Save It For Sunday School

It's evolution, not revolution in Pennsylvania:

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.

UPDATE:  Filed Under "I Have A Feeling We're Not In Pennsylvania Anymore":

TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 - The fiercely split Kansas Board of Education voted 6 to 4 on Tuesday to adopt new science standards that are the most far-reaching in the nation in challenging Darwin's theory of evolution in the classroom.

The standards move beyond the broad mandate for critical analysis of evolution that four other states have established in recent years, by recommending that schools teach specific points that doubters of evolution use to undermine its primacy in science education.

Among the most controversial changes was a redefinition of science itself, so that it would not be explicitly limited to natural explanations.

 

Comments

[JayDee]

No such luck in Kansas however.

TOPEKA, Kan. (Nov. 9) - Critics of evolution won a big victory in Kansas with the adoption of new public school standards that defy mainstream views on the mystery of mankind's origins.

The standards, approved Tuesday by the state Board of Education, cast doubt on Darwinism and redefine the word "science" so that it's not limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

The word "science" you see is a very relative term, which can now include magic, superstition and "faith" under its forgiving umbrella. Progress for the New American Century!

[Syl]

In Pennsylvania those who advocated for ID were voted out which is the way it should be handled rather than through the courts.

Kansas state Board of Education can be dealt with in the same way, if the people so choose.

[Lesley]

I understand both sides of the argument - science vs theology - and I don't want public schools teaching theology to my children.

We (my late husband and I) enrolled our kids in parochial school because we believed their education should reflect our family's values. However, because of financial retraints, many people don't have that choice, hence the frustration and push back. Its too bad school vouchers aren't available to the general public as it could end this acrimonious debate.

[ed]

Syl, science is science though and neither the Kansas Board of Ed nor the will of the people can change that fact. People can choose to learn theology in science class if they wish but trying to change the definition of science, as they did in Kansas, is absurd.

[Gary Maxwell]

Its a theory. By definition we dont know some stuff otherwise it would not be a theory.

So please tell me why it is so upsetting to some to explain that we dont know how all of these came into being but another theory that some believe is that the universe is too complex not to have an engineer someplace behind it?

I will listen carefully. Telling me its science is not a well constructed argument however.

[Jim E.]

"those who advocated for ID were voted out which is the way it should be handled rather than through the courts."

What about leaving the science up to, I don't know, the scientists?

Would anyone think it would be a good idea to vote on which theorems get to show up in a math book? What about a vote on whether the earth is flat, or whether the sun revolves around the earth?

"Its a theory. By definition we dont know some stuff otherwise it would not be a theory."

The word "theory" as used by scientists is not the same as "Law and Order's" Jack McCoy changing his "theory" of the crime mid-trial. In everyday usage, "theory" might be akin to "solid hunch." In science, however, "theory" means "fact." Theorems in math textbooks are not hunches, they are facts. There's also a theory of gravity, too. Gravity, like evolution, is a scientific fact. Yes, there is much to be discovered about evolution -- and there are many real scientific debates to be had about the topic, unlike fake debates like ID -- but there's no scientific doubt about the theory explaining it being the real deal.

[Jim E.]

"some believe is that the universe is too complex not to have an engineer someplace behind it"

This would be an outstanding topic for a philosophy or religion class. But science, by definition (its real definition, not the one made up in Kansas), precludes relying upon supernatural explanations.

[Syl]

ed and Jim E

You must be under the impression I advocate for ID. I do not. I just noted that our normal process in this country can handle it. No extra-ordinary methods/means are necessary.

[Gary Maxwell]

I also think that religious education should be taught by parents and at the church. But I fail to see why mentioning something is at least in dispute is unscientific or illogical. Its neither and we are the worse for it.

[arrowhead]

"Its a theory. By definition we dont know some stuff otherwise it would not be a theory."

Evolution is just that - a theory - and one with flaws as well. If this was acknowledged by those who advocate teaching only science, perhaps the controversy would be resolved. As of now, evolution is treated as though it is sacrosanct and cannot be challenged. Sounds like a "religion" IMO.

[boris]

There are true believers on both sides who will never agree. A lot of what is taught in public education as "evolution" is not science. Since evolutionary biology is no more relevant to most people than quantum mechanics, I don't see the need to preach ID or "public school" evolution.

I consider natural selection well established. Geographic human populations whose long term environment involves a stable culture will likely develop cognitive adaptations to it. But suggest that differences between groups are in any way inherent and see how quickly many supposedly pro-evolutionists go ape sh!t.

[TexasToast]

Sorry guys, a math theorum is not the same as a proof. What it is is a hypothesis that accounts for all available data - and it is subject to alteration if additional data is shown to be applicable.

The ID folks, however, are working backwards - they are trying to make the data(facts) fit their theory instead of their theory fitting the facts.

[boris]

Sagans novel 'Contact' has a plot device where ...

She finds a long string of 1's and 0's late in the expansion of Pi in base 11. It's length is a product of two primes, indicating a two dimensional array. So, she plots it on her computer screen (each digit representing a pixel) and sees a perfect circle. The constant which describes the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter itself contains a picture of a circle!

Which meant to imply that the universe was divinely constructed and 'signed' by it's creator.

Just from this hypothetical counterexample I don't think you can entirel rule out a connection between ID and science.

OTOH one should not invoke the supernatural to explain every knowledge gap in a high school science class.

[boris]

Just from this hypothetical counterexample I don't think you can entirely rule out a connection between ID and science.

OTOH one should not invoke the supernatural to explain every knowledge gap in a high school science class.

(don't know where that Y went in the previous post)

[Jim E.]

Syl,

It is those in favor of ID employing extraordinary methods. I am unaware of abnormal methods being used by scientists in this pseudo-debate.

Gary Maxwell,

Colleges and high schools have religion and philosophy classes that don't indoctrinate. That's what I was referring to. You know, like comparative religion and the like. Also, ID seems to have a particular appeal to philosophers (as opposed to biologists) for some reason, which is fine.

But back to ID: There is no scientific legitimacy to ID, therefore it shouldn't be taught in science classes. The theory of evolution is NOT in dispute. This is a manufactured controversy. Should people who believe in UFOs and alien abductions (these folks are pro-ID, by the way) get to say what shows up in science textbooks? What if there were a groundswell to teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact? Should we therefore say there is a "debate" over the issue? There are lots of people who claim the Holocaust never happened, but that doesn't mean there's a "real" debate over whether or not it did. (And no, you can't invoke Godwin's law on me. I'm making a serious and relevant point that historians have to face, much like scientists with this ID hokum.) Experts, not voters, should determine what shows up in science classes. Shrugging one's shoulders and saying -- hell, I have no idea how that works, and it is impossible to even try -- isn't a recipe for scientific advancement.

[Creepy Dude]

I advocate Intelligent Design-Design.

Whoever or whatever the "Designer" is, it's clearly too complex an entity to just "appear" preloaded with all that design knowledge.

So somebody or something had to design the Designer. It just makes intuitive sense. Hence Intelligent Design-Design.

Now my brother thinks somebody had to design the somebody who designed the Designer, and he advocates teaching the kids Intelligent Design-Design-Design, but my brother's a goddamned moron.

[boris]

There is no scientific legitimacy to ID

Not your call.

Chemistry had roots in alchemy, astronomy had roots in astrology. And both of those had religious roots. Science does not care where the ideas come from.

[Jim E.]

Just as there is no scientific legitimacy to alchemy, astrology, or magic tricks, there is no scientific legitimacy to ID.

The debate over ID is cultural, not scientific (just like with the Protocols, Holocaust-deniers, etc.)

[Jim E.]

I advocate the Flying Spagetti Monster.

This is cool: http://www.venganza.org/

[boris]

If researchers looking for ID use the scientific method and make other discoveries, how is that not science?

Or ... the discovery of a message in junk DNA, loosly translated, 'Copyright Vegan Gene Tech Intergallactic 29-554-332-173'.

These hypotheticals might not pertain to the ID you deplore, which might be all phony baloney. The point is I can propose any number of scientifically valid ways to research ID. Thus the dogmatic claim that 'ID isn't science' is phony baloney for sure.

[Joe D]

Every year the evolutionists throw out their last bunch of "facts" and replace them with something else to fit their preconcieved notions. Never has such a "scientific fact", such as evolution claims to be, been rewritten, reworked, reorganized, etc. Its schizo!

.

[Jim E.]

But ID really *isn't* science.

If, as you wrote above, scientists investigated alchemy and in the process made breakthroughs in chemistry, that is great. But it still wouldn't make alchemy science. Same for ID.

[arrowhead]

"Just as there is no scientific legitimacy to alchemy, astrology, or magic tricks, there is no scientific legitimacy to ID."

The presence of absence does not enable one to conclude the absence of presence.

[boris]

scientists investigated alchemy and in the process made breakthroughs in chemistry, that is great. But it still wouldn't make alchemy science

You are reduced to playing silly word games. The employment of the scientific method is what makes any research "science".

[boris]

But it still wouldn't make alchemy science

By your logic the fact that science now knows how to turn lead into gold means that science no longer exists because it turned into "alchemy".

[Jim E.]

Then write a declarative sentence which states that the following are "science": alchemy, phrenology, astrology, hand-reading, tarot cards, David Copperfield's magic act, etc.

[Cheez-Wiz]

Boris, proceed with caution. Politics is mostly opinions, and I accordingly refuse to extrapolate the status of one's intelligence from one's politics, but we are now entering an area of concrete facts and naturalistic method where stark raving idiocy can be clearly and quickly exposed.

[boris]

alchemy, phrenology, astrology, hand-reading, tarot cards, David Copperfield's magic

... and ...

stark raving idiocy

Reduced to screechy denunciation! Losers.

[Cheez-Wiz]

I didn't call you an idiot. I said proceed-but with caution. I presume it's somehow possible to defend ID and not sound like an idiot, but I've never seen it done.

[TM]

Earnest libs who think they are fans of unfettered science should remember that certain lines of scientific inquiry are deeply troubling (or virtually verboten) to, well, proper libs.

The NY Times had a long article about research into racial differences in response to pharmaceuticals - deeply troubling to the "race is a social construct" crowd, who worry that such research puts us on a slippery slope to the discovery of racial differences and aptitudes for all sorts of things, including (I don't have the nerve to even summarize their fears... where is SMG?)

And, as Lawrence Summers learned, heaven forbid that sex based differences get a mention.

So please, spare me the posturing - libs put their own political constraints on science, thanks very much.

[Cheez-Wiz]

I agree TM-but that's a good test of science in itself. Have you ever heard anyone advocate a leftist view of mathematics? or a rightist view of gas diffusion?

Science as a method is by definition non-partisan. The results of scientific inquiry can be open to discussion for a time.

If the topic is capable of being argued by partisans, the science is either not advanced enough to declare one side kooks once and for all or people are arguing are arguing about something other than the science itself, e.g. its social impact.

But facts is facts.

[Gary Maxwell]

I will say this. Just cause its in textbooks and taught at universities does not make it infallible. I will give an analogy. In my Sophomore Economics class they told us that there was curve which explained the relationship between unemployment and inflation. If one was high the other was low. Lots of egghead PhDs swore this was gospel. One particular egghead was droning on in front of my class when I raised my hand ( Jimmy Carter was President ) and said something like "sounds like a bunch of crap." He sheepishly admitted the theory needed some work given double digit unemplyment and 15% inflation. But he said this had never happened before so it was not fair to fault the economists. I changed my major soon thereafter. Never looked back. Think about what you are told and challenge it just a bit.

[Jim E.]

You know, I found it strange that TM posted the news stories without comment. (Afraid to offend the right-wing loonies with the promotion of science, perhaps?) And now that he does comment, it is to mock lefties for being PC about science. Brave!

In terms of the lefty PC crowd, well, yes, they're wrong, too. There's an interesting book written for mainstream audiences called "Taboo" that addresses the PC crowd and its role in inhibiting the scientific study of racial differences. Such pressure on scientists is wrong, and it's driven by cultural/political/social concerns, not scientific ones. Just like IDers.

But, hey, let's only criticize lefty ideas that are NOT brought up on this comment board, and keep silent about the right-wing anti-science crowd that is present (in the country, and on this comment board). Lame-o, TM.

[Creepy Dude]

Think about what you are told and challenge it just a bit.

Good advice Maxwell. Now try it with statements from the White House.

[Jim E.]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but my interpretation is that TM is anti-ID. Care to make it explicit?

[TexasToast]

Nothing that Boris has said in this thread is wrong. Dogmatic rejection of astrology, etc is not science - nor is the uncritical acceptance of these things. Science, to my way of thinking, is the process of testing these things. Kansas errs by insisting that premises based on things other than observable fact are entitled to the same weight as premises that are based on the testing of observable fact. That is where ID fails as science as it demands acceptance of premises that are not subject to observation. As their theory cannot be tested, it is not science.

[AbioDarwinGuy]

CreepyD - your assertion works up until you realize there was a Prime Designer. The Prime Designer is akin to the Prime Mover (see Saint Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica).

For the record, Jim E. is correct that "Science" redefined the common definition of "Theory" in order to give it more ooomph. That's kind of cheap, since when we hear "theory," we think of it in layterms. And that is genuinely, and purposefully misleading (just like the Red/Blue switch a few years ago.)

I regard evolution and natural selection very highly, and we do see lots of evidence, including vestigal organs, etc. that sort of prove it out. The Galapogos are another good example - if you want an entire island.

What we are really discussing here is Abiogenesis - the notion that life ascended from rocks and minerals naturally here on earth. From large evaporative lagoons, proteins synthesized and formed, strung together into peptide chains, and sprung into early singlecell life forms, that then began evolving and mutating and ganging up to specialize. Eyes, fingers toes. 2 10 11.

There is no conclusive proof of abiogensis - experiments to replicate it have not succeeded in creating new life. Even today's gene splicing always requires existing life to take on the hard work - replication.

That's why we're looking so hard off Earth for signs of life elsewhere, to see if we can determine how it formed, to see if it formed by luck in that evaporative tidal pool. Because it would have to be luck. Sufficient quantities of rock sludge would have to accumulate in just the right quantities to form peptide chains which then, miraculously replicate.

Instead, life does seem too complex (if it was that easy, we would have reproduced abiogenesis in a swimming pool by now). ID, in my opinion, suffers from a bad definition. Life on earth may have come from something hitching a ride on an asteroid, or from previous iterations of suns/planets in this general space/time.

Recent evidence suggests that the theory of a mass extinction at the K+T layer are being disputed with some good science. 30 meters of sediment between what appear to be 2 layers of iridium have called into question the "theory" we all learned about the mass extinction. That 30 meters represents about 300,000 years, during which plankton and other life slowly drifted to the sediment and became fossils. Hardly indicates the extinction we've been lead to believe.

The originator of the K+T mass extinction is fighting that new evidence. To him, his theory is now an ideology, and does not need to be tested against newer information. This is a downfall in theology and science, it seems.

We will recreate our scientific "theories" a hundred times before we're done. (See Relativity, Special Relativity, String Theory, Universe, Multiverse, Inflation, Steady State).

I think the key to teaching correctly here is to teach that "Science" is only a bunch of ideas which have some confirmation, and are constantly revised. We are young and impressionable in our early years. I don't want to hear from a chemistry professor that God doesn't exist. For if he's wrong, the ramifications are a lot worse of me - I followed a heretic.

We need to teach critical thinking, and the place "Science" and "ID" into that framework. Neither will hold up too well given all the false theories throughout time - with the exception that everything will constantly be revised.

That, is the true value of "Science" class - that we will constantly revise what we learn, and there are very few absolutes.

[Creepy Dude]

I differ a little bit TT. Many scientific theories cannot be tested (yet anyway) e.g. parallel universes. But they can be tested in principle and hence falsified.

True theories can be proved false.

It's quite clear that evolution can be falsified. Simply finding a human skull in a Precambrian outcropping would collapse it like a house of cards.

But the idea that there is a Designer behind things cannot be falsified. It's just a constantly receding proposition that will always lie just beyond the otherwise explainable. Hence it's not a valid scientific theory.

[boris]

It's quite clear that evolution can be falsified.

For the sake of argument lets say there are two possibilities, ID or evolution. Either they are both falsifiable or neither is.

[Gary Maxwell]

I have been quoted on a couple of things but it appears that one part has been ignored. Let me say again:

Just telling me its science is not a well constructed argument.

[TexasToast]

I accept your amendment CD.

[Creepy Dude]

How would prove ID false Boris?

I really can't think of a way.

[Creepy Dude]

Ahha Boris-are you are saying that if evolution is proved false, ID will be the only alternative? Thereby ID can be proved by the falsification of evolution?

Ok-but I still want to see how evolution can be proved by the falsification of ID.

The cookies and milk are missing. It was either my parents or Santa Clause who consumed them. If "Either they are both falsifiable or neither is" do I really have no alternative theory other than Santa Claus exists if my parents deny it?

[boris]

do I really have no alternative theory

Consider the possibilities:

(1) Earth Life happened by accident
(2) It had help from aliens in our universe or ...
(3) An alien from another plane of existence

Number 3 might otherwise be referred to as "supernatural". What other possibility do you want to consider ?

[Creepy Dude]

How about "merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream" ?

[boris]

Isn't that called "postmodernism" ???

[arrowhead]

One of the most interesting proponents of "ID" is the physicist, Dr. Hugh Ross. The following is an excerpt from his article, "The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation."

"Science is never religiously neutral. Science deals with cause and effect. Unless one makes the dogmatic presupposition that causes can only be natural, it must be said that causes can be either natural or supernatural. In the case of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the appearance of most, if not all, new species, science can show us no natural causes. In the case of the universe, direct proof now exists that the cause, or causer, must transcend matter, energy, length, width, height, and time. In other words, the causer must be supernatural.

Similarly, faith is never scientifically neutral. It can dogmatically presuppose that natural processes had no part in creation. The New Testament, however, defines faith as belief and action based on established facts. The established facts, for example, tell us that stars, like raindrops, evolve under natural processes. As a physicist, I have never seen a fundamental particle called a neutrino. But I have faith in its existence and act accordingly because of certain well-established facts. As a Christian, I have never seen God. But I have faith in His existence and act accordingly because of certain well established facts."

See http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/shellgame.shtml

[AbioDarwinGuy]

CreepyD said: "But the idea that there is a Designer behind things cannot be falsified. It's just a constantly receding proposition that will always lie just beyond the otherwise explainable. Hence it's not a valid scientific theory."

So if there is a 2nd coming as predicted by texts that are a few thousand years old, but it's still a while away, we could continue to follow the whole rabbit whole only to find that when the 2nd coming comes, we were all wrong.

There are texts which prescribe this to happen - the fact that it hasn't happened yet is not a false on the "theory." They were based on the facts at the time.

The universe is becoming the multiverse. The Big Bang is being falsified as we speak. It was more like a "Small Bubble."

Now we take the universe and say it is a multiverse. We still don't know "First Cause" - we've just added another layer before it. (Making the known universe a Second cause?) I see no difference between trying to validate first cause and second cause. Why? Because physics does not deal with the precursors to what they call "First Cause." That's untouchable, they said.

Until now. They think something happened before first cause - several verses in the multiverse collided making our universe.

Since we can't see back "before time began," we cannot conceivably prove wrong First Cause as we used to know it. Except we did.

[Creepy Dude]

Dont bogart that joint Abio.

I always liked Russell's axiom that "The Truth, if found, may prove uninteresting."

[Gary Maxwell]

Abio

Fascinating.

I think.