. In religion there are only preconceived beliefs.
"Philosophers are like men searching for a black cat in a pitch black room- and there is no cat. Theologians are people who would find the cat."
My my, do you actually read the posts before commenting? I did NOT advocate teaching ID or YEC. Please read first, then comment, it should save us both time and aggravation.
Calling me an idiot when you have totally misunderstood what I said, reflects only on you. However, I won't take much of that before I shut you out. Name calling is not going to be a feature of this blog, you can go to PZ's for that.
Let's see if I can set you straight here. I advocate teaching a rigorous form of science starting with the the history and philosophy of science. Any problem here?
Then I advocate teaching WHY certain things are NOT science, using abtracts that are neutral to the religious controversy, in order to show how science works in the functional materialism mode. Any problem here?
You seem to consistently misread and/or fail to comprehend what I have written, and then become angry. Not a rational approach... calm down, read for comprehension, then think about it before just trying to jerk my chain.
Your idea that philosophy is somehow akin to science is too far from reality for me to grasp. I doubt many scientists would agree with that. Read what Feynmann had to say about philosophy. If you mean by degrees of comparison, then you are still wrong, because philosophy always winds up creating its own truth rather than finding any, and is therefore a single-person religious dogma. And dogma is the correct term for the writings of a Nietzsche, who could not conceive of ever being wrong, and compared himself to Jesus.
Now for the belief comparisons. While comparisons can be useful, they can also br harmful if too simplistic. I personally think that more correct statement would be that in a religion there are preconceived beliefs; in philosophy there are conceived beliefs; in science, at least in empiricism, there are no preconceived beliefs (in theory), but there are conceived axioms.
And perhaps even that slight elaboration is too simplistic to reflect reality; I suspect so, and will retract it in favor of the first rational improvement to come along. After all, its not my metaphor.
And your comment that "Micro evolution is cumulative macro evolution," has to be your most curious observation to date. Where in the world did you hear that? That is not stated in any book that I have read on the subject. Sources for that statement please.
Finally, the black cat analogy fails, for two reasons. Make that three:
(3) It presupposes atheism.
(2) No philosopher can reach all the alcoves in the room, because the room is too immense; he cannot know if there is a cat or not.
(1) It is in fact a ridicule of theologians, based on the presumption of atheism. Ad Hominem Abusive.
Atheism is a poor excuse for a presupposition; atheism must be inferred, in the sense that the absence of a black cat is inferred by your metaphoric philosophers; as inference rather than data, it is therefore not supported by empirical proof. Same as ID, of course. And same as unicorns and FSM's and other inferred mind games. If you wish to inject and discuss probabilities, we can certainly do so.
Calmly, rationally or not at all.
Samuel Skinner
Because we already have that? If you look at the science textbooks they do that in the first chapter "what is science", "what are hypothesis", etc. Basically the differance is you want it to be more dedicated to science... and to get that through we will get more "seperate spheres" nonsense. Plus it won't work in the SOuth.
Philosophy is not a science. It is however logical and consistant- just like science and unlike religion.
A better example would be versus debates for similarities to religion. You know, Trek v B5 v Galactica. They lack logic and consistancy just like religion.
Nope- in philosophy and in science neither is true. Neither science nor philosophy requires either of those, while religion can only exist with them.
Um... definition? Sort of like proving "water is wet". I'll explain. Micro evolution is the change of one or two traits. Macro is the change of many traits. The differance is the number.
The ONLY thing you are refering to that could make any sense what so ever is speciazation. Although more complicated, it is also simple- when two sub groups are seperated they will gradually evolve apart. Eventually they will no longer be compatible.
The analogy presupposes atheism because that is the room we live in. I can prove married bachelors don't exist- proving God doesn't exist is almost as trivial. Theologians ARE idiots. For starters there is the fact that they have to assume their main point and most of their work is resolving logical contradictions... by making them worse.
You always presume the default and simplest explanation until shown otherwise.
Miss anything?
Here is what you originally said:
"Micro evolution is cumulative macro evolution."
You mixed up the two. They are reversed, unless you really mean what you actually wrote.
Now. Microevolution is the variation that is produced within the constraints of the existing group genome. Macroevolution requires genetic modification (by whatever means) which is defined as mutation in at least five of the source books used by actual biologists and written by actual biologists. In other words ALL the source books that I have at the moment. As usual you provide your opinion but no source; cockiness without backup.
To compare it to "water is wet" is interesting in that it is a tautology, true by definition. And so is evolution: it is true because it is defined to be true, and every finding will be retrofit into the tautology, by changing the tautological meanings to accommodate it. Every biological development is DEFINED as being a product of evolution. We can pursue this issue if you wish.
I'm not sure what you are talking about in several of your references since you did not put indicators back to my text. However, I do understand some of them.
Such as "atheism is the room we live in". That is incorrect. Materialism is the room you live in, and you reject the existence of any other rooms or alcoves because you personally have not experienced them. And you cannot admit that certain axioms upon which science depends are not themselves either material, or provable by science. To admit that would damage your worldview, which is atheism.
"Theologians ARE idiots."
Second warning. This is not a material statement, nor is it necessary, nor will this type of Ad Hominem Abusive be allowed. No third warning.
Finally, you can no more prove that God does not exist than I can prove that God does exist. You are right in the sense that any such proof, either way, winds up being trivial in the mathematical sense of the word: meaningless.
Stan, the 'hysteria' surrounding attempts to get creationism of any kind (including ID) into the classroom proceeds from two simple facts:
1) Creationism is a sectarian belief system, and including it within the science curriculum violates the Establishment Clause
2) In the past, the very same people who want to put ID in the science curriculum were attempting to exclude evolution on religious grounds. We science educators have GOOD reason to distrust them and their fellow travelers. The more you study their documents, the more you'll realize that the 'ID movement' is largely a front.
Now I recognize you may disagree with the brief that ID = creationism, but if so you also have a beef with the Dover decision. Perhaps there is some version of ID that could pass muster as not violating the EC, but if so it wouldn't be in a science class.
Scott,
Again I feel misunderstood. I did not advocate ID or YEC in the classroom.
I was not advocating anything more than a focused effort to point out the logical difference and disconnect between "functional materialist" science and non-materialist abstract conceptualizations...as a part of the cirriculum. I acknowledge that some teachers probably already do this.
Dover? It is proof that the most expensive and philosophically motivated lawyers in the universe can get anything done in a courtroom. It is an example of the ACLU writing the judge's decision. And a judge who was either weak or pre-disposed to a certain worldview. Yes, I have a problem with the Dover decision.
However, as I keep saying, I agree that ID and YEC cannot EVER be considered science, AND that they should not have a place in the SCIENCE class. BUT due to the volatility of the issues, I do think that they should be addressed in the proper context, as I said in the post.
Establishment clause: Congress is not involved in passing any legislation concerning what you teach in biology class. Invoking the establishment clause is an act of constitutional perversion IMHO. It is easily established (as I have done on the website) that Atheism demonstrates all the characteristics of a religion; it has been declared a religion in several Federal courts; If there is a religion to be excluded from governing the USA, it is Atheism. The ACLU is about Atheism, not science. Dover was about Atheism, not science: Atheism in science clothing. Behe was a babe in the midst of a pack of wolves. I could have answered the questions better than he did. He was caught off guard and slaughtered. That doesn't make Dover right, it just makes it precedent.
But like I said there is legal precedent that Atheism is legally religion. The case can be made that any teaching that might lead to Atheism is unconstitutional. That includes in biology class. Such a charge, backed by a large school of shark-lawyers, and bolstered by the Dover case precedent, could produce the unintended consequence. I think Dover will be regretted by the education community at some point.
Both the invocation of Dover and the misuse of the Establishment Clause will not find much sympathy from the general public, which recognizes these things as an assault, beachheaded by the Atheist ACLU.
As always, the issues go way beyond that which is taught in the classroom; the classroom is caught in the major cultural war being waged on the old culture by the Atheist-pagan culture that wants dominance.
Apparently you feel the ACLU-Atheist-pagans are more benign than the ID-YEC's. I do not share that feeling.
Samuel Skinner
Opps. I meant. Macro is cumulative micro. And I still mean it.
Micro evolution is NOT variation within the existing genome that would be... natural selection.
I took a look. Apparently micro is small scale changes in the allele frequency... by mutation selection, you name it. I used wiki- yes I know, not official. Well, it is a freaking definition!
SO apparently your definition is that micro evolution while macro evolution requires mutation... which means of course we have macro evolution occurring whenever someone is born. You didn't know? The copying mechanisms have built in errors rates. Not too bad (1 in 100,000), but not good either.
Actually, no. Steam isn't wet and ice isn't wet. And I wasn't talking about evolution- I was talking about macro and micro.
And did you know every electrical phenomena falls under Maxwell's laws? You know why? Because the theory was created to explain electricity and magnetism! Evolutionary theory was created to explain the diversity of life. It covers everything because the moment it doesn't, it is falsified. How do you falsify it? Fossil rabbits in the Precambrain is the classic one, but there is about a trillion other things- people with DNA totally unrelated to any person on Earth... general weird stuff.
We are closer on definitions now, except for this point: natural selection is active in both micro and macro-evolution. In micro, it selects features from within the existing, non-mutated genome. Yes the allele frequency can surge this way and that, but not create new alleles. In macro, there is a mutation present in a gene in the genome of one of the parents; that allele mutation can be selected and perpetuated. It is the selection of the mutated gene that can lead the genome into new territory, with new alleles.
I also read of the 1 per 100,000 rate of "defects", or error rate in the population due to doubling, clipping or other natural mutations. But they are still mutations, regardless of their source. As errors, these will most likely be shed by the selection process.
Maxwell's relationships are empirically verifiable. As far as I have been able to determine, evolution works like this:
(a) There is said to be "beaucoups evidence" for evolution, so it is true and valid.
(b) Each piece of evidence is said to be caused by evolution, because evolution is true and valid (see (a)). An evolutionary story attached to the evidence is therefore also true.
So the "proof" is vastly and wildy circular; I have never been able to uncover the original empirical evidence that validated evolution; it is all circular.
I'm not saying that it does not exist, I'm saying that I have yet to see it. The standards of evidential validity are much lower in the non-empirical sciences than in the empirical sciences. That's what engenders comparisons such as to Maxwell's equations. The comparison is actually not valid. The attempt to create a feeling of "legitimacy via association" is as false as "guilt by association": Maxwell described empirical existence; evolution describes itself circularly, and without initial empirical conditions of support.
Gotta go for now...
Samuel Skinner
To be honest I wasn't aware that macro and micro evolution had that meaning. It is sort of nonsensical to say that you doubt macro evolution with this definition though- it is simply micro plus mutation.
Most errors will be shed, but some will get through (by shed I mean the organism that has it dies). And that is where we get the raw material for genetic variability.
Evolution is like gravity. For those of you who don't know, gravity is produced by mass warping space-time. Why does this happen? Because it is the nature of mass!
It sounds circular. It really does. However, just like evolution, it makes predictions and is empirically verifiable.
I'll give an example. Where did people come from? The evolutionary explanation is that people are descended from a member of the primate family. Lo and behold we have a common ancestor with Chimps 6 million years ago. It also predicts that isolated groups will not have resistance to totally new diseases. And that people in Africa will have the most genetic variation. And that people with sickle celled anemia will be from areas with the highest instances of malaria. And people who are lactose tolerant will be from groups that where herders.
There are a lot of predictions it makes. You don't realize how effective it is because you have never really considered the question- there are three ways that life got to the way it is- evolution, chance or design. It isn't chance, and there is no evidence for design AND we have these confirming evidence for evolution.
I'll make it simpler.
Living creatures vary.
Not all survive.
Those that do survive tend to have traits that give them an edge.
Over time these traits will spread through the population.
Yep- that is evolution. At its heart it really is that simple. Now, you might think that is all self evident or circular, but there are other theories that work WITHOUT those. Lamarck, creationism, etc.
Samuel Skinner
Once more... okay- I'll try to act like Publicous.
On defend ing materialism and strong atheism. You accept the idea of infintesimal odds though, co I go on my attack of theologians.
For the purposes of my responce we will assume God exists AND we know it. Theologians still use the same methods they use know.
So, here are the possibilities:
Pantheism
Polytheism
Monotheism
Incomprehensible
Deism
Incomprehensible makes their job pointless by definition. So does pantheism- if God is the universe, than the method to understand him is pure science. In deism studying God is pointless.
That leaves monotheism and polytheism. These are the ONLY situations where theology would be useful. However, as we can see from their methods, they are not formed to deal with these.
For starters, it would be a combination between "Ghost Busters", histroians and psycgology. After all, the point is to understand God. If there are multiple Gods theology is even more essential- after all, you want to know that you are backing the right horse.
Theologians don't do anything remotly like this. They start off with predetermined methods and try to make the evidence fit those methods. They make excuses for God! A decent theologian worth his salt would be like people in vs debates- actually willing to consider the fact that the dialogue is false because it is blatantly contradicted by reality.
In short, they aren't theologians- they are apologists. Which, given their failure rate implies they have nothing to study.
Finally, calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominum. An ad hominum is when you dismiss what a person says because you consider them an idiot or a Nazi or a commie or etc...
Also you can prove God doesn't exist- in particular Gods people believe in. They are ridiculously easy to demolish.
Stan: "Finally, you can no more prove that God does not exist than I can prove that God does exist. ..."
But Stan, you *can* prove that God exists.
One can prove that the proposition "God exists" is true by proving that its denial is false. One can prove that the proposition "God exists not" is false by showing that even one absurdity or other logical contradiction necessarily follows from it -- and boatloads do.
Thanks, llion. I think the materialist requirement kicks in here, where "proof" means "positive material proof". This requirement can be refuted, but probably other false requirements can be added by materialists, resulting in an infinite regress of claims, refutations. But they cannot prove THEIR claim that God does NOT exist. So their belief system is based on "no evidence", and is faith based.
Post a Comment