At the beginning of the week L.A.W. posted the article “Darwinism Isn’t Science”, in which I criticized the Michigan State Board of Education for mandating the teaching of Darwinism in biology classes as fact rather than conjecture as to how life evolved on Earth. The board was plainspoken about the impetus for this decision. They did not want Intelligent Design to also be taught as a competing explanation for evolution. In fact, the board wanted to stamp out completely any possibility that children learn in public schools that Darwinism is not fact. Hence they ruled, for example, that the Darwinian principle of natural selection is, rather than may be, the primary mechanism of evolution.
THE LYSENKOISTS
Of course, the members of the state board of education are political creatures and so politics influences policy. They were certainly reacting to the atrocious intrusion of federal power into local school curriculum by U.S. District Court John Jones who declared by judicial fiat in last year’s Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision that Intelligent Design is not science and so is banned from public school science classes. Without regard to the merits of his lengthy opinion about the status of Intelligent Design as science, Jones’s ruling assaults the First Amendment and the sovereignty of the states. It stinks of Lysenkoism, in which the government dictates what will and will not be permitted in public discourse about science.
So, one might argue that it was politically prudent of the state board of education to scrub Intelligent Design from the biology curriculum in light of the expansive power of federal courts today. No doubt the defense of a state’s sovereignty to sort out its own affairs, such as public education, is a lost cause in the current judicial environmental. Yet, the board did not merely do that. They went beyond Kitzmiller to enshrine Darwinism as the one and only explanation for how evolution occurred. The problem is that as a matter of science it is not*, and so the board members who backed this decision in a unanimous vote are as much Lysenkoists as Judge Jones is. They let politics and ideology dictate what constitutes science rather than sound broadly-accepted philosophical principles.
THE FLYING MONKEY BRIGADE
If there is any doubt that Darwinism has been wrapped into a particular ideology, consider what happened here at L.A.W. this week. The flying monkey brigade of one such ideologue was loosed upon us and invaded the comment section of the “Darwinism Isn’t Science” article, because we had the temerity to question the exclusivity of Darwinism as the scientific explanation for evolution. The ideologue is Ed Brayton, host of a ScienceBlogs website called “Dispatches from the Culture Wars”. Much of the squawking of the flying monkeys was nothing but the recycling of jabs Brayton took at us at his website. A cursory perusal of his website will clarify their agenda behind Darwinism. For example, Brayton had this to say the other day: “No, not every [Intelligent Design] advocate is also an anti-gay bigot, but there certainly is a great deal of overlap there. While there is no necessary relationship between the two positions, they do tend to appeal to the same audience of protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals. But the battle against both goes hand in hand for me.”
So it is this political animus against Christians that set the tone of Brayton’s minions in their comments here at L.A.W. It is an irrational animus that blinds both Brayton and them to any reasonable distinctions that might be made by those who disagree with their agenda. Case in point, L.A.W.’s criticism of the recent decision of the Michigan State Board of Education to mandate Darwinism as fact in public schools. They do not grasp the possibility that a person can demur from teaching Darwinian natural selection as the mechanism of evolution in biology classes for rational reasons that have nothing to do with Intelligent Design, the supernatural, or religion. Hence, the repeated refrain by Brayton at his website and his cohorts in L.A.W.’s comment section that I am stumping for Intelligent Design when I did nothing more than report what the state board of education was opposing. For them the world is black and white. Either you are a rational man of science, liberal politics, and secular culture or you are a hateful Bible-thumping wretch salivating to extinguish the flame of the Enlightenment.
THE FELLOW-TRAVELERS
While Brayton and his gang are extreme, their intolerance of a theistic worldview infects mainstream science, politics, and culture. It manifests itself in the mainstream with a low-grade paranoia that any challenge to a secularized public square must entail a theocratic impulse to regiment society to the will of pastors and priests. It justifies itself in the mainstream as a noble and enlightened defense of the wall separating church and state (which in fact our Constitution never built). And so a panel of education officials in Lansing declares that Darwinism is the theory of evolution in our public schools to keep religion out of them, with a Lysenkoist ignorance of the actual grounding of the claims of Darwinism in science, a slavish abdication of independent thought to academic authorities jealous of their prerogative to dictate what constitutes science, and an obliviousness to a First Amendment that strips the government of the power to impede free speech and the free exercise of religion.
They do so, contrary to reason and law, because they are on a crusade to cleanse the public square of religion. The members of the state board of education are not the shock troops, that’s the mission of the likes of Brayton and his flying monkey brigade to intimidate laymen from voicing their doubts about what some try to traffic as science. Instead their fellow-traveling board members hold the ground so yielded by the general public and secure it with the bulwark of bureaucracy. Therefore, what they do is more enduring and so more corrosive of our liberties. That is why it is important to examine the state school board’s seemingly routine policy decisions, like this one. It is Lysenkoism. It falsely mandates Darwinism as the only explanation for evolution. Thus, it prohibits within the public square of the classroom free inquiry as to how evolution transpired. And so the state school board’s decision undermines the tolerance of divergent worldviews vital to sustaining a genuinely liberal society.
___________________
* Darwinism isn’t science. At least it is not a scientific theory of evolution, despite all of the howling to the contrary by Brayton’s boys here at L.A.W. (See the footnote of our previous article on this subject for the distinction science makes between theory, hypothesis, and conjecture.) One might say that the theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for the fossil record – i.e., the fossil record is the result of the descent of all organisms from a common ancestor through modification of form. It is a sound explanation and no facts exist to refute it. I will say however that it is not theory, in the sense that general relativity is a scientific theory, but it is a complex of hypotheses, in the sense that the standard model of the Big Bang is.
That said, Darwinism and its progeny are sets of conjectures as to the mechanism for evolution – in other words, what caused organisms to change form over time. The only hard facts of evolution are the fossil record of past organisms and the biology of present ones. These facts, at least our present understanding of them, do not let us draw any firm conclusions as to how organisms evolved over the past four billion years. This is not say that evolutionary biologists are full of nonsense or that none of the conjectures they have put forth make any sense. It is nothing more than the recognition of the gap between an explanation and its verification through observation or experimentation.
For example, the Galapagos finches are cited as verification of the Darwinian claim of evolution through natural selection. We have indeed observed within historical time variation in those finches, especially their beaks in response to environmental pressures. However, all this really tells is something already known. Many species of organism are elastic within certain boundaries as to form, as the beaks of Galapagos finches have changed back and forth depending upon the available food source. What we have not observed is a finch’s beak turning into a set of teeth so that it can start chewing, let’s say, grass and leaves. In short, we have not seen a species “jumping” the boundaries of its form’s elasticity. The fossil record certainly shows us it must have happened, but we have no theory as to how. Only conjecture.
This is why mandating the teaching of Darwinism as the theory of evolution, rather as a conjecture as to how it might have occurred, is a gross scientific error on the part of the Michigan State Board of Education.
It's truly fascinating that while you can discuss at great length the supposed character detriments and motives of your critics, you never really get around to addressing any of their criticisms.
The fact is, you and bridget quoted some very standard creationist arguments. Bridget even virtually listed verbatim a near chapter-by-chapter summary of Johnathan Wells' book. Can you really complain that people objected and characterized these arguments as creationist?
The fact is, you cannot bypass the debate over WHETHER evolution is science and jump right ahead to complaining that since it isn't science, teaching it in science class without disclaimers like "this isn't science! It's all just a bunch of shifty guesses" should be official policy.
In short, you cannot skip the debate over fact, science, and evidence, as you have repeatedly tried to do. If you don't feel up to that debate, fine. But trying to pretend that its a settled issue, when in fact your position on that is a fringe one amongst scientists, just won't do.
Posted by: plunge | October 20, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Dear Plunge...
As I stated earlier, I listed a handful of historical references to the Darwin position which began the support for his theory of evolution in the late 1800's.
The reason these items were important is that they have shown up in science books since the early 1900's when public schools began appearing around the U.S. As you know, Darwin's position took great hold in the U.S. and in Europe in the 20's, 30's and 40's. Sometimes parts of his theory got twisted for very bad purposes by unstable people. That's unfortunate as it gave Darwinism a bit of a bad wrap that I don't believe he ever intended. This historical backing to Darwin continued well into the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's. Depending on where you go around the country, some of these old ideas continue to show up in books even though many have been debunked for many years or even many decades.
Even today, much of his theory still shows up - it's just cleaned up for the new generation. Different wording, different ways to show examples. Format has changed but, the content remains consistent for the most part (fossil record, embryonic stages, chemical basis, natural selection, and so on).
As I noted earlier, I am not opposed to these old experiments and original points of support for Darwinism still showing up in middle school and high school science books. Actually, I think they should. Just because science evolves doesn't mean you can't reference the past. Both that which worked and that which didn't. It's actually important to show how a movement that gained heavy momentum early on was steeped in mistakes, inaccuracies and sometimes outright fraud. Science has a hard time growing if it's can't identify fact from fiction.
Fortunately, wise people can study the Darwin debate and conclude some things have validity and some things seem off. It seems many in the Darwin debate can't seem to find themselves able to say "we still don't know the answer to something". We shouldn't blind fold our kids to the past because the theory isn't perfect.We find answers through exploration.
Scientists don't have the exclusive right to research, produce data and interpet the results. Scientists themselves as a group argue over these exact same things. Sure, there is a ;ack of Evolution Biologists who hang together to support their cause. There are also a large number of other members in both the hard and soft sciences that don't agree with their conclusions. If these groups are not in agreement, why expect the general public to do any different? Unfortunately, people and scientists who speak out against the going theory find themselves treated and labeled unfairly. Is it any wonder many want to continue to grow the area of evolution but, are boxed in by those who say, "stop,we have the answer already?" Do we really????
Evolution itself and some of it's explanations are very plausible and well grounded. Some is still up in the air.
The HARD question at hand remains is Darwinsism, both it's historical fact and it's changes since, the ONLY answer for the why of evolution?
That remains in debate. Evolution - Yes. Darwinism the answer - not for everyone.
By the way Plunge, I did not use any direct reference book(s) for my old discussions on the early parts to support Darwins theory. Actually, I used what I learned over 12 years in a Michigan public school system and 2 years of private college and 4 more years of public university and two degrees as my reference point. I don't need web links and periodicals to remind me of what my public education taught me about the history of Darwinism. I paid attention to the information I was told was fact - perhaps too well...I imagine anyone that actually paid attention in class and understood what was told to them would recite the same as I did. Same with any developments that were discovered later. I'm pleased to hear I summorized an apparent well known book I have not read and gave a solid over-view chapter by chapter of this author. Who knew???
I probably should have had exact statements and quotes at hand via reference books had I known my generic over-view information about the moth experiment, the finches, the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, the Miller-Urey experiment,etc. would have been analyzed so deeply. With that in mind, I shall endeavor to do better next time.
Just because I don't agree with your position doesn't discount my opinion or yours. You can feel Darwinism is THE definitive answer for evolution. Ok. I agree Darwinism should be taught in schools - both the history behind it and the developments since. We differ in that I feel other theories or hypothesis should be introduced and studied as well.
I believe science is endless possibilities. I am confident there is more. And not afraid to find out what it is.
Regards,
The Editor
Posted by: The Editor - Bridget | October 20, 2006 at 03:15 PM
Dear The Editor.
The account of history you give is simply not correct. Knowingly or not, you are simply repeating the account given by Jonathan Wells, a pledged creationist, that historians and scientists find to be grossly inaccurate themselves. Will you at least admit the possibility that you could be wrong about them?
In short, Wells and you are wildly inflating and exagerrating the importance of a few textbook errors, most of which were discovered and corrected by scientists and the textbooks themselves long before Wells or yourself got to them and none of which have much impact on the actual science (which takes place not in high school textbooks, but in journals and scientific academic debate).
The larger point is simply that you and Wells apparently believe that these mistakes have much impact at all on the actual science. The basic MO is to point out some minor error in a textbook and then try to use this as cause to dismiss or call into question an entire field of study as well as introduce any number of additionally bad arguments against evolution in to boot.
For instance, Wells would have you believe that simply because Haeckel's ermbryo drawings are reproduced in some textbooks without adequate explanation of Haeckels long dicredited theory of biogenesis and how he biased the drawings to support it, that all of embroyology and evo devo is somehow implicated and flawed. In short, that's complete nonsense. The science of embryology, the embryonic homologies that support evolution: none of these have anything to do with Haeckel's drawings or theory.
Similarly because there is debate over the exact lineal place of Archeopetryx in relation to modern birds, creationists claim that it is not a transitional fossil. Again, not so.
If you want to teach children these things, or if you want to base policy for how to teach science on these claims, then you would be endorsing the teaching of falsehoods. Textbook editors corrected their mistakes: but trying to misrepresent the scope and pervasiveness of these mistakes is far far worse than the mistakes were themselves. Introducing Haeckel's slides instead of actual embryo lithographs is bad, but claiming that embryonic homology doesn't support evolution is far far worse.
No one is claiming to have all the answers. What we are claiming is that science and scientific education be based on fact and testible theories supported by evidence. Science is full of mistakes and corrections, changing theories of things, and so on. But there is a legitimate side of that: a debate based on actual evidence, and then there is a fringe side of it: based on gross misrepretations, untestable philosophical beliefs, and so on. There are countless fascinating debates and controversies within biology that would be great to introduce in school. But these debates don't include "moths never rest on bark" "the Cambrian explosion was only 10 mil years long and evolution can't explain it" and so on. These are creationist canards which the evidence roundly and soundly debunks.
Science is not the proposition that everybody's beliefs are interesting and should be taught. Science is the proposition that the evidence is the be all and end all of tenative validity. If you have better evidence, then you are welcome to bring it to the table. But if you can't, then your view has no purchase in science.
What other theories or hypothesis should be introduced and studied as well, and what is the evidence for them? How are they scientific?
Posted by: plunge | October 20, 2006 at 03:58 PM
My dear Editor,
Do not waste your time with Plunge. He is a member of the Flying Monkey Brigade who does not deserve a thoughtful response. He made baseless assumptions about both of us and the criticism of the state school board we had put forth. He did so because he was anxious for a fight not a discussion. All he and his cohorts had to do was read what was written instead of reading what he thought was between the lines.
Now none of that is exactly damning, except that Plunge insisted upon being obnoxious and impugning us with dishonest motives. Enough is enough. No one has the right to complain about us not addressing his arguments if he cannot conduct himself with a modicum of decency and respect towards us. We always offer that to everyone initially, and no loses it unless he chooses to behave poorly as Plunge has.
In any event, dear Editor, we have commented at length about the purpose of L.A.W., the relevance of side arguments over scientific findings regarding the education board's decision, and the philosophical issues underlying what constitutes science. If Plunge doesn't get all of that by now, he never will.
However, you comment is not an exercise in futility, because I do not doubt that our regular readers, who outnumber the Flying Monkey Bridge by about 1,000 to 1 will appreciate your hospitality and calm reason.
Your Executive Director
Posted by: The Executive Director | October 20, 2006 at 04:10 PM
"He made baseless assumptions about both of us and the criticism of the state school board we had put forth."
As I said before: anyone can change "baseless assumptions" as an excuse to beg out of a debate. You've yet to actually explain what any of these baseless accusations actually are (if you raise any legitimate ones, I might even apologize for them).
Trying to pretend that I injected new subjects into the debate is simply false. I've responded to what you argued. You can call me rude and indecent and lacking in respect, but you haven't given any serious examples, and I can quote you things you've said on this blog that are far far more intemperate about others than anything I've said.
You still do not seem willing to accept that the debate over the scientific validity of evolution is an underlying assumption for your criticism on how schools should approach the subject. However, that's very much the core of the issue. If evolution really were conjecture as you claim, really were as deeply compromised as Bridget claims, then your argument about educational policy might have some merit. But you cannot simply assume that your views on science are accurate and then jump ahead to other matters, denying all challenges to your core premise.
Posted by: plunge | October 20, 2006 at 05:13 PM
You two and your adopted straw man should be ashamed, recycling this creationist clap trap. Give me a better explanation of ERVs than evolution?
Your inability to talk about specifics, whilst unilaterally declaring victory is probably 'false witness', BTW.
Posted by: Rich | October 20, 2006 at 10:06 PM
I can understand that it must be frustrating to feel that you've got a good understanding of a specialized discipline--biology, and in a larger sense the sciences--only to find that it's not such a good understanding after all.
The real test here is whether you'll expand your understanding by delving into the literature or whether you'll stubbornly stick to your guns.
An example is your claim that "Darwinism [1] is a conjecture (not a scientific theory as it is commonly mislabeled [2]) as to HOW living organisms first originated on Earth and then changed into other organisms over time. As to origins, the Darwinist conjecture is that non-living matter combined in some manner to become living creatures [4]. As to evolution, the Darwinist conjecture is that natural selection, sometimes called 'survival of the fittest', is the mechanism that forced organisms to change form over the eons [3]."
This claim is fundamentally wrong at four points, and vague and possibly wrong at many others. I've labeled the five points I'll write about in the order that I'll address them. First, "Darwinism" says nothing about the origins of life on Earth. It's a vague definition applied to various aspects of evolutionary thought that its opponents don't like. Case in point: the term "Darwinism" was first coined to refer to the ideas of one Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin. The elder Mr. Darwin also held some ideas on evolution, but lacked the comprehensive mechanism that his grandson put forward to explain the change. The phrase was later shifted onto Charles out of convenience by his opponents. As with all phrases without definition--or in this case, with shifting definition--it is meaningless unless defined. That's why this website is a splorf and you're thinking like a qledge. You may laugh at the comparison, but that's really how I have to read the word "darwinism." If it means something simple, say what it means, and avoid the vague term.
Which brings me to my next point, the second portion of that single paragraph that's fundamentally wrong: Evolution is science. Since you equate "Darwinism" with Evolution, I'm going to use the term with a concrete definition. Evolution is a simple theory at its core. A good summation would be that natural processes have shaped life on earth and caused the changes and differences that we see in species. Under this "umbrella theory" fall many different theories. Natural selection, sexual selection and endosymbiotic theory, to name a few, fall under this umbrella. Personally, I think that endosymbiotic theory--along with mathematical models on the interaction of complex systems over a great deal of time--will have a great deal of application in the future of biology. But those ideas on importance aren't held by all, they're just my pet ideas. Moving along, this umbrella theory and its constituent theories all--each and every one of them--constitute science. They make testable predictions about the natural world they seek to explain, and these predictions can be observed. That's one fact that opponents of evolution often miss: that it is the only explanation for life on earth. Its predictions rarely miss. That's the sign of a good model. And in evolution's case, when the predictions it makes do miss, or fall silent, it can learn from them, adjust, and become a more complex and better model / theory. That's what makes it a great theory, and completely resistant to attacks within the scientific community. Further, evolution is inexorably tied to other fields of historical science (those that use the present evidence to extrapolate what happened in the past) like geology.
The next point in that paragraph I'd like to address is the idea that you've chosen to give its own sentence: the idea that natural selection drives evolution. As I've said before, natural selection is but one among many factors that drive evolution. Some are well explicated, and some are not. The reason that school kids learn about natural selection is that it is well explicated, and it’s the original idea, and it’s intuitively easy to grasp.
The fourth point I'd like to address is the common creationist obsession with what is termed "abiogenesis." Now evolution says nothing on this subject. I'm not even sure if there is a term for this field. Anyhow, once again, creationist rhetoric failed. They said it couldn't happen. Science, not evolution, said that it could happen under these circumstances: an oxygen free environment, presence of lipids and RNA, continuous energy input, aqueous environment, salt ions present. Then they went looking for such environments. Then they found them. Black smokers and other undersea sources of energy meet all the above requirements, or would in an anoxic early earth. But, once again, this doesn't really deal with evolution. And, at this point, we have nothing but an environment that fits the data and the requirements. It is far from proven.
Essentially, evolution is science. Science is science. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Intelligent design is not science, and neither is creationism. You claim not to subscribe to any of these ideas. What do you subscribe to, then? And further, your understanding of the sciences has been shown to be lacking. Will you now enrich yourselves with a greater understanding of science, or retreat to creationist chatrooms? One is intellectually honest and a noble goal. The other will lead to you hearing about how the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.
The choice is yours. If being shown that you don't understand science makes you uncomfortable and frustrated, that's fine. You thought you understood the rules and now you realize you haven't the faintest idea of them. And all these people who do understand the rules are throwing prickly facts at you that tear down your assertions. Really, it's enough to make anyone frustrated. But the appropriate thing to do is educate yourself. Calling those who understand the field "the Flying Monkey Brigade" is clever, but not honest. Given the choice between clever and honest, I'll take clever. But in your case, a dose of honesty is called for.
Posted by: MikeQ | October 21, 2006 at 04:25 PM
I think this white paper out of IU makes the point why ID is not a science and why there is no controversy among scientists.
http://poynter.indiana.edu/Science%20&%20Public%20Reason.pdf
Otherwise, wow. All that negativity for a bogus argument. Wow.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | October 22, 2006 at 09:34 PM
Oh and thank you for finally addressing biogeography from an ID perspective. Wow. Wow.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | October 22, 2006 at 09:38 PM
Greetings, all.
You can continue to knock down the strawman that ID is not science, when the argument is that Darwinism (including all of its progeny) has not met the standards of a scientific theory. ID is irrelevant. Arguing that it is false is no argument that Darwinism is true. The proof that Darwinism fails to meet that standard is that it does not explain how everything has evolved. Example, human consciousness. Explain how that evolved in terms of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, non-directed evolution, and any other conjecture out there. If any strand of Darwinism is in fact a scientific theory, then it can explain how human consciousness evolved.
You can continue complain that my argument against the state school board decision is invalid because I am a creationist. I suppose you can call me a creationist if you want in that I hold the orthodox Christian belief that God created the universe. That said, whatever I am or am not does not bear on my argument that the state school board is in error. To state otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.
Finally, you can continue to ignore that declaring Darwinian natural selection is THE mechanism of evolution, as the state school board did, is a scientific error. Whether natural selection is or is not that mechanism, science has not established it as such with the level of certainty to declare it a fact. Of course, a person who subscribes to a philosophy of naturalism, or at least a methodological naturalism regarding science, can for perfectly rational reasons believe that natural selection (or some variant or as a key part of a complex of causes) can be the only explanation for evolution. But that belief is sustained by philosophy, not science, and such a belief has no more business being in a public school science class than a religious belief.
At the end of the day, what should be taught in public school science classes is science, not beliefs about what theists or secularists want science to support.
Regards, Bill
Posted by: The Executive Director | October 23, 2006 at 09:28 AM
Again, I post 29+ evidences for evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I've already made points about ERVs and the phylogenic tree / morpholgical / molecular trees and their amazing congruence.
Why wont you engage the facts?
Let us again note that Darwinism isn't Neo-Dawrinism and you use a straw man from 150 years ago.
NOTE: Authors are unable to debate specifics, arbitrarly define terms to suit their own ends and have a very limited understanding of science.
Oh, and "THE FLYING MONKEY BRIGADE"... how does it go again.. BARBARIANS!
Hyppcrites.
Posted by: Rich | October 23, 2006 at 02:22 PM
Rich,
You apparently refuse to read both what has actually been written in our articles and the source document for them. If you had, you would know that the Michigan State Board of Education has mandated that natural selection, as Darwin propounded it, is -- not may be -- the mechanism of evolution. That is the issue.
Frankly, I'm agnostic on Darwinism (common descent looks sound, natural selection doesn't), but whatever evidence there is for Darwinism, it doesn't amount to proof that warrants its teaching as the scientific theory of evolution. Apparently you go further than I do and think Darwin got it wrong, so you should be as displeased as I am that the state school board mandates that he got it right. Yet you perversely argue points irrelevent to this issue.
Moreover, you go on ad nauseum about how Darwinism is nothing but what Darwin himself put out 150 years, when anyone with a modicum of interest in the subject is acquainted with the general use of the term as a broad category of conjectured Darwinian and neo-Darwinian mechanisms for evolution. To insist upon specialized use of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and other terms of art in evolutionary biology in articles addressed to general readers is pedantic.
Finally, you can link to all of the evidence of Darwinism you want, but I don't argue with links. Citing the authority of another just doesn't hack it. If you want to make a case, make it yourself. Show how the evidence that supports Darwinism or neo-Darwinism constitutes proof. (Start with showing how it verifiably explains human consciousness.) A fact can be consistent with a Darwinist conjecture without excluding other conjectures. So simply linking to the facts others have developed isn't going to get you too far without further argument made by you.
So, Rich, stop wondering why your so-called arguments have been met only with the sound of chirping crickets.
Regards, Bill
P.S. Don't get your knickers in a twist about flying monkeys. That was in an article, not a comment. Articles, as I have said, are polemical in tone. Our comments are not (at least on good days). Besides this is my house, and so my rules.
Posted by: The Executive Director | October 23, 2006 at 04:30 PM
The use of Darwinism or any metanarrative for that matter points to those concerened with worldviews rather than science. No one says Einsteinism. Its the plaything of bad creationsits. I know there is more than RM + NS, but RM + NS is key and should definatley be taught in schools. Kids that age aren't ready for Genetic drift. It saddens me you recycled those creationist cannards from yesteryear.
I've beyond citing others I've actually put forward my two favourite evidences, ERVs and The "the phylogenic tree / morpholgical / molecular trees and their amazing congruence." I can debate thses with you in *very* specifi detail if you want, but of course you don't. If we get down to facts, you'll get reamed. And you know it.
You nugget.
Ps why is name calling okay in articles but not in comments? But you even contradict yourself:
" However, you comment is not an exercise in futility, because I do not doubt that our regular readers, who outnumber the *Flying Monkey Bridge* by about 1,000 to 1 will appreciate your hospitality and calm reason"
Posted by: Rich | October 23, 2006 at 04:54 PM
Rich,
Once again, evidence and proof are not the same thing.
However, if you think you can argue that random mutation and natural selection are proven as mechanisms of evolution, then I would sincerely desire to know, "in VERY specific detail", how these mechanisms evolved consciousness in human beings.
We can deal with how light-sensitive cells became eyes in mammals, forelegs became wings in birds, and harder stuff like that at another time.
Regards, Bill
P.S. No hand-waving, Rich. Just the facts "in VERY specific detail".
Posted by: The Executive Director | October 23, 2006 at 05:24 PM
Oh dear.
"Once again, evidence and proof are not the same thing."
Theories don't prove anything,they provide the best explanition given available evidence. Hence newtons theory of Gravity was not disguarded once relativity came along. You need to learn what science is.
Conciousness is a very difficult topic that minkind has barely touched on.But, we'll get there. Are you advocating 'god of the gaps'? Like Ugg and Ogg, proto humanids looking at the sun, not understatanding it and making it a god, you have a special place in my heart.
vaible pathways to the eyes are easy to create.
Wings not that much harder.
Posted by: Rich | October 23, 2006 at 05:41 PM
from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400.html
Claim CB400:
Evolution cannot explain consciousness or free will.
Source:
Johnson, Phillip, 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things, Oct. 1990, 15-22. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
Response:
This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. And since we are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet.
In fact, preliminary explanations for the origin of consciousness have been proposed, although they are too complicated to try to summarize here (see Dennett 1991 and Minsky 1985). Much more experimentation and refinement is needed before we have a full-fledged theory of the origin of consciousness, but we have more than enough to know that such a theory is possible.
A factor that likely contributes to the claim of consciousness's inexplicability is the fact that many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, since a natural consciousness does not fit easily with a divine soul. This threatens people's desire for a divine origin and immortality (but see Dennett 1991, 430, for immortality of a naturalistic consciousness). An examination of this point alone could fill a book. However, suffice it to say,
There is much evidence -- from genetic predispositions of behavior and personality, from brain injury studies, from brain imaging of healthy people -- that consciousness is naturalistic now. A natural origin would not matter much beyond that.
What we want has no bearing on what really is.
References:
Dennett, Daniel C., 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Minsky, M., 1985. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Funny how you use another old creationist cannard.
Posted by: Rich | October 23, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Rich,
You: "vaible pathways to the eyes are easy to create. Wings not that much harder."
Certainly "just so" stories can be created by Darwinists. However, I was interested in knowing how random mutation and natural selection actually produced these biological features -- and then human consciousness in particular.
You: "Much more experimentation and refinement is needed before we have a full-fledged theory of the origin of consciousness, but we have more than enough to know that such a theory is possible."
Your hand-waving is noted, as is the failure to set forth the facts in "VERY specific detail".
You: "This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. And since we are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet."
You don't understand what an "argument from ignorance" is. Whether you agree with him or not, Dembski makes an argument predicated upon his concept of specified complexity and philosophical premises as to why science cannot explain the origin of consciousness. To argue why an explanation for a phenomenon, such as the Darwinist evolution of human consciousness, is insufficient or inapplicable is hardly an argument from ignorance.
You quoting Dennett: "A factor that likely contributes to the claim of consciousness's inexplicability is the fact that many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness ..."
Quoting Dennett's psychologizing of those who disagree with his naturalist philosophy of human consciousness is hardly an argument, Rich, now is it? It is essentially an ad hominem fallacy: Dennett says they are wrong because of who they are. Then he does a little hand-waving about how science close to proving his naturalist beliefs, without of course explaining how that's so. And YOUR only argument is to rely upon him as authority.
What is clear is that your entire argument that Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, if you prefer) constitutes a valid scientific theory of evolution, as opposed to a hypothesis or conjecture, is predicated upon a philosophical presumption of naturalism. There is, of course, nothing intellectually disreputable about that. But to complain that others, such as those who put weight into Intelligent Design, bring philosophical/religious baggage to science is the pot calling the kettle black.
Regards, Bill
Posted by: The Executive Director | October 23, 2006 at 10:56 PM
I offered "very specific detail" here:
"I've beyond citing others I've actually put forward my two favourite evidences, ERVs and The "the phylogenic tree / morpholgical / molecular trees and their amazing congruence." I can debate thses with you in *very* specifi detail if you want, but of course you don't
Let's look at quote mining, shall we..?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
Wow.. it cites Darwin on the eye.. You'd think that creationists were habitually dishonest. Ah, the lying for Jesus brigade.
I know what an argument from ignorance is, I’m familiar with most of the fallacies. Your miss use of ad hominem is particularly amusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
but you switch up to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Ahhh, throw fallacies around incase one is relevant. (it isn't). Most people DONT want a naturalistic explanation. Do you? It infringes on your specialness (oh, but you are SO special) and messes with the denial of death you think religion gives you. Many are the same. I think that Dennett’s claim that this is 'likely' holds water. The real fallacy is argument to consequences, as used by many theists.
I am very familiar with Demnski’s work. I can debunk CSI all day. Note that the only time D*mbski has used it is in his ill fated e coli flagella innumerate 'multiply them all together' debacle.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Explanatory_Filter
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html
Posted by: Rich | October 24, 2006 at 12:17 AM
With regard to the eye..most of the intermediates are still around, especially in the mollusc world.
Photo receptive cells..
'Pinhole camera' eye
basic concave eye
Concave eye with lens
wings...
think of all those creature that can only gluide but not fly...
Posted by: Rich | October 24, 2006 at 12:28 AM
It has become obvious that Bill and Bridget simply do not understand how to evaluate evidence or arguments. They read the creationists and IDs' arguments and simply assume they are true (there is no use denying that that is what they read, their own arguments are obviously cobbled together from that particular school of dishonesty know as ID). This seems to be the case because they cannot evaluate the utter garbage coming out of ID, from real science. This speaks to the lack of scientific understanding. Nor does it seem likely that they want to learn about science or evolution. Rich has posted several useful links. Links that have been largely wasted. Believing the ID literature is honest, they take it on faith. They do not evaluate any of the claims. Any one who gives the eye as an example of the failure of Darwin, simply has not read Darwin or the science. Ditto the wing. Instead we get pseudo philosophic arguments, that are either beside the point, wrong, or circular. They add nothing.
I'm just a linguistic anthropologist. I talk with our bio anth people, and I try to stay up to date on some of the readings. I teach our Anth 100 here at the university. If a student turned in a paper like what Bill or Bridget have been writing. I'd fail them. They are not engaged with science and their arguments are tired and recycled. I also teach historical linguistics, and you never know what strange connections people are going to posit between languages. I hope that after they take historical linguistics and they realize that there are methods and rules of evidence, they drop those other more bizarre theories. I know there is a lot of garbage pretending to be historical linguistics out there, and I hope students have the skills to evaluate that garbage. If they don't I feel that I've let them down. Clearly, somebody let Bill and Bridget down. They seem to have no ability to evaluate the garbage. Instead they take it in and internalize it and then spout it back out.
This is why the Michigan win was so important. I want science. Not the pseudo-philosophy that Bill and Bridget advocate. As I said, if a teacher was teaching my children the garbage that Bill and Bridget are spouting, and teaching it as valid and worthy of serious discussion, I'd be mad. Wow.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | October 24, 2006 at 08:24 AM
[Deleted by editor as redundant.]
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | October 24, 2006 at 08:26 AM
[Deleted by editor as redundant.]
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | October 24, 2006 at 08:27 AM
Tyrone,
Please do not spam our forum. Once is more than enough, especially when your comment is vacuous.
You and your cohorts can knock down the strawman of ID all you want. The issue remains the scientific status of Darwinism in our public schools when it fails as a theory to provide a verifiable explanation of how evolution occurred.
To do as Rich did regarding the eye to posit a few stages of development without explaining how random mutation and natural selection operated on a micro-biological level to produce these changes is not only a failure to verify the Darwinist explanation of evolution -- it is no explanation at all.
Of course, this isn't Rich's fault, because no scientist has been able to provide a such an explanation for evolution and then verify it. So Darwinism remains something rather less than a scientific theory, and therefore it should not be taught as such in public school science classes simply because of the dominance of a philosophical presumption of naturalism in the American academy.
To declare that your philosophical presumptions are acceptable in public schools, while those contrary to your own should be banned, is dogmatic and illiberal to say the least.
Regards, Bill
Posted by: The Executive Director | October 24, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Evolution is varified in the fossil record, as predicted intermediates are found. Again, please read the 29+ evidences (you haven't) for the more esoteric evidences.
"No explanation at all..."
*cough*
”You’re asking me to play a game: ‘Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.’ ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.” Dembski on ISCID Forum
*Shudders at the explanitive power of ID.*
Are you oppsoed to methodological naturalism as a cornerstone for sceince? Please sya 'yes'. Then we'll have some fun.
Posted by: Rich | October 24, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Dear Readers:
We do try to respond to those who comment on our articles. However, there does arise the occasion when doing so becomes pointless. This has happened before when the minions of Quixtar/Amway simply wanted to hurl abuse at us for covering the shabbiness of that business.
We've come to that point again with dogmatists of Darwinism. They do not seem to comprehend that they have their own philosophical baggage in what they declare is the science of Darwinism while denouncing those who do predicate their understanding of science, and Darwinism in particular, upon more fundamental beliefs.
There is nothing wrong in philosophical and religious beliefs determining a person's understanding of science. Indeed, it's necessary for a coherent knowledge of science. But it is a threat to free inquiry, especially in the public square such as a public school classroom, when one faction smuggles in its philosophical presumptions under the guise of science's neutrality while vigorously seeking prohibitions on other such presumptions, in particular those openly and honestly declared.
We at L.A.W. now leave it to you, our readers, to assess what has been written to determine for yourselves whether or not the recent decision of the state board of education is bad policy.
Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director
Posted by: The Executive Director | October 24, 2006 at 11:15 AM