Debating with Evolution Deniers

Posted by Matt Young on November 29, 2004 05:59 PM

Deborah Lipstadt, the distinguished expert on the Holocaust, refuses to debate with Holocaust deniers.  If I remember a radio interview correctly, Prof. Lipstadt said, in so many words, “I do not debate with liars.” In her view, a respected historian’s debating Holocaust deniers would give them and their views stature and credibility they do not deserve.  Indeed, the very fact of a  debate will imply that there is something to debate, that Holocaust denial is a legitimate intellectual endeavor.

Evolution deniers such as intelligent-design creationists may not be consciously fabricating anything, but their intellectual output is as devoid of content as Holocaust denial.  Debating or collaborating with them, it seems to me, will imply that there is something to debate, that evolution denial is a legitimate intellectual endeavor.

It is a pity, then, that the noted philosopher, Michael Ruse, saw fit to collaborate with William Dembski in an edited volume for Cambridge University Press.  Indeed, on a recent edition of Science Friday on NPR, a representative of the Discovery Institute spoke of the Ruse-Dembski collaboration with approbation:

Recently the Cambridge University Press published a book entitled “Debating Design,” with a variety of scientists both making the case for design and criticizing the case for design and defending the traditional Darwinian position. And when school boards find out about this debate, they think, `Gee, our students would really benefit from learning about it.’ And I think that’s a great educational idea, and I don’t see any legal reason why students should be prevented from learning about it.

and

Well, I think there’s a distinction between the state of intelligent design theory as a way of exploring the scientific question and the policy of mandating it as part of the curriculum. We think it’s a great idea if a teacher has the urge to present this debate in a way, just as the Cambridge University Press presented the debate—obviously made age-appropriate in terms of the way the concepts are explained. But if the teacher has that urge, go right ahead and do that. We believe that’s legally permissible and great education.

Kenneth Miller of Brown University tried some damage control,

…I think there’s a pretty good reason for not mandating the teaching of intelligent design, and that is—and this is something that’s become apparent to people in Ohio and people in Kansas and people in Pennsylvania who’ve looked at the issue. And that is, there’s nothing to teach. And what I mean by that is—and I was one of the essayists in the Cambridge University volume that he is referring to. And what you see in that is that there simply is—even in the views of its proponents, there is no evidence for design, and that the papers in that booklet talking about design are really a collection of arguments against Darwinism, against evolution, I should say—arguments that I might add are pretty easily refuted.

but I am afraid that Prof. Ruse has collaborated with evolution deniers and may have given them precisely the credibility that so concerned Prof. Lipstadt. 

Notes.

Before you ask, I make distinctions among appearing on a scheduled radio program on which evolution deniers may also appear, engaging in a formal debate with evolution deniers, and actively collaborating with them.  The line is fuzzy, but I draw it at debating.  I am sure Prof. Ruse had his reasons for drawing it elsewhere, and I am sorry if this article causes him any embarrassment.

You may find the Science Friday program, “Teaching Evolution,” at http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2004/Nov/hour1_111904.htm….

Deborah Lipstadt’s home page is http://religion.emory.edu/faculty/lipstadt.html….  You may find an article about a libel suit against Prof. Lipstadt at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709336.stm…, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/04/11/britain.holo…, or http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=2….

The Dembski-Ruse collaboration is Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (eds.), Cambridge, New York, 2004.

This article may be freely reproduced on the Web, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and the copyright notice and the original URL are displayed.  Copyright © 2004 by Matt Young.

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/630

Comment #10880

Posted by mark on November 29, 2004 06:36 PM (e) (s)

In addition to the legitimizing effect, there is the nature of the “debate” itself—scientists may expect an exchange based on evidence and rationial explanation; creationists may expect to employ rhetoric and sophistry as in legal proceedings (“Darwin on Trial”).  “Sure, my client murdered his father and mother.  But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take pity on him—remember, he’s an orphan.”

Comment #10882

Posted by Steve on November 29, 2004 06:39 PM (e) (s)

I agree. The creationist side says idiotic things. Not just wrong, idiotic. “William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory.” The right thing to do is to call it ridiculous.

They need every association they can get with actual scientists, to appear legitimate and scientific. It’s a political movement, so appearence is everything. Debating them gives them better field position.

Comment #10883

Posted by Steve on November 29, 2004 06:43 PM (e) (s)

But, watching this blog for six months shows me that the idiots will not stop asserting stupid things, and the smart people will not stop patiently trying to correct them, so who cares what I think.

Comment #10884

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 29, 2004 06:57 PM (e) (s)

I have to disagree with Matt Young.  ID is not science, and I agree that it should not be debated as science.  However, some elements of ID are (very poorly done) philosophy of science.  Consequently it is OK to debate ID as philsophy of science.  Further, ID is an active political movement.  Consequently it is OK to debate it as a political movement.  I do think the nature of the debate should be distinguished.

Consistent with this, I am not adverse to ID being discussed in the classroom - just not in the science classroom.  Politics classes could, for example, discuss “the wedge strategy” as a recent example of political activism.  Of course the text should come with a disclaimer:

“99.8% (or whatever the exact figure is) of practising scientists consider ID to not only be wrong, but to not even be science.  Further, they believe the presentation of “facts” by ID theorists can only be distinguished from deliberate deception by a charitable assumption.”

Comment #10886

Posted by Michael Sprague on November 29, 2004 07:19 PM (e) (s)

I’ve posted a response to Young’s article at <a/ href=”http://philbio.typepad.com/philosophy_of_biology/2004/11/mic…“>Philosophy of Biology</a>. Please feel free to leave comments.

Comment #10887

Posted by eric collier on November 29, 2004 07:23 PM (e) (s)

I believe we have no choice but to take the evolution-deniers on in debate. The comparison with Holocaust-denial is spurious. These are both nut belief-systems but Holocaust-denial is statistically fringe, whereas evolution-denial in America runs close to 50% The public needs to see these loonies engaged and engaged aggressively. Unfortunately, the fight can only be won with a certain amount of Barnumship.
I also suggest that we are doing the cause a disservice in refusing to consider letting students see the arguments pro and con. The creationists say this makes it look like we have something to fear—and in this I think they are right.

Comment #10888

Posted by Michael Sprague on November 29, 2004 07:24 PM (e) (s)

Oops - didn’t read about Kwickcode before posting that comment. If a blog administrator would like to correct that for me (and delete this comment) it would be greatly appreciated.

Comment #10889

Posted by Great WhiteWonder on November 29, 2004 07:54 PM (e) (s)

I would give my left nut to debate any one of these bozos.  The secret is to not let the subject matter of the debate stray from the only relevant plane: “ID” is an exceptionally transparent and useless argument from ignorance that has no more scientific merit than my claim that a sub-microscopic portion of my pinkie toe created the universe, the giant bat-winged god Suck-tor is the source of gravity on earth, and my farts created el Nino.

There is no reason why any debate with a creationist need ever rise about that level because that is the maximum level of intellectual and philosophical rigor any of them have ever attained.

Discussing genuine scientific questions and their possible answers with creationists is less fruitful than discussing global politics with a nursing infant.

Comment #10891

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 29, 2004 08:07 PM (e) (s)

Eric writes

I also suggest that we are doing the cause a disservice in refusing to consider letting students see the arguments pro and con. The creationists say this makes it look like we have something to fear—and in this I think they are right.

Listen and learn, my friend.

As was set forth above by several commenters, we do have something to fear:  the likelihood that creationists will twist any debate with a genuine scientist into a claim that their religiously-compelled arguments from ignorance have scientific legitimacy.

Creationists will just have to patiently stand in line behind the Sasquatch trackers, anally-probed UFO abductees, John Edwards-style mediums, and poltergeist-molested housewives if they want to debate a genuine scientists.  Why should creationist pseudoscientific claptrap be given special consideration? 

Do the impatient six year olds who throw the biggest tantrums get to sit on Santa’s lap first?  No, they don’t.

Those six year olds could, however, provide us with a sober explanation of how their “worldview” informs their understanding of Santa Claus’ powers, and how they arrived at their “worldview”.  Their explanation, in fact, would be far more honest and logically sound than the mealy-mouthed knowledge-disparaging script recited by creationists here on a semi-daily basis.

Comment #10893

Posted by Matt Young on November 29, 2004 08:30 PM (e) (s)

Let me make another distinction. I will speak in any forum; I will not debate a creationist in that forum nor share a program with one, for the reasons I stated and also for those given by others.  To debunk creationists is not the same as to debate them.

I could not agree more with Great White Wonder.  Mr. Wonder fixes on precisely what we have to fear: that creationists will use the very fact of the debate to falsely claim scientific legitimacy.  It is true whether they are a fringe or whether half the population is sympathetic.

Debating the issue in school, as Mr. Collier and Mr. Curtis suggest, is likewise a slippery slope inasmuch the fact of the debate gives life to the arguments.  Do we debate Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics?  No, we teach it as a failed theory, if at all.  But there is no danger that Lamarckianism will spring to life as a result of our teaching it.  The very opposite is true of intelligent-design creationism.

Comment #10894

Posted by charlie wagner on November 29, 2004 08:56 PM (e) (s)

Those of you who know me and have followed my postings around the web are well aware that I never argue with creationists. I never dispute their belief in the truthfulness of the Bible or their interpretation of their religion. I’m not inclined to regard a person as a fool because I don’t understand them or because I don’t accept their version of truth.
  I do argue with evolutionists because they presume to represent science. They adopt the mantle of science, which I care greatly about, to give themselves legitimacy in their own eyes and (they hope), in the eyes of others.
  I hold to the view that we can understand ourselves better by identifying those traits and characteristics in others that most antagonize us. We meet ourselves every day in department stores, at school, in restaurants and in the pages of books (especially history books), magazines and on television. Each stranger that we meet is a reflection of ourselves, a portal to better self-understanding.
  Both evolutionists and creationists would be better served by not torturing those with whom they disagree, for certainly it is the tortured who soon enough turn into torturers. How quickly the worm can turn.
  Personally, I always defend science, because it informs us about the physical world better than any other method and it increases our store of knowledge more accurately than the use of pure reason alone.
But a view that assumes that scientific understanding is the *only* kind of understanding that there is obscures and dilutes our insight and our harmony with the world. Science is a tool of the western mind, not all of mankind.
  Now I certainly can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, nor can I prove that he does. But I am sure of the fact that the *impression* of God (the archetype?) exists in *every* person. Whether God actually exists is mostly irrelevant. What is important is that large numbers of people believe it.
  I also believe that there is a huge advantage available to those who can locate this power, whatever its source, in their own individual self and use it for their benefit. Why should I deprive those who may have found this transforming energy in religion? What purpose does it serve me or them, to ridicule and condemn their beliefs as silly and unscientific as I might think they are?
  This doesn’t mean, of course, that I will allow others to impose their beliefs on me. The teaching of religion, while acceptable in church schools, is wholly unacceptable in public schools. Likewise, ideologies of any kind, especially those ostensibly validated by the mantle of science, are likewise unacceptable in public education.
  However, since religion is obviously an important part of my fellow citizens’ lives, I have no fear of sharing with them the joy and pleasure that they get from their mythologies, even though I’m a non-believer. I have no problem with a Christmas tree or a menorah in the town square or Christmas carols in the school concert or a moment of silence in a school day. These things do not threaten me, as they apparently threaten others. There’s little enough to feel good about in this uncaring and often cruel world; it seems a bit silly to deny people what comfort we may find, wherever they may find it.

Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…

Comment #10895

Posted by coturnix on November 29, 2004 08:59 PM (e) (s)

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/is-debating-creati…

Comment #10897

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 29, 2004 09:23 PM (e) (s)

Steve, I disagree — I think that creationists change their arguments over time as the evidence and good counter arguments accumulate.  “Old Earth creationism” is one response to the overwhelming evidence against a young Earth, for example.  ID is another response to the legal finding that there is no science in creationism, but that it is instead religious dogma.

And, since this forum so thoroughly analyzed the sundry ways it was stupid for the ID flaks to call the great ID chemist Schaeffer a “five-time Nobel nominee,” not the least that it’s a fatuous and hubristic claim, that claim has vanished from most ID propaganda.  Not all propaganda has stopped making the claim — BIOLA’s recent conference still bills him as a five-time loser — but then, look at the source.  (Remember, BIOLA is an acronym for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.)

One might wonder, however, what the Templeton Foundation is doing lending support to a group trying to drive a wedge between Christians and scientists.  That’s quite the opposite of the foundation’s mission, as they explained it to me.

Hmmmm.  Has anyone asked them about it?

Comment #10901

Posted by FL on November 29, 2004 10:15 PM (e) (s)

As for me, I agree with Jonathan Wells.  He wrote a little something for the local newspaper after participating in a 1999 roundtable discussion/debate at the local university with fellow ID advocate Stephen Meyer. 
Anyway, here’s the article:

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=64…

Here’s an extended snip:

By the end of the evening, it was clear that the controversy was not about defending empirical science from biblical fundamentalism. Scientifically, what little evidence was presented challenged Darwinian evolution and favored intelligent design; philosophically, Darwinian evolution was shown to have as many implications for religion as intelligent design; and legally, teaching Darwinism while excluding other views in state-supported schools could not be justified on First Amendment grounds.

Ignoring these considerations, a panelist who had the last word concluded that Darwinian evolution deserves its privileged status because it is the consensus of biologists. This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin’s theory. (The scientist on the pro-Darwin side was a psychologist.)

I later learned that Washburn University biologists had been invited to participate, but declined because they didn’t want to provide a platform for creationism. They thereby reflected a nationwide tendency among Darwinians to demonize their critics rather than deal with the issues.

They also made it clear that a “consensus” exists only because Darwinians refuse to tolerate any dissent.

As the Washburn roundtable discussion showed, however, the strategy of sweeping the controversy under the rug is not working. The public clearly saw that there are important unanswered questions here. First, is the biological evidence more consistent with Darwinian evolution or intelligent design? If the latter, is it proper for Darwinians to decide the matter in their favor by redefining “science” to exclude design? Second, does Darwinian evolution have religious implications? If so, are state-supported institutions acting unconstitutionally when they teach Darwinism to the exclusion of other views? These are serious questions for empirical science and constitutional government. Pretending they do not exist will not make them go away.

The Washburn University roundtable discussion can serve as an example for all American high schools and colleges. Students should be taught the controversy and encouraged to discuss the issues. No dogma, scientific or religious, belongs in a science classroom. Instead of being indoctrinated in Darwinism, as they are now, students should be provided with the resources to think critically about it. The result will be better scientists and better citizens.

Again, I agree with Wells.  I think debate is beneficial and helpful to public understanding, and there ARE important questions—including scientific questions—to be debated here. 

But if evolutionists want to run and hide like rabbits from the top-drawer ID advocates, that’s fine too, as long as the general voting public is made aware of their rabbitesque behavior.

Btw, background information on the roundtable event itself (1000 people attended, and was broadcast on the Internet) can be found here.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/110599/com_evolpanel.shtml…

FL

Comment #10903

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 29, 2004 10:25 PM (e) (s)

FL,

What is your considered assessment of the Unification Church and Son Myung Moon’s identity as God’s personification or envoy (or whatever)? This is directly relevant to Well’s motivations.

Comment #10906

Posted by Michael Sprague on November 29, 2004 10:31 PM (e) (s)

Michael Ruse has posted a brief reply to Young (as quoted by me) on Philosophy of Biology. The proper link is:

http://philbio.typepad.com/philosophy_of_biology/2004/11/mic…

Comment #10908

Posted by Steve on November 29, 2004 10:48 PM (e) (s)

Ed, I’m not sure what you disagree about.

Comment #10910

Posted by Dan S. on November 29, 2004 11:11 PM (e) (s)

Charlie - I don’t know you, but two comments:
“But a view that assumes that scientific understanding is the *only* kind of understanding that there is obscures and dilutes our insight and our harmony with the world.”
People do claim this, sure.  They’re dumbasses, though. You get those everywhere.  None of this is necessary to defend evolution.  You will find any people stressing the opposite - that both fields are of  great value in understanding the world, just in *different* ways.  Defending evolution does *not* mean attacking science.  Darwinism isn’t anti-religion.  There is no need to ridicule religion; those who do so in evolution’s name  are motivated not by evolution, but by other factors.

“Likewise, ideologies of any kind, especially those ostensibly validated by the mantle of science, are likewise unacceptable in public education.”
Evolution may give rise or contain ideologies, but the same can be said about any other part of science.  Evolution is currently a major part of science, and therefore science teachers have both the right and the *responsibility* to teach it in any class touching upon relevent topics.  C’mon, these are basic ideas!  How on earth are we going to remove “ideologies of any kind” from public education? This is leaning over backwards so far that one risks falling down the slippery slope to sectarian religious public-ed, if not chaos.

  -Dan S.

Comment #10911

Posted by Dan S. on November 29, 2004 11:14 PM (e) (s)

“Defending evolution does *not* mean attacking science”
obviously I meant to say  “does *not* mean attacking religion”
oops.
Dan S.

Comment #10912

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 11:17 PM (e) (s)

I am training to be a high-school biology teacher. I will probably teach in a community that favors creationism. I don’t want to have to fight the battle ahead of me alone. The more resources leaders in the feild of evolution (such as the contributors to Panda’s Thumb) can provide me with, the better. It is not always easy to dig up all the evidence that creationists continually say they need in order to fill a “gap in the theory of evolution.” The more gaps you patient people fill, the more they seek out. It is just such a draining process, but absolutely necessary. Thank you for the time you volunteer and the effort you continue to put forth, please do not stop. The debate must go on and on until the dead horse is deader, unfortunately. Dirty job, but someone has to do it.

Comment #10913

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 11:39 PM (e) (s)

Debate is not the only - obviously not the best - way to keep abreast of all the new creationist mumbo-jumbo, but laypeople don’t like to read detailed descriptions of biological processes, full of terminology.

The debates make it necessary to put sometimes difficult concepts in more simple and concise terms that would not only reach lay people, but that educators can then use to talk to young people influenced by the widespread creationist propaganda, who pose questions to teachers that they read on creationist websites.

Science is leaps ahead of the various forms of creationism, but science educators are a step behind on knowing how to respond to the clever propaganda tools… especially when they also have to defend their teachings to the community and p-d off parents. They are put under personal attack, asked what they believe, and it becomes quite emotionally charged.

Comment #10914

Posted by Wayne Francis on November 29, 2004 11:47 PM (e) (s)

CW wrote:

I do argue with evolutionists because they presume to represent science

Note that Charlie Wagner has stated that the majority of professional biologist don’t represent science.

FL wrote:

Again, I agree with Wells.  I think debate is beneficial and helpful to public understanding, and there ARE important questions—including scientific questions—to be debated here.

But what do you do when the “debate” is constantly compromised by idividuals that diverge from the important topic. 

When ID actually gets something positive then lets look at the “contriversy”.  But not having any foundation all you are doing is instilling doubt, normally through outright lies, in those that are not fully immersed in the issue. 

All sciences have religious implications if you want to look at them.  It is just evolution and biology is at odds with the literal interpretation of the Christian bible.  Evolution is not at odds with interpretations of the Qur’an as it talks about the genisis account in different terms and clearly shows that there was life before adam and eve. 

I fully support looking at the holes in evolution.  Let us research the edges of the holes thereby making them smaller and smaller.  All creationists what do do is look at the wholes and say that the rest can’t be correct.  I for one don’t look at the holes in swiss cheese and say “AH! there is no cheese!”.  Coming up with solutions for a whole doesn’t mean anything if that solution must stand by itself outside a larger framework.  These are arguements like the creationist saying that things in the past didn’t work like they do today theirfore our understanding of the worlding is wrong. 
Example
The universe is currently estimated at over 14 billion years old.  The furthest stars and galaxies are that far out. 
Creationist don’t like this since the light must have been in transit for that 14 billion years by our understanding of physics
Scientists bring up the theory that the speed of light is not constant and has slowed down.
Creationist take this and run with it saying that proves a 6000 year old earth
Scientists point out that the speed of light has not changed that drastically.
Creationist ignore what the Scientist say that is at odds with their claim but cherry pick the bits they want.

Creationist would have you believe that physisic in the not to distant past completely changed and that everything before that point was changing drastically but rescently, it stabilized to what we have today.  They disregard there is no evidence for this.  They use it in any type of aging meathod from carbon dating, to radiometric dating, to cosmic red shifts and other measurements.

Every time a professional debates them you’ll get a set of the population that will either, by themself, or more frequently being told by IDers/creationists that since the scientist are talking with them that the scientists must really have some doubts and that there is a debate to be had.  Saddly we are in a catch 22 situation.  The intelligent IDers/Creationist would rather try to instill doubt in the best explanation that we have then to actually do something that would support their position with positive and falsifiable evidence.

Its like talking to CW about his alians that must be the cause of life because life couldn’t “boot strap” itself into exsistance because he can’t grasp any way it could occur and that those same alians control every change in every living organism on the earth yet he has no idea how the alians could exsist given the same limitations he places on the life we see around us. 

Pointing at the holes in knowledge does not strengthen your position.  It shows you can see gaps in our knowledge….or in many cases gaps in your knowledge for which there is a good chance that it has been addressed in the larger framework.

Comment #10915

Posted by Marcus Good on November 30, 2004 12:13 AM (e) (s)

“I do argue with evolutionists because they presume to represent science. They adopt the mantle of science, which I care greatly about, to give themselves legitimacy in their own eyes and (they hope), in the eyes of others.”

I preferred to adopt the mantle of the bat..

..Creationists are a cowardly, superstitious lot.

Comment #10923

Posted by Pericles on November 30, 2004 04:50 AM (e) (s)

How I Got Inclined
Towards Atheism
by Nobel Laureate Prof. Francis Crick

When Prof. Crick was informed about the Golden Jubilee of the Atheist Centre he was immensely happy and presented his latest book What Mad Pursuit an autobiographical account of his life as a scientist, to the Atheist Centre with his best wishes for the Golden Jubilee. This book is published by Basic Books, Inc., New York. Here are a few extracts from that book to acquaint readers with Crick’s views on religion.

“At exactly which point I lost my early religious faith I am not clear, but I suspect I was then about twelve years old. It was almost certainly before the actual onset of puberty. Nor can I recall exactly what led me to this radical change of viewpoint. I remember telling my mother that I no longer wished to go to church, and she was visibly upset by this. I imagine that my growing interest in science and the rather lowly intellectual level of the preacher and his congregation motivated me, though I doubt if it would have made much difference if I had known of other more sophisticated Christian beliefs. Whatever the reason, from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism.

This did not save me from attending Christian services at school, especially at the boarding school I went to later, where a compulsory service was held every morning and two on Sundays. For the first year there, until my voice broke, I sang in the choir. I would listen to the sermons but with detachment and even with some amusement if they were not too boring. Fortunately, as they were addressed to schoolboys, they were often short, though all too frequently based on moral exhortation.

I have no doubt, as will emerge later, that this loss of faith in Christian religion and my growing attachment to science have played a dominant part in my scientific career not so much on a day-to-day basis but in the choice of what I have considered interesting and important. I realized early on that it is detailed scientific knowledge which makes certain religious beliefs untenable. A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? A belief, at the time it was formulated, may not only have appealed to the imagination but also fit well with all that was than known. It can nevertheless be made to appear ridiculous because of facts uncovered later by science. What could be more foolish than to base one’s entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at that time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important then to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs? Yet it is clear that some mysteries have still to be explained scientifically. While these remain unexplained, they can serve as an easy refuge for religious superstition. It seemed to me of the first importance to identify these unexplained areas of knowledge and to work toward their scientific understanding whether such explanations would turn out to confirm existing beliefs or to refute them.”

You can read more here http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990a01.htm…

Pericles

Comment #10931

Posted by mark on November 30, 2004 09:08 AM (e) (s)

Perhaps a useful strategy might be to engage in such a “debate” but focus—from the outset—on the Wedge strategy and its educational and political implications.  Many scientists are unaware of the Wedge, and I’ll wager many people who favor teaching creationism in schools are likewise unaware.  This could be done without attacking religion per se (that would surely alienate many audiences), but perhaps it might lead some to consider that science might not be so great an evil, after all.  It may be helpful to point out examples of non-atheistic evolutionary scientists, as indicating that religious people are not necessarilly ignorant bumpkins, but creationist dogmas reinforce that notion.

Comment #10935

Posted by Russell on November 30, 2004 10:44 AM (e) (s)

Katarina: I am training to be a high-school biology teacher

All the more reason I want to emphasize I didn’t mean to seem hostile in my rejection of the notion that “no one is not religious”.

Actually, Katarina, if I did subscribe to that notion - or to the extent that I do - you might qualify for sainthood.

Comment #10937

Posted by Joe Shelby on November 30, 2004 11:08 AM (e) (s)

Pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, or worse still, pointing out to people that they are being used and duped into promoting someone else’s agenda, only makes enemies.

I realize the importance of making the world aware of The Wedge Strategy and how it is a debasement of the scientific process (and the process by which legitimate science makes its way into the classroom), but it must be brought into light in the right way. 

In a sharply-divided school board, it can only serve to increase the perception of a wedge already dividing the school region, the county, the state.  It will only serve to make those who favor ID or creationism in schools all the more determined to succeed.

Comment #10938

Posted by FL on November 30, 2004 11:08 AM (e) (s)

FL,

What is your considered assessment of the Unification Church and Son Myung Moon’s identity as God’s personification or envoy (or whatever)? This is directly relevant to Well’s motivations.

Well, as a evangelical Christian, I do not subscribe to the UC’s claims regarding Rev. Moon’s identity nor Moon’s other claims, such as those responded to in the following link:

http://www.tdl.com/~marzioli/unificat.htm…

However, Wells is a member of that group and presumably accepts their truth claims.  That’s his religion of choice, not mine. But hey, everybody’s got the freedom to choose.

Wells’ motivations?  You tell me.  Since Wells is religious, probably could find some religious motivations in there somewhere.  However, as evolutionist Michael Ruse pointed out in court, a proposed hypothesis or theory is NOT unscientific merely because of any religious motivation of the people doing the proposing.

FL

Comment #10939

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 11:15 AM (e) (s)

Russel:

Thanks for saying so. I don’t blame you for your initial response. The comments were actually helpful.

Comment #10941

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 11:30 AM (e) (s)

Katarina, if you are not already familiar with them, you should look into the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).  Both organizations are good resources for you in your anticipated teaching context.  NABT’s recent national conference co-sponsored with the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) a two-day symposium on evolution aimed at an audience made up primarily of biology teachers and college professors.  They promise to be putting together published materials from that symposium to come out soon - you may be able to find links to the same on their respective websites.

More generally, I want to praise you for your interest in your chosen field.  Teachers are really in the trenches, so to speak, and deserve the honor and support of the professional biological community.  The symposium of which I spoke was a good example of professional scientists reaching out to biology educators.

Comment #10942

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 11:38 AM (e) (s)

While I think he somewhat misses the point of the thread, I think some of what Charlie Weaver wrote has merit and I appreciate his comments.  The evolution vs. creationism/ID problem is not fundamentally about science; it is about the perceived threat to religious beliefs that evolution represents (unnecessarily, of course) to a large segment of the populace who, like it or not, are religious.  Disparaging religious belief as “baloney” or “bunk” does absolutely nothing to help the cause.

Comment #10943

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 11:40 AM (e) (s)

Sorry, make that Charlie Wagner…sorry Charlie.

Comment #10944

Posted by Fraser on November 30, 2004 12:02 PM (e) (s)

How are we defining debate?
I agree that it’s too easy for people to play verbal tricks if you’re debating face to face—I once had a phone conversation with Kent Hovind which consisted of his basically saying “au contraire” to any points I made (archeopteryx is a completely normal bird! There is no trace of any transition from reptile to mammal! etc.).
If it’s in a letter column of the paper, however, you can marshall facts, take everything the other side says and deflate it point by point. People have time to review and reconsider what you both say.
I’ll do that any time (and as a reporter, hope to have something in my column on the topic soon).

Comment #10945

Posted by Jason Malloy on November 30, 2004 12:02 PM (e) (s)

Since ID Creationists have shown they have no arguments of substance the only place where they need to be debated is in the courts when they try to push their ridiculousness into the textbooks.

Comment #10947

Posted by charlie wagner on November 30, 2004 12:07 PM (e) (s)

Katarina wrote:

I am training to be a high-school biology teacher. I will probably teach in a community that favors creationism. I don’t want to have to fight the battle ahead of me alone.

  Not to worry. You’re over estimating the importance of the topic of evolution in a biology classroom. I taught science for 33 years in New York state and I can tell you that it might be worth *one* period of instruction in most schools. In New York, evolution has always been an optional topic and large numbers of teachers just ignored it. I suggest that you do the same. Those people who post here will try to tell you that it’s the central theme of all biology, but it’s not.
  You’ve got plenty else to teach that’s far more important. Concentrate on the factual stuff and don’t get caught up in the controversial stuff. It’s just not that big of a deal. Certainly not worth the stress that it can cause to a new teacher trying to get her balance in the wacky world of school politics.
  It’s an 11 foot pole’er. (reserved for subjects you wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole ;-)

Charlie
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…

Comment #10950

Posted by Michael Sprague on November 30, 2004 12:40 PM (e) (s)

Charlie - Don’t you think that maybe the fact that you taught biology for 33 years without teaching evolution is indicative of the problem which is responsible for the tremendous ignorance about evolution among the American public? Katarina is not “over estimating the importance of the topic of evolution in a biology classroom.” You are underestimating the importance of the topic of evolution for biology. That millions of American students leave high school with little to no understanding of evolution represents a failure on the part of our school system and our biology teachers.

Comment #10951

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 12:42 PM (e) (s)

Thank you Shaggy.

I am familiar with the other websites and organizations and I thought you might refer me to them. I find this website to be the quickest and most thorough in refuting each new creationist argument. Usually I just read it, not post.

Charlie Wagner,

I have considered your advice but I am deeply influenced by evolutionary theory and I see it everywhere. I believe it is central to biology and the best scientific explanation for life. It would be dishonest to avoid it because it is difficult. If some teachers choose to do so, it won’t be me.

Comment #10953

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 12:55 PM (e) (s)

Charlie, though I am empathetic to you respect for religion’s place in society, I couldn’t disagree more with your advice to Katarina.  Happily, she’s seems to have the sense to disregard it.  Though I suspect you might dismiss organizations like NABT and AIBS, one of the major themes of the symposium I mentioned was a full-on refutation of your claim that evolution is somehow peripheral to biology.  Please give me an example of biology that is not informed and influenced by evolutionary theory?

Comment #10954

Posted by Joe McFaul on November 30, 2004 01:13 PM (e) (s)

I think there’s room for a mutlipronged approach. ID does have a wide range of veru sincere and well meaning followers in religious circles.  Many people are easily initially impressed with ID and have read Darwin’s Black Box, for example. I consider these people to be sincere but “casual” ID supporters. 

Refusing to debate ID because it’s akin to holocaust denial is rightly seen by “casual” supporters as intellectually dishonest. 

I do think that Behe, Johnson and Dembski should be accused of fraud, luodly and frequenty and their good faith and integrity challenged loudly because they “know.”  Thre  hsould be no debates for them, until they “repent.”

On the other hand, casual ID adherents can be influenced by an honest discussion. I’ve had several attempt to explain to me moustraps bacterial flagellae and the Krebs cycle.  They had only read Behe’s book, and really didn’t know that these are not irreducibly complex after all. They were surprised to find I *also* had read and considerred Behe’s book. Next, I point out Johnson’s AIDS denials where his attack on medical science is identical to his anti-evolution ravings. This in particular really causes some people to be disappointed for the first time in his intellectual honesty because the rhetorical tricks are clearer.

Finally, in dealing with religous “casual” ID adherents I point out that ID is better proof of Raelians than God, and do they really want their children taught Raelian philosophy? At this point, many people see some of the dishonesties and shortcomings in ID, and can grasp why ID should be challenged in Cobb County.

For “casual” ID adherents, it’s not about the science—it’s about the religion. If you can show why ID is bad theology to them, the science will take care of itself.

That’s why the addition of Henry Neufeld is so valuable.

Comment #10955

Posted by Frank Schmidt on November 30, 2004 01:25 PM (e) (s)

The problem with “debating” creationists is that it isn’t a debate. Formal debate imposes an obligation of honesty, i.e., one marshalls facts to support one’s position.

I appeared last year on a TV talking heads show with the person responsible for Missouri’s ID bill (thinly disguised YEC, actually). He deliberately misrepresented every fact that we discussed and tried to give the impression that ours was a “scientific” discussion. It wasn’t a scientific discussion,  because he had no respect for the data. If I ever do this again, I will bring along a sign that says “False Witness” and demand the I be allowed to wave it at appropriate times, which will be often. You  know the creationists are lying about evolution because their lips move.

Comment #10956

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 30, 2004 01:28 PM (e) (s)

FL writes

as evolutionist Michael Ruse pointed out in court, a proposed hypothesis or theory is NOT unscientific merely because of any religious motivation of the people doing the proposing.

Ruse, is correct, FL.

No one is arguing that ID is bad science because of Wells religion.  ID is an unscientific argument from ignorance and Wells couldn’t change that fact if he was the editor of the Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Science (who, I can assure you, thinks Wells and his cohorts are worthless morons).

As I and other have pointed out to eternally dense and clueless idiots like you dozens of times, the deeply religious inclinations of limelight-loving  superdorks like Wells, Dembski, Behe, Johnson,  etc. are highly relevant to understanding why they incessantly peddle their pseudoscientific claptrap at the public school level.  The fact that they are conservative evangelicals reading from Phil Johnsons’ “militant secularist” wedge-promoting script is entirely consistent with the fact that their “scientific theory” is nothing of the sort.

In short, their extreme religious beliefs explains why these behave like assholes when it comes to disparaging the work of evolutionary biologists. 

Similarly, your religious convictions, FL, explain why you pretend to be unaware of this irrefutable simple equation, and engage in similarly ignorant knowledge-bashing assholic behavior yourself.

Comment #10957

Posted by gbusch on November 30, 2004 02:05 PM (e) (s)

The polarity between science and faith indeed needs to be bridged else a relentless charged debate ensues. Would it not make more sense to integrate a dedicated course on critical thinking skills into the school curriculum? What individual, organization or branch of study would not benefit from such teachings of logic and reason? This would not elliminate the extremists, but rather, put him/her further out of the ballpark where there is no game play.

Comment #10960

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 30, 2004 02:19 PM (e) (s)

Am I in a bad mood?

The San Francisco chronicle today had as its above-the-fold headline story: “Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in US schools: Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism.” 

The CBS poll which shows that 35% of the country somehow feels comfortable claiming that “Darwin’s theory is not supported by the evidence” appears in a gray box, also above the fold.

The article was written by Anna Badkhen, who is clearly not a science journalist.  The article focuses mainly on the Dover school issue.

All in all it’s not the worst article I’ve ever read on the issue but I was disappointed to see some obviously lazy blunders.  The Discovery Institute is mentioned, for example, without any desription whatsoever of its mission or members.  ID is described as having been devised by a “small group of scientists” which is being generous to say the least.  A pro-ID website (www.intelligentdesign.com) is provided for the reader who wants to learn more but there are no links to the Pandas Thumb or to Talk Origins or similar creationism-debunking sites.  John West of the Discovery Institute is quoted as saying “Mainstream criticism should be raised in classrooms.”

The article, of course, neglects to point out that the public school board meetings are the ONLY places where arguments from ignorance are accepted as serious challenges to evolutionary theory.

And then there are some quotes from Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, who always comes across to me as just about the weakest hapless spokesman for truth and honesty in public school science classrooms as we could hope for.  I won’t go into details about what she does say, but I can tell you what she evidently did not say to this reporter but which she should say:  “Intelligent design is not an alternative scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.  As science, it’s complete baloney and any genuine scientist will tell you that it’s worthless.  It is nothing more than an argument from incredulity that is exactly the same as saying ‘wow, that’s so cool that God must have done it.’  That is not science.  It’s religion and our Constitution prevents us from teaching religious creation theories as scientific facts in public school classrooms.  The only reason we are having this discussion in the 21st century is because conservative evangelical Christian groups want to see their religious beliefs taught in public schools.”

It’s so frigging simple.  And Scott must say one other important thing:  “If you want to quote me in your article, you must quote me in full.  And you must include links to websites like Talk Origins and Pandas Thumb where working biologists and geologists, including Christians, have debunked the pseudoscience peddled by creationists.  And you should talk to some actual scientists and you should talk to some scientists who are Christians who know that ID is baloney, and you should talk to some Christians who aren’t scientists but who recognize that evolution is the real deal and ID is a political game.  Here are their names: ….”

So frigging simple. 

Ms. Badkehn does not talk to a single genuine biologist about “ID theory” buy does quote several pro-creationism twits.  For example, Ms. Badkhen includes this nugget which would be hilarious if it weren’t so damn sad

Patricia Nason at the Institute for Creation Research, the world leader in creation science, said her organization and other activist groups are encouraging people who share their conservative religious beliefs to seek positions on local boards.

“World leader in creation science”?  Where did Ms. Badkhen get that information?  Let me guess … from Ms. Nason?

Ms. Badkhen doesn’t say anything more about the Institute for Creation Science, nor she inclined to wonder why the leader of this “creation science” insitute seems to believe that only “conservative” and “religious” people are inclined to accept the veracity of this “world-leading” Institute’s “scientific” work product.

The bottom line here is that we need to get some well-spoken hard-hitting advocates out there communicating our message instead of weak proponents like Eugenie Scott who don’t seem aware of the fact that neither they nor the integrity of the science whose instruction they are entrusted to defend, being taken seriously the reporters to whom they speak.

If Scott is all we got, then shit let’s just flush the public school system and its associated inherent intractable problems down the frigging toilet. Sandefur has already written its obituary so he can have his final post and we can all go home.

Yes, I’m in a bad mood today.

Comment #10964

Posted by charlie wagner on November 30, 2004 02:36 PM (e) (s)

Michael Sprague wrote:

That millions of American students leave high school with little to no understanding of evolution represents a failure on the part of our school system and our biology teachers.

  Once again, it depends on what you mean by “evolution”. There is a factual component to evolution and their is an ideological component. What exactly is it that you want taught? That living species have changed over time? That all living things are related and probably had a common origin? That all living organisms are descended from one common ancestor? That natural selection is the mechanism of evolution? That life evolved by the slow accumulation of fortuitous mutations over a long period of time? That there was no component of intelligent input in the evolution of living organisms? That life evolved here on earth de novo from the chemicals that were present on a primordal earth?
  You see the problem? Who decides what evolution is, and who decides what percentage of each component is taught? The way I approach it is to stick to the facts. Mutations occur, and I would discuss in detail the processes involved. Natural selection is a reality and gene frequencies do change under selective pressure. But there isn’t a shred of plausible evidence that these trivial processes can be extrapolated to highly organized structures, processes and systems by any known mechanism that does not require intelligent input.

Comment #10965

Posted by charlie wagner on November 30, 2004 02:48 PM (e) (s)

Katarina wrote:

I have considered your advice but I am deeply influenced by evolutionary theory and I see it everywhere. I believe it is central to biology and the best scientific explanation for life. It would be dishonest to avoid it because it is difficult. If some teachers choose to do so, it won’t be me.

  With all due respect, (and I’m making some assumptions) you seem to be quite sure of yourself on this matter. Yet, it’s possible that you have not taken any advanced courses in biological sciences and do not hold any advanced degrees in these areas. It is also possible that you do not read scientific journals on a regular basis or work as a researcher in the field.
  My question is not meant to be pejorative in any way, but I’m just curious. Where did this “deep influence”, great insight and wisdom come from? Have you read anything by anyone who doesn’t agree with you?

Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…

Comment #10966

Posted by charlie wagner on November 30, 2004 02:56 PM (e) (s)

Shaggy Maniac wrote:

Please give me an example of biology that is not informed and influenced by evolutionary theory?

There are no branches of biology that *are* informed and influenced by evolutionary theory, so take your pick. In fact, it’s quite the other way around. Evolutionary theory, such as it is, is constantly being changed, modified and adjusted to conform to new biological principles as they are elucidated.

Comment #10969

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 03:27 PM (e) (s)

Charlie:

Though I should probably know better than to ask, please tell me why, in your evolution-free biology, it should be any more useful to run drug trials on Rhesus monkeys, than, say, octopi?

Shaggy

Comment #10970

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 03:31 PM (e) (s)

“The way I approach it is to stick to the facts.”

Without an organizing framework on which to hang those facts, one wonders what, if anything, students learned over those 33 years other than than “biology” is a catalogue of trivial information.

Comment #10971

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 30, 2004 03:41 PM (e) (s)

Fyi, Bob Somerby has another informative educational post today on how our media is woefully unprepared or simply refuses to address the views expressed by prominent religious political figures.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh113004.shtml

But then, less-than-great journalism is the norm when Big Major Pundits limn the religious. Consider Brooks’ discussion of John Stott in this morning’s column. “If evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott is the person they would likely choose,” Brooks writes. Shouldn’t, then, the gentleman’s views be subject to normal analysis?

We’d like to know more about Stott’s views. But Brooks doesn’t seem to be up to the task. In paragraph 10, he describes Stott’s thinking:
———————-
BROOKS (11/30/04): Most important, he does not believe truth is plural. He does not believe in relativizing good and evil or that all faiths are independently valid, or that truth is something humans are working toward. Instead, Truth has been revealed. As he writes:
”It is not because we are ultra-conservative, or obscurantist, or reactionary or the other horrid things which we are sometimes said to be. It is rather because we love Jesus Christ, and because we are determined, God helping us, to bear witness to his unique glory and absolute sufficiency. In Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ God’s revelation is complete; to add any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ.”
——————

Stott “doesn’t believe that truth is plural?” We don’t really know what that means. Nor do we understand the murky but pleasing phrase, “relativizing good and evil.” And Stott doesn’t believe “that truth is something humans are working toward?” We especially don’t understand that claim. Indeed, we don’t understand it because we read paragraph 8, in which Brooks seemed to say something different:
————————-
BROOKS (11/30/04): There’s been a lot of twaddle written recently about the supposed opposition between faith and reason. To read Stott is to see someone practicing ”thoughtful allegiance” to scripture. For him, Christianity means probing the mysteries of Christ. He is always exploring paradoxes. Jesus teaches humility, so why does he talk about himself so much? What does it mean to gain power through weakness, or freedom through obedience? In many cases the truth is not found in the middle of apparent opposites, but on both extremes simultaneously.
————————

Say what? If Stott is constantly “probing the mysteries of Christ” and “exploring paradoxes,” what does it mean when we’re told, two paragraphs later, that he doesn’t believe “that truth is something humans are working toward?” Please note: This isn’t a criticism of Stott, a man whose views may make perfect sense. It’s a criticism of the great journalists who pen pleasing twaddle about public religion. In what way is “God’s revelation complete” if Stott has to struggle to figure it out? There are real “oppositions between faith and reason,” but well-mannered journalists—scribes like Brooks—seem to know not to point this fact out.

Do you see how easy it is for Bob Somerby to ask the right questions?  Bob Somerby is a professional comedian when he’s not writing his blog.  David Brooks and Tim Russert are millionaire “professional” journalists (Russert lives on Nantucket Island with some of the fattest media air-blowers).  Somehow when it comes to asking questions about how and why religious views should inform rational public discourse, these millionaire professionals find themselves not up to the task (of course, there are other moments when Big Tim and li’l Davey find themselves unable to ask a decent question, but that’s an issue for another blog).

Comment #10973

Posted by Russell on November 30, 2004 03:58 PM (e) (s)

“There are no branches of biology that are informed and influenced by evolutionary theory.” Charlie Wagner

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution”  Theodosius Dobzhansky

It’s a tough call, but I think I’ll go with Theo on this one.

Comment #10975

Posted by Michael Sprague on November 30, 2004 04:19 PM (e) (s)

Charlie Wagner wrote:

But there isn’t a shred of plausible evidence that these trivial processes can be extrapolated to highly organized structures, processes and systems by any known mechanism that does not require intelligent input.

Not even a shred? Are you nuts?

And what kind of “mechanism” are you looking for? Natural selection *is* the mechanism. That’s the whole point. The reason why evolution is important for biology is that natural selection - as a mechanism - explains many curious things. “Intelligent input” isn’t a mechanism, and doesn’t explain anything. It’s a cop out.

Comment #10976

Posted by Michael Sprague on November 30, 2004 04:21 PM (e) (s)

Charlie Wagner wrote:

But there isn’t a shred of plausible evidence that these trivial processes can be extrapolated to highly organized structures, processes and systems by any known mechanism that does not require intelligent input.

Not even a shred? Are you nuts?

And what kind of “mechanism” are you looking for? Natural selection *is* the mechanism. That’s the whole point. The reason why evolution is important for biology is that natural selection - as a mechanism - explains many curious things. “Intelligent input” isn’t a mechanism, and doesn’t explain anything. It’s a cop out.

Comment #10978

Posted by charlie wagner on November 30, 2004 04:37 PM (e) (s)

Shaggy Maniac wrote:

Though I should probably know better than to ask, please tell me why, in your evolution-free biology, it should be any more useful to run drug trials on Rhesus monkeys, than, say, octopi?

  Because Rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than are octopi. What’s your point?

Comment #10979

Posted by roger tang on November 30, 2004 04:47 PM (e) (s)

Isn’t Charlie the gentleman who thought you didn’t need equations to deal with the specifics of entropy and thermodynamics? For someone who so misunderstands the basic concepts, a declaration of “dealing only with the facts” is not very reassuring.

Comment #10980

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 05:00 PM (e) (s)

Charlie Wagner,

Are you lashing out at me becasue you are under attack for giving me the advice you did?

I do not have an advanced degree. I am an undergraduate student. I have read some ID literature. I liked all the comments you have made, and I have thought about your advice as something you say to me from experience and possibly, wisdom.

I am happy just to sit back and watch you continue the debate, as obviously I am not qualified to speak to you. I am here to learn.

Comment #10983

Posted by anand sarwate on November 30, 2004 05:18 PM (e) (s)

sbstory asked me to post this…

Does someone have reference for the quote about how Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory?

I’m a grad student working on information theory and that was pretty
ridiculous.  I wanted to send it to my research group for laughs…

Comment #10984

Posted by caerbannog on November 30, 2004 05:45 PM (e) (s)

“Does someone have reference for the quote about how Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory?”

Clear all the hot coffee from your mouth/throat before reading on…

(from http://www.designinference.com/inteldes.htm…)


“William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His “law of conservation of information” represents a revolutionary breakthrough. In Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Dembski explains the meaning and significance of his discoveries with such clarity that the general public can readily grasp them. He convincingly diagnoses our present confusions about the relationship between science and theology and offers a promising alternative.”

Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

Comment #10985

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 05:49 PM (e) (s)

By the way, I have done some research in the field of ophthalmology, but it was some while ago. We looked at transgenic mice who had retinitis pigmentosa and analyzed the proteins involved in the disease that leads to blindness. Even with that small amount of experience, all the junk DNA I saw when sequencing was not explainable by anything but evolution.

My initial inspiration came from my own high school biology teachers, who were brave, though cautious not to offend anyone. Still, many students were offended.

Currently I am a little busy with small children to be as deeply involved in this issue as I would like. That is why I said I mostly sit back and only come to this website for quick reference. The reason I blogged was that I wanted to get people’s opinion on this word “chance” and how it is unknown to both science and religion. I didn’t mean to get so involved. Oh well!

Comment #10986

Posted by Ginger Yellow on November 30, 2004 05:58 PM (e) (s)

Because Rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than are octopi. What’s your point?

Um, how about: for the proposition “Rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than are octopi” to have any biological meaning, you must accept common descent.

Comment #10988

Posted by charlie wagner on November 30, 2004 06:19 PM (e) (s)

Ginger Yellow wrote:

Um, how about: for the proposition “Rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than are octopi” to have any biological meaning, you must accept common descent.

  Or at least common origins. I have no problem with that. It says nothing at all about the mechanism. For all we know, intelligent input could be perfectly compatible with common origins. My issue is with random processes such as mutation and natural selection.

Comment #10989

Posted by shiva on November 30, 2004 06:24 PM (e) (s)

Katarina,

The contribution of evolution deniers to science is zero. Apart from the unnintended laughter it provokes it isn’t good for anything else. You can safely ignore Charlie Wagner’s advice and suggestions on developing your teaching career and lesson plans in the life sciences. There are plenty of teachers (most of who can be found in public schools) whose lesson plans are not worth discussing. Pseudoscientists post here on PT quite often. And the evolution of their population as posters here provides us an interesting example of evolution in action. Some have gone extinct - lacking the adaptability to survive in an intensely scientific environment. Others have adapted and are more cautious about what they post. Maybe they are actually learning something here?

Anand Sarwate,
I am not sure if you have so much time to waste. There’s a lot of coursework to do. If you want laughs why not rent a DVD rather than waste your time on the drivellous Dembski?

Comment #10990

Posted by charlie wagner on November 30, 2004 06:33 PM (e) (s)

Katarina wrote:

all the junk DNA I saw when sequencing was not explainable by anything but evolution.

  You are apparently way behind the curve on this. In the past few years, major advances have been made in the understanding of the non-coding DNA. New functions are being elucidated at a rapid rate and the term “junk DNA”, which had originally been described as “molecular garbage, left over from evolution” has mostly been discarded.

Comment #10991

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on November 30, 2004 06:42 PM (e) (s)

I think it’s a wonderful idea to debate Creationists, to write endorsements for their books, call them friends, pal around with them, and even be their professors.  I think creationitsts already have legitimacy in most people’s minds.

I would like to quote one of the brightest contributor’s to PandasThumb, Jason Rosenhouse:

….it is creationism that is the dominant and mainstream viewpoint. We are the ones having trouble getting our message out
…..
We are past the point where we must worry about adding legitimacy to creationism. It is already viewed as legitimate by a majority of Americans. I suspect if you held a vote asking people if they wanted ID taught alongside evolution as a legitimate scientific theory, evolution would lose in every state in the union.

See :  Is Debating a Creationist a Good Idea?

And why stop with Ruse??? Sheesh, who else contributed to that creationist book by Dembski but Ken Miller, Elliot Sober, Francisco Ayala, and Robert Pencock. 

And well by golly, at Paul Gross’s school, is host to one of the best college ID clubs in the East Coast….

Ruse calls creationists friends.  In Evolution and the Spontaneous Generation Debate Ruse says, “My good friends and longtime opponents, the Creationists”. He wasn’t kidding.

Ruse even gave an endorsement of No Free Lunch:

“I disagree strongly with the position taken by William Dembski. But I do think that he argues strongly and that those of us who do not accept his conclusions should read his book and form our own opinions and counterarguments. He should not be ignored.”

Then there is Ruse and William Provine who spoke at the Biola ID Conference 2004.  William Provine said in Provine Johnson 1994

Phil is definitely a friend of mine, and that’s something you need to understand. We get up here, argue like everything, and then have dinner and a beer together afterwards.

Or how about our man Wesley:

As a veteran of a few debates with the “intelligent design” opposition (I presented at the 1997 Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise conference, paired with William Dembski at the 2001 CTNS Interpreting Evolution conference, and was on a panel at the 4th World Skeptics Conference in 2002),

So Wesley Debates them.  That’s a good thing. And Wesley’s one of the best guys here at PandasThumb. Wesley also teamed up with Jeffrey Shallit in writing a chapter in Matt Young’s book.  This is interesting because not only does Shallit try to refute an IDist, many years ago, Shallit gave an IDist his ideas:

Dembski Writes in his book Design Inference:

Dembski writes:

As for computational complexity theory, I was introduced to it during the academic year 1987-88, a year devoted to cryptography at the computer science department of the University of Chicago. Jeff Shallit, Adi Shamir, and Claus Schnorr were present that year and helped me gain my footing.

And then we have Stephen J. Gould giving a PhD to Creationist Kurt Wise. 

So not only do evolutionist debate creationists, they pal around with them, help write their books, endorse their books, and even be their professors, they even, and here’s the kicker, help sell creationist books: antievolution and NCSE Bookstore

So from the IDist at ARN to the crew here at PandasThumb. Greetings.

Comment #10992

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 06:44 PM (e) (s)

Charlie,

I am vaguely aware of recent advances in understanding -excuse me- previously called “junk DNA.” I have not used the terminology for a few years, but I know that this new information about all that non-coding DNA shows evidence for evolution even more strongly! That it may be a remnant of DNA that at some earlier evolutionary stage did code for something, before mutations moved it aside. Am I totally off the mark? Like I said, I am here to learn so, someone please enlighten me.

Comment #10993

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on November 30, 2004 06:56 PM (e) (s)

Charlie,

Be a gentleman to Katarina, don’t interrogate her.

Katarina:

Shiva wrote to Katarina:

And the evolution of their population as posters here provides us an interesting example of evolution in action. Some have gone extinct

Not really. I’m still here.

Katarina one of the main guys here at PandasThumb is Paul Gross. His school, UVa, is host to one of the brightest up-and-coming ID clubs in Virginia.  There are biology grad and undergrad students there who are creationists.  See:

IDEA at UVA

Creationist biologists are graduating from respectable schools in larger numbers than before.  Creationism is the mainstream in the hearts and minds of the average American.  When you become a teacher, if their are creationists children in your classes who want to study biology and become doctors because they believe the world is the work of a Divine creator rather than Darwinian processes, I plead with you not to go out of your way destroy their faith or belief in creationism, but rather respect their beliefs.  Last, but not least, the little evangelicals in your classroom might be right after all…..

I would like to introduce you to some other young college students.  Here them announce themselves: here

cheers,
Salvador

Comment #10994

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 07:09 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Cordova,

You are so kind to come to my rescue. I am afraid I should have stopped commenting long ago, but people keep writing to me and I feel I have to respond. Most probably want me out of here by now, but this is my last comment, really.

I realise how important it is not to tread on anyone’s belief. The belief that God is the creator cannot be proven or disproven, it is just that, a belief.

The tools he used to create, I think are most likely those of evolution. Not that those tools are above him ( I don’t know, would he have to obey laws of physics?). Anyway, there are so many possibilities. I am, have always been, respectful of the diversity of beliefs that is out there.

While I will most certainly stick to the theory of evolution as theory and fact, I will not present it in a way that violates tender young minds who believe what they believe. Maybe their belief will just have to become more complex.

By the way, I am not that young, I am raising a family and hence, got a little side-tracked in my college education but I am steadily completing my program part-time.

Thanks for your invitation, I will look at the link. Maybe if ID is willing to disavow Dembski I may re-consider it.

Comment #10995

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 30, 2004 07:14 PM (e) (s)

Ken Miller, Elliot Sober, Francisco Ayala, and Robert Pencock

Oh my god!  Those are my idols!

Will Provine?  Wesley Elsberry? Ruse?  Shallit?  Why, those guys are the living backbone of the modern evolutionist movement!!!!  Without them, Darwin would be a footnote in the history books!  PZ Myers would be studying the Bible at Wheaton if it weren’t for Elliot Sober’s brilliant and formative contributions to evolutionary biology!!!

The horror! The horror!

Seriously, Salvador, you continue to be a one-trick clueless jerkoff.  Have you already run out of fundamentalist Jesus freaks to recite your script to?

It’s no surprise that Salvador believes the behavior of these authors is relevant to the question of whether “intelligent design” theory is worthless bullcrap or not.  As a creationist, Salvador must rely on various broken personalities who coincidentally have degrees in math or some sort of biology to help give his brand of pseudoscience that air of credibility.  How else to distract the eternally genuflecting cross-clutching morons on the street from the latest airing of John Edwards’ TV show except to interupt with an urgent message from a “real” scientist warning us all of the secular humanist invasion?

This is interesting because not only does Shallit try to refute an IDist, many years ago, Shallit gave an IDist his ideas:

Oy.  So pathetic.  Here’s something equally interesting for Salvador to ponder (if only was capable of pondering):

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=35950

Mijailo Mijailovic says he had no political motive to kill Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. He says that he didn’t plan to do it beforehand and was commanded by Jesus to murder her. He used a knife that has a 10 centimeter long blade. 

He says: “It was a coincidence that I happened to see her. It could also have been someone else.” He adds that he heard voices in his head which belong to Jesus. Since the murder, he has seen a psychiatrist.

What is the difference between Mijailo and Salvador?  Mijailo is honest and is seeking help. 

Salvador, on the other hand, is a lying ass who will keep repeating his argument about Dembski’s “inspiration” even after it’s been explained to him that his argument is irrelevant illogical crapola, much like a mentally ill person clings to various fantasies in order to make it through the day.  How do I know this?  Because it has already happened several times.

Comment #10996

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 30, 2004 07:37 PM (e) (s)

Salvador reduced to begging asks someone

I plead with you not to go out of your way destroy their faith or belief in creationism, but rather respect their beliefs.

Respect their beliefs, Salvador, or your belief that evolutionary biologists are deluded lying sacks of crap who are being used as pawns by secular humanist atheists who want to destroy the traditional fabric of the country?

As you’ve been told numerous times, Salvador, there are at least as many Christians and other religious people who understand the facts about evolution and who are still (impossibly?) able to have faith in a deity.  I respectfully submit that those people understand some things about faith, Salvador, which small-minded dishonest fakers like you choose to ignore.  Indeed, phony Christians of your ilk go out of their way to suggest that Christians who mind their own business and know the difference between science and faith are living a lie.

You live in a protected bubble, Salvador, because your bigotry and ignorance is tolerated here (on this blog) and elsewhere (wherever you allegedly teach) with a generosity that far exceeds any value you provide.  Why such generosity is afforded you is largely a reflection of how people in this country were raised to believe that “religious beliefs” deserve a sort of respect that is different from other arbitrary irrational beliefs (e.g., racist beliefs).

Rest assured, that will change.  At the end of the day, truth will prevail over your religious claptrap.  There may be a lot of idiots in the world who are willing to tell some pollster that they believe in some bogus pseudoscientific theory that they don’t understand.  BUt there are far fewer pathologically lying charlatans like you who will continue to press forth long after their pants have been pulled down to their ankles and their microscopic hairless privates are exposed for all to see.

Comment #11004

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 30, 2004 08:40 PM (e) (s)

When are we going to be teaching telepathy to our public school students?  Why are we keeping this information from them?  What are scientists trying to hide?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/30/crime.crow.reut/index.html

Kappos said he “super-hydrates” himself by drinking at least 2 gallons of water, which he says improves “nerve conduction velocity” and lets him have telepathic conversations with Crow.

The water, Kappos said,