Comment #16127

Posted by RBH on February 13, 2005 10:08 PM (e) (s)

Given the reasoning in the Federal Court’s ruling on the Cobb County, GA, stickers, the record of the Feb 1 public meeting is a valuable resource.

RBH

Comment #16128

Posted by Les Lane on February 13, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)

“eminent scientists” - Discovery Institute idealogues

Glossary definition for those unfamiliar with Calvert

Comment #16131

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 13, 2005 11:34 PM (e) (s)

Jack writes

The religious stakes here are as significant as the scientific and educational stakes.

The stakes for anyone who believes that human lives and ideas have meanings which can be articulated without resort to the Christian Bible are substantial.

Calvert wrote

We also need theologians who can rebut the argument of the Christian biology teacher that there is no conflict between evolution or naturalism and Christianity.

Spoken like the first Christian Ayatollah of the United States!  Amen, Calvert!

I’ve seen Joe Carter and his flock float or quote this sort of argument at least a hundred times over at the Evangelical Outpost.  It’s a popular fundamentalist script: “My ‘worldview’ is more consistent than yours because [insert incoherent argument here] therefore either I’m right and science is religion, or your life is meaningless.”

Just lovely.

We need someone to explain the two logical conflicts that allow Dawkins to claim to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and that precludes a Christian from making the same claim.

If I were an educated Christian who knew that evolution was good science or a Christian who simply trusted what the vast majority of biologists say about evolution, I’d be furious at insults like this.  According to Calvert, if I simply agree with all the world’s experts on this subject, I’m either “illogical” (see argument above) or not a Christian.

Calvert should drop by and outline the “logical arguments” he expects his expert “theologians” to recite.  I’m intrigued (and somewhat amused) that he needs to hire “elites” to decipher Jesus’ position on evolutionary biology.

But he won’t bother dropping by.  He knows very well how bogus his “arguments” are and he knows that his hired gun theologians get weak knees unless they’re preaching to the choir.

Comment #16133

Posted by Joshua Rosenau on February 14, 2005 12:20 AM (e) (s)

I like how they ignore the fact that Kansas has lots of great evolution experts, like Ed Wiley, and of course, Jack Krebs and the rest of the Science standards committee, and the fact that the scientific community has offered a clear statement in favor of evolution science and against intelligent design.

These expert hearings, and the illegal meetings on stickers, are particularly rich coming from a movement that uses “hearing all voices” as their most compelling argument for IDC in schools.

Comment #16134

Posted by Colin on February 14, 2005 12:22 AM (e) (s)

RBH has an excellent point.  It always behooves anyone in a position to do so to record these meetings, or better yet to make sure that a transcript is entered into whatever official record exists.  Such records can be extremely important in legal actions later; courts need to be able to see into the motives of the authors of creationist laws and regulations, and the more information is available as a public record or otherwise entered into evidence, the better.

Comment #16136

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 14, 2005 12:58 AM (e) (s)

Again I wonder:  Is there no legal process to follow?  The addition of committees in the approval proces — is that legal?  There are at least two legal issues I see:  Authorization and appropriation.  Unless the process of the extra committees has a clear legal basis, it’s simply not allowed.  And either way, from where does this agency get the extra money to finance these operations?  Who appropriated it?

And, to the extent that any of these hearings are to be used for official decision-making, the agency is responsible for created complete transcripts, in most states, and certainly in the federal government.

It’s also interesting to note that there is no science agency asking for these ultra vires operations.  Heck, for that matter, there doesn’t appear to be any religious agency asking, either.

There’s a whiff of scandal here.  Do Kansas state agencies have inspectors general?

Comment #16142

Posted by FL on February 14, 2005 01:31 AM (e) (s)

I found this part of Calvert’s report interesting as well:

Once again, (reporter Diane Carroll’s) coverage is very accurate and balanced. Although most of the opposition characterized the Proposals as seeking to teach ID and Religion, Diane makes their intentions clear:

“The eight committee members proposing the changes say intelligent design is too new to be taught. Instead, they are asking that students study evolution more carefully to become aware of the questions that they say it does not answer. They also contend that the current definition of science limits inquiry, because it allows only natural explanations. They propose changing it to encourage students to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

How the media presents such a story as this one is always important.
I like the way Carroll accurately reports here on what’s being actually proposed and the reasons offered. 

It really does constitute a serious misrepresentation for pro-evolution people to characterize the current proposals as seeking to teach ID and religion, when in fact the proposals are clearly not doing so. 

FL

Comment #16144

Posted by FL on February 14, 2005 02:39 AM (e) (s)

Calvert also wrote,

We also need theologians who can rebut the argument of the Christian biology teacher that there is no conflict between evolution or naturalism and Christianity. We need someone to explain the two logical conflicts that allow Dawkins to claim to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and that precludes a Christian from making the same claim.

Although I’m not a theologian, I find that statement to be a fascinating invitation, especially in light of some of the pro-evolution comments on the transcript Jack provided.

When I read stuff like the transcript testimony of Rachel Robson, who says “As a Christian, I know that there is absolutely no conflict between Evolution and my faith, or between naturalistic science and the Christian religion,” I instinctively want to ask, “But how do you know that there’s absolutely no conflict?”

I strongly suspect that there’s some very real, very intense, very irreconcilable conflict in there, but it would take a bit of digging to bring it to light and explain it.

That’s why Calvert is calling for theologians to address the issue (but imo, any person would do, as long as they can locate the answer(s) and boil it down to two minutes of plain-English explanation.  I don’t know if I can do so right now, but that’s an issue I’d like to explore further.)

FL

Comment #16145

Posted by ts on February 14, 2005 02:51 AM (e) (s)

Instead, they are asking that students study evolution more carefully to become aware of the questions that they say it does not answer.

They are asking that students be tauught their position.  Since their position is religiously motivated, they are asking that religion be taught.  Students are already taught to study evolution, like all subjects carefully; “more” carefully means directing them to keep studying it until they come to the conclusion the IDers want them to come to — it can mean nothing else.  And that creates a bias — it carries with it a prior assumption that IDers are right.  It is anti-scientific.

They also contend that the current definition of science limits inquiry, because it allows only natural explanations. They propose changing it to encourage students to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

Empirical evidence by its nature is naturalistic and can only play a role in naturalistic explanations; that’s why science is sometimes characterized as applying “methodological naturalism”.  If anything, this proposal undermines the nature of religious faith by suggesting that it is falsifiable through evidence found in the natural world.

It really does constitute a serious misrepresentation for pro-evolution people to characterize the current proposals as seeking to teach ID and religion, when in fact the proposals are clearly not doing so.

That’s funny coming from an intellectually dishonest sophist troll who lives on misrepresentation.

Comment #16148

Posted by Jack Krebs on February 14, 2005 07:07 AM (e) (s)

to Ed: in Kansas the state BOE is self-governing, so unless they break the law, there is no higher authority: they can break their own policies with impunity if they have the votes.

Also FL who writes,

“As a Christian, I know that there is absolutely no conflict between Evolution and my faith, or between naturalistic science and the Christian religion,” I instinctively want to ask, “But how do you know that there’s absolutely no conflict?”

She certainly can speak with certianty about evolution and her own faith, although I agree she cannot accurately say that there is no conflict “between naturalistic science and the Christian religion,” because obviously Christians don’t agree on his issue.

But that’s the point - the issue is theological, not scientific.  As I wrote (and I stole the phrase from a friend on another list), ID advances the cause of religions which don’t accept evolution and inhibits (and in fact at times denounces) those that do accept evolution.  This is a religion vs. religion battle - Christians vs. Christians (and others.)

Comment #16150

Posted by Keanus on February 14, 2005 08:30 AM (e) (s)

FL makes it clear that in his view Diane Carroll’s reporting…

“They [the ID supporting minority of the science standards committee]also contend that the current definition of science limits inquiry, because it allows only natural explanations. They propose changing it to encourage students to ‘follow the evidence wherever it leads.’”

…accurately reflects a thoroughly scientific approach to the issue in Kansas. However, the references to “…only natural explanations…”and “…follow the evidence wherever it leads…”only beg the questions “what are the alternatives?” and “where does it lead?” The copious public writings of FL’s “eminent scientists” make clear the what and the where are one, ID.

Further in glorious contradiction, FL in arguing for ID as a science asserts…

That’s why Calvert is calling for theologians to address the issue…and boil it down to two minutes of plain-English explanation.

If that doesn’t clarify the issue raised by the minority on the science standards committee as religious, I don’t know what more is needed. Calvert’s and FL clearly view the issue as religion vs. religion and that should be debated at seminaries and in the pulpit, not before a state education committee of any type.

Jack Krebs notes that the BOE is self-governing and can make any policy they want, if they have the votes. But surely aren’t there sunshine laws that require public meetings, transcripts, and the like? With an ad hoc committee I smell the prospect of closed hearings with a stacked deck of selected witnesses and no transcripts. Bear in mind that the Dover School Board in Pennsylvania, despite state rules about transcripts and notes on all meetings, destroyed their recordings of the board meetings at which the local newspapers reported the discussion sometimes veered to arguing for support for Jesus. I don’t know the exact wording of Pennsylvania law, but I suspect that the board destroyed their tapes will play some kind of role in the court case now pending.

Comment #16152

Posted by Lurker on February 14, 2005 08:58 AM (e) (s)

It’s a real problem for you KCFS people…  These Christian adults that are anti-science, anti-evolution have a weekly continuing education program for training conformity to an ideological base.  And you are not even coming close to being competitive with such a platform.  Just reading the transcript, one can notice this serious imbalance.  They all repeat the same mistakes using the same catch phrases and sound bites.  Is it even remotely possible that all  these people can conjure up the same mistakes all by themselves?

In the politics of science, I think gaining accessibility to those disseminators of bad science remains the key issue towards defeating anti-science fervor.  Do you even know who they are?  Addressing it may be a more important outcome than these short-lived victories against Creationist school boards.

Comment #16153

Posted by Tristram on February 14, 2005 09:01 AM (e) (s)

And speaking of Dover, Pennsylvania, keep in mind the nasty outbreak of amnesia of convenience suffered by those board members when giving deposition.  Fortunately, two local newspapers recorded some of the comments, and William Buckingham was caught on videotape saying precisely what he swore he did not say.

Comment #16154

Posted by Right on February 14, 2005 09:40 AM (e) (s)

WWJD?  Lie apparently.

Comment #16173

Posted by DaveScot on February 14, 2005 11:17 AM (e) (s)

Typical extrapolation

9  I have read the proposed changes to

10  the science standards from the

11  Intelligent Design promoters, and am

12  very much against their acceptance.  As

13  a microbiologist, I watch bacteria

14  change into resistant bacteria from

15  sensitive, and I know that change, over

16  time, is a fact; it is not an unproven

17  theory.

Excuse me, ma’am, but an antibiotic resistant bacteria is still a bacteria.  What evidence have you that the same mechanism that explains antibiotic resistance drove the process that turned bacteria into bacteriologists?

Sheesh.  Gimme a giant break.

Comment #16178

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 14, 2005 11:41 AM (e) (s)

What evidence have you that the same mechanism that explains antibiotic resistance drove the process that turned bacteria into bacteriologists?

Time it takes for antibiotic sensitive bacteria in a population to die when exposed to antibiotic: 1 hour.

Time it took for humans to evolve: at least about 1x10^16 hours.

Seems reasonable to me and the vast majority of experts (i.e, people with some knowledge of biology).

But DaveScot, a mediocre computer programmer, thinks some mysterious alien beings must have done it.  10,000,000,000,000,000 hours is just not long enough!!!

So, how long did your mysterious alien beings take to evolve, Dave? 

And how long did they take to design all the life forms that ever lived on earth (according to your “theory”).  Don’t forget to state your assumptions.

Comment #16188

Posted by Jason on February 14, 2005 12:59 PM (e) (s)

Calvert states,

One thing is obvious. This is not the proper process for deciding this issue. Focused hearings from experts are desperately needed to cut through the misinformation, ridicule and half truths.

It would have helped to have more scientists on our side. If that had been the case we would have won the debate hands down. As it was, the objective observer would leave scratching his head.

It looks like the “Big Tent” philosophy is going to come back and bite the IDCists in the butt.

It’s like Calvert is saying, “Don’t these rubes know that when they’re in public they can’t argue our side in religious terms because it establishes a religious motivation for what we’re trying to do here?  Is there a way we shut these people up but still enjoy their support?”

Comment #16190

Posted by GCT on February 14, 2005 01:18 PM (e) (s)

FL and others continually try to make a lot of use out of Dawkins’ famous comment about being an “intellectually fulfilled atheist,” but always fail to really examine it’s meaning.  Further, they try to argue that Evolution (Darwinism) is religiously based because it is atheistic and therefore should not get more consideration than their Christian based ID idea, while at the same time trying to state that ID is not religiously based.  But, the IDists trying to have their cake and eat it too is not at all original.

The point to this post, however, is to examine Dawkins’ quote.  Up until Darwin, all science on the issue had to be based on religion.  After Darwin, there was finally an explanation for things that was neutral on religion, thus providing, finally, a way for one who is atheist to have an explanation of the world that did not rely on god.  In other words, having something that is neutral to religion means that one does not have to profess faith in god in order to study the science, thus it became possible for one who does not believe in god to be intellectually fulfilled.  It does not mean that evolution is atheistic, only that it is neutral to religion.

Comment #16195

Posted by Uber on February 14, 2005 01:49 PM (e) (s)

‘According to Calvert, if I simply agree with all the world’s experts on this subject, I’m either “illogical” (see argument above) or not a Christian.’

This is what gets me. Not to start an argument, but to be a scientist and a Christian is abit illogical. It means in one aspect of your life you follow logic and reason, the scientific method etc, while in a completely different sphere you accept people flying around, snakes talking, and people dead for days returning to life and THEN flying away. When a Christian says they are a logical person, they are not really being forthright in this area. It takes a certain illogic to buy any of it. Its a spectrum.

So yes in some aspect you are illogical. I’m not saying it is bad, but it is so nontheless.

Comment #16196

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 14, 2005 01:56 PM (e) (s)

Short microbiology primer for DaveScot and other interested parties:

Known mechanisms of aqcuired resistance to antibiotics in bacteria

1. Target mutation - antibiotic can no longer bind to target structure, e.g. cell-wall synthesizing PBPs for penicillins, or ribosomal proteins for streptomycin/chloramphenicol etc. Target mutation (target still functional) usually point mutation leading to single amino acid substitution in antibiotic binding site.

2. Permeability or accessibility of antibiotic (to cellular targets) decreased - e.g. OMP (outer membrane porin) mutations in Gram negative bacteria, restricting access of (some) readily water-soluble substances to the periplasm, plasma membrane or cytoplasm.

3. Active transport of antibiotic from the cell - e.g. due to increased activity of membrane-bound proteinaceous multidrug efflux pumps. Numerous such systems have been described in Gram negatives and Gram positives (these pumps, interestingly, typically have overlapping substrate specificities and parts of the pump complexes can have several functions like the TolC part of the AcrAB/TolC complex…but I digress ;-). Increased activity can be due to loss of negative regulation such as point mutations or deletions in the mar repressor, which normally keeps the level of multidrug efflux pumps “in check” in the absence of certain chemical stimuli (the mar repressor is inactivated by the binding of salicylate, or the active substance in aspirin, if you will).

A “special case” of antibiotic transport is the tetracyclin pump, a membrane-bound protein that pumps this specific antibiotic (active against bacterial ribosomes and thereby their protein synthesis) out of the cell faster than it enters the cell. The resistant bacterium carries the tet resistance gene, which can be chromosomal or carried on a plasmid or even a transposon. In all cases, the gene can be acquired through lateral (horizontal) gene transfer, from another member of the same species, or even other species. Several mechanisms of lateral gene transfer are known in bacteria, and have been demonstrated in the lab as well as in the field. Look up “transformation”, “conjugation” and “transduction”. Google search will do.

4. Chemical inactivation (modification) of the antibiotic, e.g. beta-lactamase, an enzyme that inactivates penicillin. Notably, beta-lactamase is very similar - in structure as well as in function - to the normal target for penicillin, the PBP (penicillin binding protein), an enzyme that partakes in the synthesis of the bacterial cell wall. The important difference is that PBP is “killed” in the process of trying to digest penicillin (it is “frozen” in an intermediate step of the enzyme reaction mechanism) whereas beta-lactamase can carry out the complete reaction. The similarities between beta-lactamase and PBP is mirrored in the structural likeness between penicillin (it has a peculiar structure indeed) and part of the cell wall building block that is normally bound and processed by PBP. It is feasible to assume that beta-lactamase and PBP are derived from common ancestral gene(s) or perhaps that beta-lactamase has evolved (sic!) from PBP. Inactivation genes can be chromosomal, plasmid- or transposon-bound, and can be transferred by the same mechanisms as described above.

Need I go on..? We have, i) point mutation, ii) (insertion)/deletion, iii) pleiotropic (affecting multiple traits) regulatory pathway mutation, iv) horizontal gene transfer including known “vehicles”…and that´s just in bacteria :-) There´s plenty of evidence that these mechanisms (together) can not only provide variation for natural selection to act upon (antibiotic resistant bacteria, notably those that carry multiple resistance genes on transferrable plasmids, are more abundant in the antibiotic-rich milieu, e.g. hospitals) but also drives speciation. Do a PubMed search on “pathogenicity island” and “shigella”:

…turns up, among others, this little gem:

Luck et al. (2004) Excision of the Shigella resistance locus pathogenicity island in Shigella flexneri is stimulated by a member of a new subgroup of recombination directionality factors. J Bacteriol. (2004) 186(16):5551-5554.

as well as this one:

Turner et al. (2004) Role of attP in integrase-mediated integration of the Shigella resistance locus pathogenicity island of Shigella flexneri. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. (2004) 48(3):1028-1031.

(You can read at least the second one online. Sorry but the spam filter would block the direct links due to underscores)

Ask yourself (as microbiologists already have), what is the difference, genotypically as well as phenotypically, between Shigella[/] and [i]E. coli? Are there E. coli strains with similar pathogenicity islands? Do another search. And how about Salmonella? The Bacillus anthracis/cereus/thuringiensis complex? These are not the only examples of large parts of the bacterial chromosome being exchangable between species! And how about the soil bacterium Agrobacterium, that carries a gene for a plant hormone - plants are eukaryotes and not too closely related to bacteria even to us “Darwinists” - a gene which, upon infection of a plant, is transferred from the bacterium to plant cells to induce growth of a nutrient-producing tumor (plant cancer!) in which Agrobacterium thrives. Horizontal gene transfer between friggin´ kingdoms! Both ways, to boot…think about it for a minute. Is it possible, given enough time, that these mechanisms could together provide sufficient variation for natural selection to work on - to “create” even one new species? If yes, why not all new species?

Moral of the story, we can learn a lot from bacteria, surely you can too DaveScot. But don´t get me started on the species concept in bacteria (hehe). And remember, don´t ridicule these our little prokaryotic friends. The very mitochondria that produce chemical energy (as well as heat) from organic molecules in your cells, they have their own DNA…and protein synthesis…and they divide by binary fission…in fact, overwhelming evidence point to them being bacteria, trapped as endosymbionts inside (proto-?)eukaryotic cells early in the evolution. But I´m sure you had heard of that before.

Cheers,

/The Rev

Comment #16199

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 14, 2005 02:13 PM (e) (s)

Uber

Not to start an argument, but to be a scientist and a Christian is abit illogical. It means in one aspect of your life you follow logic and reason, the scientific method etc, while in a completely different sphere you accept people flying around, snakes talking, and people dead for days returning to life and THEN flying away.

Relax, Spock.

Humans and other animals with a certain amount of brain power have emotional needs in addition to the traditionally recognized physical needs of food and water.

There is nothing “illogical” about understanding that science, when properly applied, is a fantastic tool for testing and understanding nature, but it’s not such a great tool for understanding why Budd Boetticher’s westerns are so awesome.

And if you’re afraid of dying a painful death, science isn’t going to comfort you.  And science isn’t going to bring back your beloved pet, child, wife or mother (claims of cloners notwithstanding).  But the human mind is obviously capable of imagining and/or comprehending “things” that are beyond science’s reach.

In your comment, Uber, you seemed to appreciate the resolution to your “conundrum”.  You referred to a “completely different sphere.”  And that’s what it is.  There is a sphere for surviving and understanding the material world and everyone us who isn’t a monk or a yogi or a lunatic spends the vast majority of our lives in that sphere. 

And then there are other realms — of the imagination, of the spiritual world — where we can create whatever we want to please our minds.

The great Judy Garland used to sing a song about that aspect of life — a song whose power can never be fully explained by science!

Once again, I urge the “ID theory” peddlers to turn their attention to Jimi Hendrix.  If there is any truth to the claims that mysterious alien beings have intervened in life on earth, it is far more likely to be found in the DNA which encodes Jimi’s brain, auditory neurons, manual (and mandible!) dexterity than in the DNA that encodes a bacteria’s flagella.

Comment #16204

Posted by Uber on February 14, 2005 02:47 PM (e) (s)

Thanks I am relaxed.:-)

‘And if you’re afraid of dying a painful death, science isn’t going to comfort you.’

Maybe not, But honesty is honesty

  ‘And science isn’t going to bring back your beloved pet, child, wife or mother (claims of cloners notwithstanding).’

Maybe not, but who knows what the future holds. Then again religion isn’t bringing them back either—just making you think that it might.

  ‘But the human mind is obviously capable of imagining and/or comprehending “things” that are beyond science’s reach.’

Agree, it’s called imagination. I often wonder exactly what is beyond sciences reach. You hear it alot but is it true. Maybe for current science but a jumbo jet would have been beyond sciences reach 300 years ago.

Comment #16206

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 14, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)

We also need theologians who can rebut the argument of the Christian biology teacher that there is no conflict between evolution or naturalism and Christianity. We need someone to explain the two logical conflicts that allow Dawkins to claim to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and that precludes a Christian from making the same claim.

I can’t believe intelligent people can allow someone to get away with such a blatant lie. This is a bogus dichotomy, pure and simple. Philosophical naturalism may be anathema to religion. But, methodological naturalism (which is what the scientific method relies upon) says nothing about religion. And, what the hell kind of role would a theologian have at a meeting on science? Boy, these guys are way out in right field.

Comment #16209

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 14, 2005 03:23 PM (e) (s)

Mainstream Christians, as well of those of other religious and a-religious perspectives, should be concerned about Intelligent Design creationism, for its efforts to insert its concepts into public education aim to advance those religious perspectives that do not accept evolution, and to inhibit those that do.  The religious stakes here are as significant as the scientific and educational stakes.

Mainstream religionists should be concerned, indeed.

While we may laugh at the absurdity of Jack Chic comics, the reality is that many fundamentalist Christians (who make up the majority of the ID/creationist movement) have a rather low opinion of Catholicism and “liberal” protestant denominations.

When I was growing up, the “independent, fundamentalist Bible-believing church” I attended taught that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” referenced in the Book of Revelation.

It would come as no surprise to me to learn that IDers are including non-fundamentalists in their crosshairs while they’re also trying to assassinate science.

“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don’t have to be nice to them.” —Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Comment #16210

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 14, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

John Calvert wrote:

We need someone to explain the two logical conflicts that allow Dawkins to claim to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and that precludes a Christian from making the same claim.

This has to be the all-time most frequent misquote by the IDCs.  If you read the passage from The Blind Watchmaker in which Dawkins makes this statement, you’ll see that his point was about intellectual fulfillment, not atheism.  In other words, as Dawkins plainly writes, evolution isn’t necessary to be an atheist, it’s necessary to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.  There is nothing about this sentiment which precludes a Christian from accepting evolution as well.

Of course it’s neither here nor there because Dawkins doesn’t speak for all biologists, just as Calvert doesn’t speak for all Christians.

Comment #16211

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 14, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

There is no logical conflict that allows Dawkins to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, AND precludes Christians from the same intellectual fulfillment. 

It’s a bit odd, really — a rebuttal to the biology teacher could only be to the point that Dawkins does not have the right to be intellectually fulfilled. 

That’s the point.  Government can’t do that.  If we grant to government the right to discriminate against Dr. Dawkins in such a fashion, we have also granted it the right to discriminate against the 8-year-old girl who wants just to be a good little girl ‘to please Jesus,’ as Madison famously noted in his Memorial and Remonstrance.

She has a right to be intellectually fulfilled, even at 8.  Why IDists wish to overcome that right is a question we need to get them to answer.

Comment #16214

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 14, 2005 03:33 PM (e) (s)

Jack Krebs wrote:

to Ed: in Kansas the state BOE is self-governing, so unless they break the law, there is no higher authority: they can break their own policies with impunity if they have the votes.

So in other words, Calvert has the board wrapped around his finger, otherwise he couldn’t start creating his own special commitees at will. 

If a majority of the board is going to let Calvert dictate their agenda, why don’t they just get it over with and insert the ID stuff right away, without wasting time on all the fluff?  Are they just trying to give this whole thing a veneer of legitimacy?

Comment #16217

Posted by Jack Krebs on February 14, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s)

Yep, giving themselves the veneer of legitimacy is one of the things they are doing - trying to give themselves a good rationale when they finally subvert the standards offered to them by the real science writing committee.

As importantly, they are using Kansas as a national stage to give ID a big PR victory.  It’s all about winning the hearts and minds of the people, and giving ID a boost - some momentum that they carry onto the next state, whichever it may turn out to be.

Comment #16219

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 14, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)

They also contend that the current definition of science limits inquiry, because it allows only natural explanations. They propose changing it to encourage students to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s something about science that IDers just don’t get. But, for the life of me, I can’t figure out what it is. It’s like talking to someone about binary logic in computers. Some people pick up on it quickly. Others couldn’t grasp it to save their lives.

Have the opponents of science ever contemplated what science would become if inquiries allowed for “explanations” that could not be verified or falsified? What purpose would there be in such “explanations?” An un-verifiable idea is like a tit on a bull. It may be interesting to look at (or not). But, it adds zero value.

If methodological naturalism is to be tossed out, the constraints it puts on scientific inquiry also get thrown away. And, if science is no longer limited to an examination of the natural world using explanations that involve natural mechanism, what are the new limits? Or are there no limits? Is it pretty much anything goes?

I can dream up all sorts of “explanations” for natural phenomenon. But, none of them are testable. Should science spend time on these “explanations?” Why or why not?

Comment #16223

Posted by Bryson Brown on February 14, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)

The ‘different spheres’ approach to distinguishing religion and science leads to some hard questions.  When I use the words ‘true’ or ‘truth’ I rely on a kind of vague, conversational understanding of what they mean. 

Now, when it comes to common sense descriptions of familiar things, this is pretty straightforward— what’s true is something we can agree on, after a little investigation.  (Of course this has to allow room for difficult cases, where politics or manipulation or weird circumstances make agreement hard or maybe even impossible.)  In science, of course, we’ve refined these standards and arrived at very specific procedures for various kinds of observations and measurements. 

But when it comes to relgious ‘truths’, the idea of agreement doesn’t seem to have any traction.  Instead, ‘truth’ takes on a different role— as an intensifier, or a table-thumping word, or (in all too many cases) as a threat:  accede to this form of words, or we’ll fix you (in a bad way).  Maybe it’s time to recognize that ‘truth’ in this context has very different uses and different force and different objectives associated with it. 

Of course the intuition that links truth in science and truth in religion is the connection to

1.  Sincere assertion.
2.  The notion of ‘things being a certain way’, i.e.

things being such as to sustain/ render correct the assertion. 

But without some notion of how to get to agreement, I’m not sure we have a stable account of what it is that a form of words asserts,i.e. just what it means to say that things are the way a religious claim asserts they are.

This is to just to say, in a fancy, philosophical sort of way,that I’m strongly sympathetic with Uber’s worries about the status of religious language and the evaluation of religious claims.

Comment #16228

Posted by Keanus on February 14, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s)

Reuland asked rhetorically…

Are they just trying to give this whole thing a veneer of legitimacy?

Calvert and his fellow ID folks crave legitimacy more than a heroin addict craves the next fix.

Somewhat related, the NY Times this morning carried a story about a new book by Harry Frankfurt, a moral philosopher emeritus at Princeton who has just published a book with the Princeton University Press entitled On Bullshit, I kid you not. It’s a 67 page expansion of an essay he wrote some 20 years ago addressing his concern that “[o]ne of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.” He goes on to note that “”It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth…[but] [T]he bull artist, on the other hand, cares nothing for truth or falsehood. The only thing that matters to him is ‘getting away with what he says.’” “An advertiser or a politician or talk show host [or ID promoter for us] given to bullshit does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it, he pays no attention to it at all.” Frankfurt than goes on to point out that a culture rife with bullshit is one in danger of rejecting “…the possibility of knowing how things truly are.” Sound familiar?

Comment #16248

Posted by Jeremy Mohn on February 14, 2005 08:15 PM (e) (s)

Jack Krebs wrote:

It was obvious that much of the support at the hearing for the Intelligent Design creationists’ proposal was really anti-evolutionism fueled by religious concerns.

This was the feeling I got from the hearing too.  The ID “big-tent” strategy is clearly back-firing in Kansas.  I’m sure John Calvert cringed (at least internally) when one “ID supporter” said this:

And what you call Intelligent Design, I call religion, or Christianity.  And I’m a firm believer of Christianity.  And if you’re going to not allow religion into the school, then I would—I would prefer that you not allow Evolution into the school, also, because I’m trying to teach my children religion.  And whereas everyone has different opinions on religion, every—seems like just in this audience alone everyone has different opinions on Evolution, also.  So if I got—my children got to come home being confused on religion and I have to straighten them out, they’re going to come home being confused on Evolution, also.  And I don’t want them being confused on Evolution.  I don’t want them to — I don’t even want them to really learn Evolution because I don’t believe in Evolution; I believe in Christianity.  And just like the one gentleman said, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Comment #16253

Posted by Rachel Robson on February 14, 2005 09:11 PM (e) (s)

FL and (to a lesser extent)Uber:
Do not presume to lecture me on my faith.

FL: Since you asked, because my understanding of evolution led me to a much  deeper faith in God, and greater appreciation of Jesus’ sacrifice, of human “fallenness,” and our need for redemption.  Because I believe—as faithful Christians like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Galileo believed—that God wants us to understand His universe, and that naturalism is one of the means He gives us to do so (just like I said in my comments in KCK).  *That’s* how I know evolutionary science doesn’t conflict with my faith.  I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you actually do care about the answer to this question, and weren’t just using me to make your rhetorical point.  I believe that you are sincere in your faith, and I only ask you to extend to me the same courtesy.

Uber: You & I have had this chat before, and it’s not worth pursuing further.  Just like FL, you won’t be able to convince me that I don’t believe, merely because I don’t believe as you think I should.

Comment #16275

Posted by ts on February 15, 2005 03:16 AM (e) (s)

it became possible for one who does not believe in god to be intellectually fulfilled

There’s more to it than that, because Darwin lost his faith when the arguments that seemed to make God a necessary feature of the world lost their force.

It does not mean that evolution is atheistic, only that it is neutral to religion.

The fact is that no one comes to their religious beliefs strictly through contemplation divorced from the natural world.  People are taught religion in terms of a set of fact-like claims about the world — there are personages like God, Jesus, and St. Peter, places like heaven and hell, books like the bible, events like Jesus rising from the dead and God creating the universe and the flora and fauna, etc. etc.  As people become more and more familiar with the facts of the natural world, more and more of these fact-like claims are stripped away or robbed of their content, becoming more and more abstract.  Evolution and the defeat of the argument from design results in massive stripping, robbing God of much of a place in the natural world, leaving only our epistemological gaps to occupy.  For many people, including Darwin, the whole enterprise comes crashing down and they recognize it as a myth.  Others desperately hang on, making God an abstraction believed in for the pure sake of believing, despite lack any natural basis whatsoever, despite a complete lack of any necessity for God, despite recognizing that man would have invented God whether there is one or not.  Many people hang on because they can’t face the alternative:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684832402/qid…

Comment #16280

Posted by jonas on February 15, 2005 04:27 AM (e) (s)

Okay, this is pretty of topic, but anyhow:

TS,

I do not know what to make of your comments, not only because they reinforce the false dichotomy of the ID proponents ‘either you have to be with us or you have to be a militant atheist’, but also because you seem to pretend to know exactly why people believe. If Darwin’s faith was structured in a way demanding the continuing existense of gaps for god to hide in, this is  unfortunate and his loss of faith is the logical consequence, but only showing that a God-of-gaps approach is nonsensical.
Why have Kepler or Mendel or Einstein or Heisenberg not rejected their faith when finding mechanisms many would have liked to attribute to mysterious divine forces? Why did Kant not become an atheist, although he formulated in no uncertain terms, why a proof of the devine by postulating unknown factors was ludicrous? Probably beause all of them managed to find God in the things they knew, not hiding the divine behind their lack of knowledge. Both in Christianity and in other religions the rejection of the god-of-gaps approach is no new factor brought about by Darwin - another canard from the creationist birdhouse.
Not only is there the well know cite from Augustinus, one of the deepest pieces of theology of creation in the whole bible is going in the same direction. In the final part of the Hiob poem in the OT - the ‘Answer from God’ - the wonders of the world, given in rather pre-modern descriptions are cited for the distance between human and God, but not turned into an argument why Hiob should shut up and accept everthing in the world as God’s decision, but explaining that it is right of Hiob to ask questions and not accept the pat theological answers of his friends, who would like to make God into a part of their explanations about the world and morality, easily to understand and control. 
The main problem of christian fundamentalism is exactly that they are - in my opinion - neither especially Christian nor especially faithful. Instead of trying to follow the Christ and posing critical questions both to themselves and the world at large while finding a good way to do so, they insist on God working in a specified way, truth to be handed down only by their interpretation of the bible and everybody to be judged by their standards alone. They do absolutely not allow for God being different or bigger then their puny imaginations, they want to box in the divine and make it into a tool at their beck and call. The rejection of science is only the logical result of this fatal theological flaw.
Unfortunately, somebody brought up with this tainted concept of faith will probably never be able to constructively think about his or her own believes and those of other people, and might actually be faced with the choice of either emulating Calvert or Dawkins.

Comment #16301

Posted by Hey Skipper on February 15, 2005 09:36 AM (e) (s)

At <a href=”http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/…“> I just posted an article entitled The Argument Clinic, which hopes to outline the asymmetric arguments Creationists and Evolutionists use.

The article is in reaction to an astonishing amount of anti-Evolution sophistry to be found at <a href=”http://brothersjudd.tempwebpage.com/blog/…“>BrothersJudd Blog</a>, a right-wing religious blog that, for all of that, does include a very wide range of articles.  See Darwinism on the left margin for all the arguments.

Anyway, in comparison to Panda’s Thumb, The Daily Duck is a tiny audience hobby operation whose writers are, at best, well read amateurs.

Should any of you have the time to stop by and constructively criticize my article, I would appreciate it.</a>

Comment #16309

Posted by DonM on February 15, 2005 10:44 AM (e) (s)

Hey Skipper,

Great post (on Daily Duck). It’s nice to see someone stand back and lay out the landscape without getting all muddy by mucking around in the trenches :-)

DonM

Comment #16310

Posted by Ric Frost on February 15, 2005 11:05 AM (e) (s)

jonas spake:

“Unfortunately, somebody brought up with this tainted concept of faith will probably never be able to constructively think about his or her own believes and those of other people, and might actually be faced with the choice of either emulating Calvert or Dawkins.”

Yes we can. It’s a lot of hard work, and results in a lot of painful choices. Just because my church is wrong will not make the inevitable separation any easier to take.

I have no idea what path I will end up on. That’s part of the fun. I do know this: I cannot deny what is right in front of my face. I can no longer lie “in Jesus’ name” to the high school kids I teach.

There is hope. The light of reason can even penetrate the deep cavern of fundamentalism.

Comment #16336

Posted by FL on February 15, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

Rachel Robson writes:

FL and (to a lesser extent)Uber:
Do not presume to lecture me on my faith.

I have re-read my post in which I quoted your transcipt testimony, and I see no wording or phrases by which I have passed judgement (either yay or nay or otherwise) on your faith.

I invite you to show me otherwise if you are so inclined.

However, it is true, then and now, that when I read your quoted testimony, “As a Christian, I know that there is absolutely no conflict between Evolution and my faith, or between naturalistic science and the Christian religion,”
the first thing that came to mind was the question, [i]”But how do you know that there’s absolutely no conflict?”

And both then and now, I see nothing wrong with questioning your claim there.
 
(I sincerely thank you for being willing to go ahead and offer an answer, btw.  I shall save it for reference, while working on my own evaluation of and response to your claim.  I “actually do care about this question”, to use your phrase.)

************

On another issue, both Jack Krebs and Keanus seem to characterize things as “religion versus religion” because of Robson’s (and Iris Flournoy’s) argument and Calvert’s subsequent call for “theologians” to respond to it.

I think such characterization is a mistake.  Robson and Flournoy, in support of evolution, offered this particular argument that is clearly non-scientific and theological in nature.

Any response to this particular argument, then, would also most likely be theological in nature.  But that does NOT mean that one can thus jump to some sort of conclusion that this debate/controversy is  merely about “religion versus religion.” 

That’s almost like scrounging around for yet another backdoor means to argue that ID is a “religion” (since any direct attempts to show ID to be a “religion”, habitually crash and burn under closer examination.)

FL

Comment #16343

Posted by GCT on February 15, 2005 01:01 PM (e) (s)

That’s almost like scrounging around for yet another backdoor means to argue that ID is a “religion” (since any direct attempts to show ID to be a “religion”, habitually crash and burn under closer examination.)

FL

FL, you are entirely correct to say that ID is not a “religion.”  It is not, in and of itself, a “religion.”  I notice that you like to argue that point a lot here.

What ID is, however, is religiously based.  It is a religious argument.  It deals in the supernatural, which by definition is the realm of religion, and not science.  So, while it may not be a “religion” per se, it is definitely in the realm of religion, not science.  Try as you might, you can not escape that.

Comment #16347

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 15, 2005 01:25 PM (e) (s)

The main problem of christian fundamentalism is exactly that they are - in my opinion - neither especially Christian nor especially faithful.

Your opinion is reasonable and supported by facts.

http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/divorce_rates_h.html

Comment #16351

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 15, 2005 01:45 PM (e) (s)

1.  I’ve perused the Kansas Statutes, and I note that the state school board is bound to follow the general Kansas administrative rules for all agencies, whatever those rules are.  Among other things, the proceedings are to be public, and it appears to me as if any official proceeding must have a transcript.  If those things are not occurring, any decision based on the non-transcript material would be subject to challenge.

2.  Holy Cow!  I read where the proposal for new standards introduces the idea that biology should cover, in some depth, the question of origins of life.  That’ll be two or three new chapters — and the creationists will be unhappy to learn that there is a lot of stuff to fill those chapters.

Maybe the thing to do is to sit back and let that one pass — then send the book publishers and curriculum writers the entire shelf of papers out of NASA’s astrobiology section, including especially those of Jim Ferris, and let Andy Ellington write the chapter on how chemicals spontaneously organize to forms that are precursors to life. 

I find people who blanche at the milktoast discussions of life’s origins in high school texts usually are about 60 years behind the times. 

I thought they didn’t WANT to introduce all the stuff that falsifies Genesis — but this section does quite the opposite, inviting discussion on the origins in detail. 

Have they never studied the tales of Br’er Rabbit?  Do they have any idea the size of the bramble thicket they have opened for discussion?

Comment #16354

Posted by Ric Frost on February 15, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)

GWW posts:

“Your opinion is reasonable and supported by facts.”

Barna Group has stats specific to self-identified Christians:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=95

It gets worse: One of Barna’s videos has statistics showing that crime rates among self-identified evangelicals are within the margin of error of the population at large. Unfortunately, that group of stats does not appear to be available on the Barna web site.

Comment #16355

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 15, 2005 02:09 PM (e) (s)

If Darwin’s faith was structured in a way demanding the continuing existense of gaps for god to hide in, this is  unfortunate and his loss of faith is the logical consequence, but only showing that a God-of-gaps approach is nonsensical.

With their worship of the Pauline doctrine of “biblical inerrancy,” fundamentalists are driving people away from spirituality. It’s not being done by those who accept evolution as the best explanation of the empirical data. Talk about a wedge!

Comment #16356

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 15, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s)

If Darwin’s faith was structured in a way demanding the continuing existense of gaps for god to hide in, this is  unfortunate and his loss of faith is the logical consequence, but only showing that a God-of-gaps approach is nonsensical.

With their worship of the Pauline doctrine of “biblical inerrancy,” fundamentalists are driving people away from spirituality. It’s not being done by those who accept evolution as the best explanation of the empirical data. Talk about a wedge!

Comment #16363

Posted by Pat Hayes on February 15, 2005 03:00 PM (e) (s)

ID is not religion. It is a legal and political strategy employed by biblical literalists — and a tiny handful of those who see Genesis in more metaphorical terms —to get around court rulings that keep “creation science” out of the classroom.
Perhaps the only thing more damaging to science education in this country than the introduction of religion, would be to further politicize it.
The BOE can take what ever action it wants, now. But, when the courts review their actions later, they will look at process and motive. A record is being built. That record — the transcripts from the hearings, the closed meetings by the board that exclude moderate members and the public, the short-circuiting of established processes of curriculum development, the selection of experts, the difference between the curriculum adoption process for science and other areas, will all become part of the court record. Those are the weaknesses of the ID strategy that we need to exploit.

Comment #16369

Posted by Rachel Robson on February 15, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

FL writes:

When I read stuff like the transcript testimony of Rachel Robson, who says “As a Christian, I know that there is absolutely no conflict between Evolution and my faith, or between naturalistic science and the Christian religion,” I instinctively want to ask, “But how do you know that there’s absolutely no conflict?”

I strongly suspect that there’s some very real, very intense, very irreconcilable conflict in there, but it would take a bit of digging to bring it to light and explain it.

This suspicion, combined with the many loud denunciations of me as an apostate following the KCK hearing (one woman followed me allthe way back to my car so she could continue to share her opinion that I was willfully leading people to Hell) are what caused me in turn to strongly suspect that you were passing judgement on my faith.  So we were both wrong.  Forgive me for my snap judgement.

Theodicy, however, is a problem for all thoughtful people, though no more so for a scientist than for the strictest Biblical literalist.  Once you get past the facile objections that Darwin conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis (of course, Genesis conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis, but that’s a whole other rant), the main theological argument I hear against evolution is against its insistence on deep time.  If the earth really is old enough to have allowed whole new kingdoms to develop from an original progenitor species, then our world entails an unthinkable amount of suffering and death.  I feel this protest, too, as did the Anglican pastor Charles Darwin, as did Job.  You do not need radiocarbon dating or transitional fossils to reap that whirlwind.  You need only open your eyes.  And for that problem of evil, I can only, like Job, be comforted knowing that I am dust.

Ironically, ID offers no solution for the magnified problem of evil posed by deep time, the most serious theological argument against evolution.  ID accepts deep time with all its mind-boggling pain and loss, accepts extinction, accepts hideously cruel internecine warfare within species (or family, or class, or whatever they’ve decided is the impregnable boundary between “kinds” this week).  The only thing ID does not accept is the humility that brings Job comfort.

Our increasing understanding that we are dust may not boost our self-esteem, but it is good for our souls.  It reminds us of our serious limitiations, and of the radical nature of God’s love.  God loves us enough to die for us—not because we’re the topmost rung on a Great Chain of Being, but in spite of the fact that we’re an insignificant twig on a massively branching bush.

Oh, yeah:  And also I don’t believe that God wants us to throw up our hands and say “It’s a miracle!  No way I can figure it out!” every time we’re confronted with a difficult problem.  And also I don’t believe that God would give us such huge amounts of evidence for common descent as an elaborate practical joke.

Which brings us back to the point:  It of course does not matter one whit that I find evolution theologically satisfying.  That is absolutely no reason to teach it as science.  What is a reason to teach it as science is that the evidence for it is so overwhelming, and the evidence against it so vanishingly scant.

Back to theology.  FL continues:

That’s why Calvert is calling for theologians to address the issue (but imo, any person would do, as long as they can locate the answer(s) and boil it down to two minutes of plain-English explanation.  I don’t know if I can do so right now, but that’s an issue I’d like to explore further.)

This is not a two-minute, plain-English answer.  My God is much bigger, much more intractable than that.  Faith is a lifelong journey, a never-ending challenge.  And that’s why I don’t take theological advice from atheists like Dawkins, or from people who think that the grandeur of God’s creation can be summed up in a two-minute synopsis.

Hope that this is helpful, in whatever it is that you’re looking for.  Best wishes, FL.

Comment #16390

Posted by Jeff Guinn on February 15, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

A couple weeks ago Christianity Today had an extensive article outlining how evangelistic Christians are no more moral than the rest of us, but do tend to be more racist, and may have an edge on slapping their spousal units around.

DonM:

Thank you.  You are very kind.

Clearly, I need to break the code on Kwickcode.

Comment #16393

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 15, 2005 06:23 PM (e) (s)

Rachel, yours is a post for the Hall of Fame.  One of the best ever.

This is not a two-minute, plain-English answer.  My God is much bigger, much more intractable than that.

Some believe that words will never suffice.  Paul Schrader wrote a great little book called Transcendental Style in Film that discusses the efforts of cinematographers to express the ineffable.  Interestingly, the use of cinematic and narrative ellipses are a key part of that process.

But the extent to which folks like Calvert, FL and other ant-science preachers trivialize the sublime and the divine is plain even to an atheist like me.  If I might be allowed to paraphrase Trent Lott: if there were more Christians like Rachel, we wouldn’t have all these problems.  Maybe I should convert.

Comment #16397

Posted by steve on February 15, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

As far as I have seen, religion and moral behavior have nothing to do with each other. Religions often try to claim authorship of morality, but religions have made a lot of claims.

Comment #16427

Posted by Jack Krebs on February 15, 2005 08:51 PM (e) (s)

I agree with GWW - your post is eloquent, Rachel.  I especially liked this paragraph:

Ironically, ID offers no solution for the magnified problem of evil posed by deep time, the most serious theological argument against evolution.  ID accepts deep time with all its mind-boggling pain and loss, accepts extinction, accepts hideously cruel internecine warfare within species (or family, or class, or whatever they’ve decided is the impregnable boundary between “kinds” this week).  The only thing ID does not accept is the humility that brings Job comfort.

To believe that we as humans, embedded in time and space, can figure out where God, an omni-everything deity, God stuck his finger in into nature and where he didn’t, is spiritual arrogance.

Comment #16428

Posted by Dan on February 15, 2005 09:00 PM (e) (s)

Rachel - I don’t see why the problem of evil is any worse for those who accept deep time.  It seems that even the slightest amount of unexplained suffering is sufficient to bring the problem to the fore in full force.  After all, if God is omnipotent, he should  be able to stop any amount of suffering with equal ease.

Comment #16438

Posted by Longhorm on February 15, 2005 10:01 PM (e) (s)

According to Dave Scott,

“Excuse me, ma’am, but an antibiotic resistant bacteria is still a bacteria.  What evidence have you that the same mechanism that explains antibiotic resistance drove the process that turned bacteria into bacteriologists?”

Dave, how are you using the word “mechanism?”  It is a poor word to use.  It is vague.  When cells divide, the daughter-cell often has a different genome than that of its parent-cell.  Factoring in all organisms (from viruses to bacteria to elephants to humans), the daughter-cell has a different genome than that of the parent-cell in at least one-tenth of all divisions.  It might happen in as many as one-third of all divisions.  When the daughter-cell has a different genome, most scientists say: “The daughter-cell has a new mutation.”  I am learning more about the kinds of events that cause daughter-cells to have different genomes than those of their parent-cells.  However, it happens with great frequency.

However, “mutation” is not the only kind of event that contributes to the existence of new genotypes.  Sexual reproduction and genetic recombination have been two of the key kinds of events that led to the existence of, to use your word, “bacteriologists.”  Every single time organisms sexually reproduce the offspring has a different genotype and phenotype than that of either of its parents — even if there is not one “new mutation.”  When the sperm-cell fertilizes the egg-cell, the DNA does not blend.  When this fertilized cell divides, it often is the case that each daughter-cell has a genome that is identical to that of the parent-cell.  When I was born, I might not have had any new mutations.  But all of my cells had a different genome than each of my mom’s cells and each of my dad’s cells.  This is one reason people care so much about who they reproduce with.  Their DNA recombines with the DNA of their mate.  This helps create the new organism.  It recombines.  I urge you to read about meiosis.  It is incredibly interesting. 

Also, the offspring often has more DNA than the parents.  This happens through something called gene duplication.

Sexual reproduction and genetic recombination enables humans to evolve.  They are the key.  I can’t say anymore about this now. 

There is a misconception that many people have.  They don’t understand how important sexual reproduction has been in evolution.  It has been so important.  If you are watching the big dog show at the Westminster Kennel Club, you will see all sorts of different dogs.  Most of the differences you see were proximately caused by genetic recombination.  I believe that “mutation” only played a minor role.

Remember: recessive genes are hugely important.  Some traits are expressed only when there is a double-dose of genes.

Comment #16461

Posted by ts on February 16, 2005 02:41 AM (e) (s)

jonas wrote:

I do not know what to make of your comments, not only because they reinforce the false dichotomy of the ID proponents “either you have to be with us or you have to be a militant atheist”, but also because you seem to pretend to know exactly why people believe.

I will not stop being an atheist or presenting arguments for atheism and why evolution undermines theism just because of what ID proponents say.  How does my being a “militant” atheist make it necessary to be a militant atheist, or an atheist at all, in order to disagree with ID?  It is you who is offering a false dichotomy, in the form of a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent: “You oppose ID; you’re a militant atheist; therefore one must be a military atheist to oppose ID”.  Such pathetic garbage in no way goes against the substance my argument.  I believe in truthful inquiry, and won’t whore myself to public relations.  Nor will I succumb to your ad hominems — I have a view of why people believe what they do, just as anyone does.  And mine is backed by evidence and logic at least as much as the next person’s.

Probably beause all of them managed to find God in the things they knew, not hiding the divine behind their lack of knowledge.

You appear to be doing what you accuse me of doing.  But what is the point?  If one is a priori committed to a belief in God, of course one will be able to “find” God all over the place — that does not imply that God is really there.  My points went to why and how people develop this commitment and why they find it so hard to abandon it.  You seem to be offering an argument from authority for belief in God — if you have some valid argument, kindly provide it.  What I offer is a psychological explanation for why people persist in a view even after the original evidentiary basis for the belief is stripped away.  If you believe that there really is an evidentiary basis for belief in God, then you must concede that ID is real science, and that the Discovery Institute is right that science improperly excludes supernatural causes and supernatural “evidence”.  But I (and the entire body of philosophy of science) argue that evidence, by its very nature, can only be evidence of the natural, never the supernatural.  There may be reasons to believe that angels dance on pintips and that God is found throughout nature, but they aren’t evidentiary reasons.  Laplace said “I have no need for that hypothesis”, and he was RIGHT — there is no NEED for that hypothesis, and there cannot be such a need.  And I won’t pretend otherwise just because it helps the IDists with their public relations campaign.

Comment #16462

Posted by ts on February 16, 2005 04:00 AM (e) (s)

jonas wrote:

If Darwin’s faith was structured in a way demanding the continuing existense of gaps for god to hide in, this is  unfortunate and his loss of faith is the logical consequence, but only showing that a God-of-gaps approach is nonsensical.

The arrogance of some Christians never ceases to amaze me.  Why would it be “unfortunate” for Darwin to give up a false belief?

Darwin lost his faith because the reasons that had brought him to believe in God in the first place were proved false, because he had an adequate explanation of the natural world without God and thus he had “no need for that hypothesis”, because he found the idea of a benevolent God creating such monstrosities as wasp larvae feeding inside living caterpillars to be deeply offensive, and because those around him who believed in God preached that his father, brother, and most of his dearest friends would suffer in hell for eternity.  Darwin lost his faith because he was, above all else, rational.  It is perverse to call that “unfortunate”.

But one need not follow in Darwin’s footsteps.
“Darwin operated without supernatural explanations; Darwin was an atheist; therefore those who operate without supernatural explanations are atheists”.  That’s a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.  Clearly one can operate without supernatural explanations and not be an atheist, because there are many scientists who operate in their professional lives without recourse to supernatural explanations and yet believe in God.

But the false dichotomy between being a scientist and being an atheist is a red herring.  The IDists and other fundamentalists make a deeper claim — that naturalistic science undermines the basis for faith.  And they are RIGHT, it does, and ticking off the names of Kepler and Kant doesn’t counter that.  Far more relevant than the beliefs of people who lived in cultures steeped in religiosity where failure to believe resulted in considerable punishment in the here and now, not just the afterlife, is what is happening in Europe, where the churches are being converted to dance halls,  restaurants, … and mosques.  In the end, God is to be found, not in nature, but in man’s mind.

Comment #16465

Posted by jonas on February 16, 2005 04:34 AM (e) (s)

ts,

it has not been intended to call into question your motives in attacking ID, your scientific competence or the sincerity or justification of your own philosophy. If I have done so, I would like to apologize. My only point was to regard some examples from history, who apparently (please note the qualifications I very intentionally put in) had no inclination whatsoever to see their scientific or philosophical work diminish or threaten their faith - some of them actually told us about this in writing, in other cases it has been my conjecture, but one made only regarding these people and explicitely similar cases. (To make this clear: I do not pretend to know what makes you tick, what makes theists tick, what makes atheists or agnostics tick in general, I don’t even assume there is a simple answer to any of this.)
In fact I fully agree, there is no evidence for (or against) the supernatural or divine and science, due to its naturalist foundations, will never need or benefit from an attempt to introduce a deity instead of mundane, testable factors. But I do think it should be mentioned that the constant dragging of disputes on the supernatural, of theology and metaphysics into discussions about science and science education by IDers and SciCreds does hurt the discourse on faith or philosophy at least as much as it hurts science. 

Ric Frost,

I am glad to hear this. I have been hoping that my characterization was overstating the impossibility do get out of this mind set.

Aggie,

not quite sure, but I doubt the dogma of biblical inerrancy actually stems from Pauline teaching. The guy didn’t have a canonized bible, so why make the claim? In fact he talked a lot about critical analysis to discern the truth from other voices just claiming it. One can find traces of literalist thinking since Luther, who claimed the authority of scripture against the catholic church, but fully stated it was in the 1920s by U.S. evangelicals in the declaration of fundaments, the document the word fundamentalism comes from.

Comment #16467

Posted by jonas on February 16, 2005 04:54 AM (e) (s)

ts,

the ‘unfortunate’ comment is about the structure of Darwin’s faith, not about him - logically - rejecting this false believe. Apparently he did believe - like you put it - in the former evidentiary basis for their faith. As far as I can tell from everybody I know or have read about, ‘evidence’ for faith is always based on personal experience, never is and  never was based on anything admissible as objective data in science. Again, the attempt to muddle this up is a sign of ID’s misrepresentation of both science and faith.
I do conceed that many people profess their faith only for reasons of conforming with society, but Kant and Kepler do not seem to fit that bill. AFAIK Kant lived in one of the first European countries to grant full freedom of religious practice and non-practice and still was a lot more pro-religious than some other contemporary philosophers who even lived a less secluded life. Kepler on the other hand rejected a post as a lecturer because he did not want to make a specific theological statement and went into the breach against the witchhunts, putting himself considerably in harms way. They may have been a lot of things, but apparently no weak-willed closet atheists.

Comment #16483

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 16, 2005 07:41 AM (e) (s)

not quite sure, but I doubt the dogma of biblical inerrancy actually stems from Pauline teaching. The guy didn’t have a canonized bible, so why make the claim?

The crux of biblical inerrancy is rooted in 2 Timothy 3:16 (a text written by Paul).

I agree that the doctrine is absurd since the Bible (as we know it) didn’t exist when Paul allegedly wrote those words. But, I’m talking about how fundamentalists perceive the doctrine. Keep in mind that these are the same people who are able to rationalize that even though the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” (as described in the Book of Revelation), they believe that “Church” was used by their God to preserve the integrity of the Bible until fundamentalists (read: True Christians) would arrive many centuries later to save Christianity from the “Whore.”

My point was that everything fundamentalists say and do revolve around preserving their belief that the Bible is without error (as it must be if an omni-deity wrote it). They are so adamant about this idea that it becomes an object of worship in itself. Everything else must fall by the wayside, including reality itself — if it conflicts with the Bible. Science is no exception. Hence, the reason why fundamentalists only attack methodological naturalism when it conflicts with their religious beliefs — they have a problem with evolution; not gravity.

Comment #16487

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 16, 2005 08:06 AM (e) (s)

A couple weeks ago Christianity Today had an extensive article outlining how evangelistic Christians are no more moral than the rest of us, but do tend to be more racist, and may have an edge on slapping their spousal units around.

A few weeks ago, the Washington Post Magazine had an article that discussed the findings of a study by a Harvard sociologist that revealed prejudices among Americans - even those who didn’t think themselves to be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27067-2005Jan21.html

One of the most astonishing findings was the correlation between prejudice levels and one’s self-described location on the left/right political spectrum. When you read studies like this, it’s hard not to make conclusion that had otherwise been stereotypes about conservative religious people being more fearful/resentful of those different from themselves.

Comment #16489

Posted by Flint on February 16, 2005 08:15 AM (e)