Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Chad Edgington on March 13, 2005 04:52 PM
- Chad Edgington on March 13, 2005 04:47 PM
- Mike S. on February 24, 2005 12:50 PM
- Timothy Sandefur on February 24, 2005 10:05 AM
- Fraser on February 24, 2005 08:26 AM
- Jon Rowe on February 23, 2005 12:45 PM
- Timothy Sandefur on February 23, 2005 12:20 PM
- Colin on February 23, 2005 11:25 AM
- Ed Darrell on February 23, 2005 10:46 AM
- Timothy Sandefur on February 23, 2005 10:01 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 17, 2005 07:01 PM
The Texas Tech Law Review recently published an article about evolution disclaimers, which contains some interesting arguments about the creationism/evolution controversy generally. Chad Edgington, Disclaiming Darwin Without Claiming Creation: The Constitutionality of Textbook Disclaimers And Their Mutually Beneficial Effect on Both Sides of the Origins Debate, 5 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 135 (2004). Edgington (whose article was published before the Cobb County decision) argues "not only...that disclaimers which call for a critical approach to evolution are constitutional, but that a liberal policy allowing for their placement in textbooks is the most satisfactory solution to controversy surrounding the teachings of origins." Id. at 138.
Edgington notes (rightly) that "[t]he actual motivation behind the ‘equal-time' laws and the disclaimer provisions is the concern that the exclusive placement of evolution in the science classroom provides de facto religious instruction because students are taught that science has proven that their religious beliefs are fraudulent." Id. at 154. This, of course, is only one motivation: the other is the belief on the part of many people that their religion ought to actually be promulgated in public school classrooms, and that the separation of church and state impairs this proselytizing. But Edgington is right that the reason many people complain about evolution education is because they believe that it is a kind of "religion" which is receiving preferable treatment over their own religions. "[B]y exclusively teaching evolution as fact and giving no credibility to the creation model in the classroom, school boards and teachers are inadvertently endorsing a belief system that is wholly incompatible with one of the central tenants [sic] of many religions, namely, that the universe is a special creation of a supreme being." Id. at 154-55.
There are three problems, however, with this argument. First, evolution, being science, differs from religion in that it is a testable, confirmable theory, which can be compared with observed results. The "creation model"--that is, a miracle story--is usually stated in an untestable way, and when it has been stated in a testable way (e.g., that the world was created in 4004 B.C.) such "models" have failed the tests. Second, evolution is taught as fact because it is a fact. It is as factual as any fact can be: it is a truth claim consistent with other testable truth claims. Teaching it as fact is therefore a legitimate enterprise. Creation, on the other hand, posits a supernatural entity which is allegedly "above" being tested for truthfulness. Third--and less abstract--the mere fact that a school teaches something that is "incompatible with" a religion does not mean that that thing may not be taught in the classroom. The government is certainly forbidden from teaching children that God does not exist; but it is not forbidden from teaching children that the earth orbits the sun, or that Israel exists, or that black people are not genetically inferior to white people. These facts may indeed be "incompatible" with the views of certain religious groups, but that does not mean the state may not teach them.
Any contrary rule would mean that religious people would have a heckler's veto over the classroom, or as I've put it earlier, a "get out of evolution free" card. Any time a fact challenged their preconceived religious notions, such people would be able not to silence the teacher and say "that is out of bounds, because we do not want to hear it."
An analogous argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). There, the petitioners were denied employment benefits because they had been fired for smoking peyote, which is illegal. They argued that their religion required them to smoke peyote, so punishing them for doing so violated their right to the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court rejected their argument because it "mak[ing] an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is ‘compelling'--permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,'--contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense." Id. at 885 (citation omitted). Just as Smith could not use his religious "disagreement" with the peyote law to block the state from prosecuting him, so parents should not be able to use their religious disagreement with the fact of evolution to block the state from teaching it.
Ironically, Edgington follows his statement up with this sentence: "Because such teaching seeks to prove a theory that is ‘incompatible' with the religious beliefs of many students, it would seem to violate the prohibition issued by the Supreme Court that state action may not oppose religion." And this he follows with a footnote that cites Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 107 (1968). But here's what the Epperson Court actually said:
[The Establishment Clause] forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma.... The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment.
Id. (emphasis added). Epperson said that religious objectors may not silence teachers from teaching facts that people believe contradict their religious views--it did not say that the state may not take any action that "oppose[s] religion," whatever that might mean.
Edgington next provides a rather inflammatory "case study" to demonstrate what he's talking about: "Rape as an Adaptation in Men." Id. at 155. Edgington argues that evolution leads to the principle that morality is based on reproductive fitness: citing Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (2000), Edgington argues that
evolutionary adaptations in humans evolve to help individuals overcome obstacles to individual reproductive success.... [Thornhill and Palmer]'s premise is that if males do not have the traits that are preferred by those granting the permission to mate, they are forced to rely on coercive measures.... [Therefore, a]ccording to the authors, the tendency of some males to rape women is an evolutionary adaptation that arose through random selection and has survived because it enhances male reproductive success by increasing the number of women with which a male can mate.
Id. at 155-56.
What this proves, Edgington argues, is that "[i]f people subscribe to the theory of evolution, they must be consistent with their reasoning concerning all living things and the behavior of all living things.... Thus, if evolutionists [sic] are logically consistent with their beginning assumptions, the end result is morally devastating because the theory of evolution and its implications are a package deal." Id. at 157. If you teach evolution, then "materialism" follows, and in its train, rape, robbery and ruin.
There are several problems with this. For one thing, it appears to commit the nudist fallacy. The mere fact that biology causes a phenomenon does not mean that that phenomenon is right or wrong. This fact is elementary for folks in the biological sciences, who deal with all sorts of biologically caused bad things, such as mental disorders which cause people to murder or rape others. For another, if morality is a product of evolutionary processes--which it is, in some way at least--then there must also be an evolutionary explanation for the notion that rape is wrong, also. Such explanations are, I'm sure, being proposed by evolutionary psychologists as we speak. I am not familiar enough with the controversy that Thornhill and Palmer's book sparked to comment more intelligently on the subject of rape specifically (although the fact that it was controversial is a crucial matter which Edgington ignores completely). But the mere fact that moral beliefs are evolutionary in origin does not denigrate from their rightness or truthfulness, as Daniel Dennett explains in his excellent example of the Boeing engineer.* Also, there are non-theistic explanations for the origins of individual rights and the wrongness of rape, which are perfectly consistent with evolution. And then, of course, many people believe that it is entirely possible to believe in biological evolution as well as theistic explanations for the personality, and of the individual rights that attach to the personality.
The point is, Edgington's argument that evolution = materialism = the destruction of morality is as baseless as when it was first proposed by William Jennings Bryan. It is not that evolution and "its implications" are a "package deal." It is that Edgington has performed a remarkable--though by no means rare--feat of intellectual gymnastics that combines such logical fallacies as the false dilemma, the straw man, and the undistributed middle.
But, of course, it is true that such fallacious thinking is very common among evolution's opponents.
Edgington concludes this argument by saying that "[b]y eliminating the possibility of a thoughtful planner who created the universe, or at least put the elements into motion, the theory of evolution has implications that are detrimental to theistic beliefs, even though it is not a religion or an anti-religion according to the courts." Id. at 157. Well, that may be true, but note the weasel word "implications." What Edgington's passive voice is meant to avoid is the fact that all facts can have "implications" to any number of people, based on their misunderstandings, their corrupt motives, or what have you. The mere fact that evolution can "have implications" (to whom?) which are "detrimental" (to what degree?) to "theistic beliefs" (why do these beliefs alone count in the consideration of this issue?) does not prove that teaching evolution is the same as propagating a religious viewpoint. One might easily construct any number of hypotheses along the same line to show the weakness of this "implications" argument: the fact that good, innocent people suffer from awful catastrophes is a fact that "has implications" that are "detrimental to theistic beliefs": many people turn away from religion because they think a just God would not allow the innocent to suffer. Ought we then to avoid telling students about the Christmas tsunami? Again, it is not a violation of the Constitution for a public school to teach children things that they find difficult to reconcile with their religious predispositions.
It may indeed be true that, as Edgington says, "[t]hese anti-religious implications cause parents and educators, who are trying to instill religious and moral values in their children, to find the theory of evolution repulsive." Id. at158. But a subjective feeling of discomfort is not enough to violate the Constitution. Again, if that were the case, people who are racists for religious reasons could cancel the teaching of Martin Luther King; anti-Semites could control the teaching of issues surrounding the Middle East--education would have to be tailored to suit the feelings of the most sensitive religious person.
Incidentally, Edgington senses a major flaw in his argument, and tries to avoid it when he says that "just because a critical approach to evolution may have religious implications, it is no more a religion or a violation of the Establishment Clause than is instruction on the theory of evolution, despite its religious implications." Id. at 159. But throughout his article, Edgington has argued that teaching evolution is an inappropriate form of indoctrination because it challenges folks' religious prejudices, and this makes them uncomfortable. If that is the case, neutrality would also require the government to avoid hurting the feelings of people who have non-religious prejudices. Since, in Edgington's argument, a way of thinking (i.e., science) is a way of "provid[ing] de facto religious instruction," id. at 154, it would seem that encouraging "critical thinking" would itself also be a form of "de facto religious instruction." It would, after all, offense people whose religions teach people not to think critically!
Edington's article is one of the best-written I've encountered on the subject, despite my disagreement with it. He is certainly correct in pinpointing the reason so many people find evolution education troublesome. But it's unfortunate that he does not also pinpoint their errors.
*--"[A] parody will expose the fallacy: ‘The people at Boeing are under the ludicrous misapprehension that they have figured out the design of their planes on sound scientific and engineering principles...when in fact memetics shows us that all these design elements are simply the memes that have survived and spread among the social groups to which those airplane manufacturers belong.'" Freedom Evolves 187 (2003).
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/829
Comment #16742
Posted by RBH on February 17, 2005 09:58 PM (e) (s)
[quote]“Science and History Teacher [at] Park Avenue Christian School.” Gack!
RBH
Comment #16748
Posted by Randall on February 17, 2005 11:20 PM (e) (s)
Well, since the Bible is both a science textbook and a history textbook, why not have one person teach both? ;-)
Comment #16781
Posted by Lurker on February 18, 2005 07:35 AM (e) (s)
So, is this another example of a Law review not being edited or reviewed before being published?
Comment #16792
Posted by DaveScot on February 18, 2005 08:54 AM (e) (s)
First, evolution, being science, differs from religion in that it is a testable, confirmable theory
What test has confirmed that the gradual accumulation of random mutations conserved by natural selection has resulted in novel new body forms?
Even more to the point, what test has confirmed that inanimate chemicals self-organized into a living cell?
I haven’t read of such a test yet but I remain on the lookout. Maybe you can help where others have failed.
Good luck with that.
Comment #16799
Posted by RPM on February 18, 2005 09:35 AM (e) (s)
“By eliminating the possibility of a thoughtful planner who created the universe, or at least put the elements into motion, the theory of evolution has implications that are detrimental to theistic beliefs, even though it is not a religion or an anti-religion according to the courts.”
It’s been said before, but I’ll repeat it once again:
Evolution says nothing about a) the origin of the universe, b) setting objects in motion, or c) the origin of life.
Just thought I’d repeat that for those that haven’t been listening.
Comment #16817
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 18, 2005 10:57 AM (e) (s)
In response to Mr. Sandefur:
First, evolution, being science, differs from religion in that it is a testable, confirmable theory
DaveScot said:
What test has confirmed that the gradual accumulation of random mutations conserved by natural selection has resulted in novel new body forms?
Even more to the point, what test has confirmed that inanimate chemicals self-organized into a living cell?
I haven’t read of such a test yet but I remain on the lookout. Maybe you can help where others have failed.
Good luck with that.
To the first question, we could look at the Silversword alliance in Hawaii, or the remarkable diversity of mustards, which in the past 2,000 years have expanded to include not only the standard mustards, but also radishes, broccoli, Brussells sprouts, and canola.
To the objection I anticipate that these are plants, we should perhaps point out that there is not really much novel in the animal kingdom once we get to the reptiles. Variations on digits and addition of vertebra give us the range from snakes through elephants, and hummingbirds through ostriches. All with minor variations. The only way such an argument gets credibility is when the gullibility of the reader stops the reader from investigating what has already been observed in plants and animals.
Self-organizing chemicals? Yes, all chemicals self-organize, and so far we have confirmed that each step required for chemicals to self-organize into living things is possible, replicable in experiments. No one has succeeded in getting a eukaryote cell yet. But then, evolution isn’t about the origins of life. Darwin’s observations work whether life was “breathed into” a few forms on the Earth, as Darwin wrote, or whether it arose without any outside pixie dust. So that claim is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. It’s interesting to see that creationists cling to such irrelevancies, however, even when the overwhelming evidence is that their objections are overcome.
If you want the information, Dave, check out Astrobiology Journal. It’s online, and free.
Comment #16822
Posted by Uber on February 18, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)
Good comment RPM, I was going to post the same but these fellas are actually becoming boring in their ignorance.
I think the time has come to adjust our stance on this ID thing, it’s patently false. We need to ask them to prove their case and explain the evidence that we have accumulated.
This defending evolution against the ignorant hordes is simply boring. The only reason to do it at all is that it goes by another name as well——EDUCATION.
Mostly I feel sad that youthful indoctrination can make people so blind they cannot see the evolutionary concept is so sound.
Comment #16830
Posted by Fraser on February 18, 2005 11:48 AM (e) (s)
Personally I find the Unemployment vs. Smith decision a dreadful one. The principle of the First Amendment is that yes, the government should have a compelling interest before it starts restricting religious belief and yes, people with sincere religious beliefs do have a right to seek exemption (conscientious objectors, children wearing turbans or hajjibs to school, Orthodox Jews holding sabbath services in their homes [which has been challenged as violating zoning laws in a couple of instances]). And the government never had trouble using the compelling interest rationale when it wanted to.
It’s particularly amusing this decision had the support of Rehnquist and Scalia who then turn and whine about how government oppresses religion.
As to the central issue in your post, very well reasoned, no other arguments.
Comment #16833
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 18, 2005 12:03 PM (e) (s)
So, is this another example of a Law review not being edited or reviewed before being published?
Actually that is the standard for law articles.
Comment #16839
Posted by Sven on February 18, 2005 12:52 PM (e) (s)
To the first question, we could look at the Silversword alliance in Hawaii, or the remarkable diversity of mustards, which in the past 2,000 years have expanded to include not only the standard mustards, but also radishes, broccoli, Brussells sprouts, and canola.
So what was the test that demonstrated that this diversity was the result of the accumulation of random mutations culled by natural selection?
Comment #16843
Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 18, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)
I’ve deleted a comment just now, because it wasn’t substantive. Don’t make me a babysitter, please. It’s not clever, it’s just a waste of everybody’s time and computer memory.
Comment #16865
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 18, 2005 02:55 PM (e) (s)
Turns out that the whole group of plants is related, Sven — from the “trees” to the “grasses.” All of them silverswords. Did you look to see? http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm
Comment #16866
Posted by caerbannog on February 18, 2005 02:55 PM (e) (s)
DaveScot said:
What test has confirmed that the gradual accumulation of random mutations conserved by natural selection has resulted in novel new body forms?
Hey Dave — what “novel new body forms” do humans have that other primates don’t?
Comment #16867
Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 18, 2005 02:56 PM (e) (s)
The advocates of these labels apparently believe that the scientific community has not been sufficiently objective/critical towards evolution over the years. It does cause one to wonder how evolutionary science has made any progress at all since Darwin.
Comment #16890
Posted by Frank Schmidt on February 18, 2005 04:31 PM (e) (s)
Genie Scott and Glenn Branch point out three themes that are present in all creationist propaganda:
Evolution isn’t real science, Evolution is anti-religious, It’s only fair to teach both sides.
These memes are recycled continuously on this and other pages from the adherents of IDC (Intelligent Design Creationism), YEC (Young Earth Creationism), IGC (I’m a Genius Creationism) or CNC (Certified Nutcase Creationism). It’s a Malthusian evolutionary strategy: replicate willy-nilly, and, even if they aren’t very well-adapted, some offspring will survive.
For most of these - -C’ers, the bottom line is #2. If their faith were more mature, they wouldn’t have such a problem. How would Augustine have written
Get a grip
Latin or Greek? Come on scholars! Help me out here!
Comment #16892
Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 18, 2005 04:59 PM (e) (s)
Would that be εχε δη? I was never good at Greek.
Comment #16895
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 18, 2005 05:07 PM (e) (s)
How would Augustine have written “Get a grip?”
With a stylus.
Thank you, I’m here all morning!
Comment #16905
Posted by frank schmidt on February 18, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)
That’s really sticking it to me. Ouch.
Comment #16914
Posted by Jeff Chamberlain on February 18, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)
Re comment #16833. When I was on law review (30+ years ago, it pains me to say), articles were edited and reviewed, by the editorial board and/or professors and/or practitioners. (Lousy stuff may have gotten published occasionally, but we could share the blame.)
Comment #16916
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 18, 2005 07:01 PM (e) (s)
Well my wife is on a law review right now and the only review that is done is on format and references. (This is at a top tier public law school.) From what I can tell the only thing the editors do to review the submissions for quality is to pick enough papers out of the submissions to fill an edition of the journal.
The concept of critical review by experts in the field appears to be foreign in law reviews. IIRC, some famous/infamous legal scholar called it recently massive self publication.
Comment #16922
Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 18, 2005 07:32 PM (e) (s)
There are some law reviews that are subject to peer review, but not very many. Most of them are edited entirely by students, whose editorial changes are usually only to check citations, make sure quotes are accurate, and so forth. Some student editors are more conscientious—I’m working on an article for New York University Journal of Law And Liberty, and they’ve been really careful to make me prove what I argue. And a lot of it depends on the school; the more prestigious the school, the better quality the students, the better the law review will tend to be. But most law reviews are practically the same as self-publication, and even the Harvard Law Review ran a notorious pro-ID article recently.
Comment #16941
Posted by Empiricist on February 19, 2005 04:16 AM (e) (s)
The title of Sandefur’s essay, “The heckler’s veto over evolution”, is curiously misleading. He is commenting on a law review article that attempts to justify the inclusion of “disclaimers which call for a critical approach to evolution” in textbooks. These disclaimers do not “veto” or “censor” the textbook. Instead these textual messages are an additional form of speech prepended to the textbook. There is a fascinating irony here since the individuals who now wish to prevent disclaimer statements are really calling for censorship. They want to “veto” the disclaimers.
Consider the following paragraph from Sandefur:
Any contrary rule would mean that religious people would have a heckler’s veto over the classroom, or as I’ve put it earlier, a “get out of evolution free” card. Any time a fact challenged their preconceived religious notions, such people would be able not to silence the teacher and say “that is out of bounds, because we do not want to hear it.”
This is a humorous misrepresentation because it reverses the situation Sandefur is discussing. The censors are the people who want to ban the disclaimers. Sandefur is arguing for censorship in the essay above. He is the one who wants to silence the textbook. He is on the side of the people who “do not want to here it.”
All this self-satisfied dogmatism reminds me of the “The Central Dogma of Biology”: DNA is transcribed to RNA and that is translated to protein. That is the direction of the flow of information. The happy dogmatist would say circa 1960s that this is not just a theory this is a fact! He would warn you never to let any small-minded know-nothing rabid fundamentalist tell you otherwise. Also, he would oppose any wimpy disclaimer stickers on textbooks saying one should “study carefully and critically consider material”. But wait. “The Central Dogma of Biology” was incorrect. Reverse transcriptase was discovered and it can translate RNA into DNA! Well, perhaps a disclaimer can be useful sometimes.
Sandefur states grandiloquently:
“First, evolution, being science, differs from religion in that it is a testable, confirmable theory, which can be compared with observed results.”
OK. This also means that evolution is disconfirmable, i.e., future evidence might show that it is false. So why oppose a disclaimer? If one says that evolution is a “fact” but it might be shown to be false in the future then one is straining the notion of facticity.
Comment #16946
Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 05:22 AM (e) (s)
Ed Darrell,
The mustards have not mutated into novel new forms of life any more than any breed of dog is a novel new form. There is merely a change of scale in both cases. Existing structures changed size. Observations of what mutation + selection (even unnatural selection) is capable of producing are bounded and that is a simple fact. A simple fact which is denied in The Church of Darwin where bounded observations are extrapolated to unbounded power and the extrapolation is portrayed as a fact instead of an extrapolation.
Not a single experiment has shown that chemicals can self-organize into the structures found in living organisms used in support of self-replication. Even the much touted Urey-Miller experiment in the 1950’s, which is still the state-of-the-art so to speak, which only managed to produce a few simple amino acids, has been shown to have not accurately simulated the conditions of the ancient earth. If you want to know more try googling “RNA world” which is the latest faddish failure in this regard.
Comment #16947
Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 05:28 AM (e) (s)
Hey Dave — what “novel new body forms” do humans have that other primates don’t?
Gene sequencing machines. Space shuttles. Blogs.
Just to name a few.
Comment #16948
Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 05:33 AM (e) (s)
Empiricist
Very well said. Kudos.
Comment #16949
Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 05:51 AM (e) (s)
It does cause one to wonder how evolutionary science has made any progress at all since Darwin.
What progress would that be?
I’ll cede that evolutionary science falsified Darwin’s Lamarckian belief that acquired characters are heritable.
What else?
You got more entries in the tree of life but no less controversy over how correct the placements.
You can’t even agree on a definition for the word “species” fercrisakes. At least when I went to school it was defined as ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Now that’s dashed. That isn’t progress.
If you mention any bit of biochemistry, medicine, or the like I’m going to raise an objection in that those have no dependencies on Darwinian theory of descent with modification. No part of any of those gives a fig about whether birds came from dinosaurs or not. Chemistry and medicine work the same regardless of whether one believes God created everything for a purpose, it all happened by accident, or some combination thereof.
Comment #16969
Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 19, 2005 10:15 AM (e) (s)
Empiricist claims that it’s misleading to refer to a “heckler’s veto” over evolution because the article I discuss is only “attempt[ing] to justify the inclusion of ‘disclaimers which call for a critical approach to evolution’ in textbooks.” But as is obvious from my post, the interesting part of the article is the author’s explanation of why people oppose evolution education generally. One primary reason—and one that Mr. Edgington seems to adopt himself—is the belief that being taught facts that conflict with a person’s religious beliefs is somehow a violation of that person’s constitutional rights. This flows from an “accomodationist” view of the First Amendment—that is, the view that Smith was wrongly decided, and that a person’s religious beliefs ought to be allowed to trump secular policies. If a person’s religious beliefs are offended by the teaching of evolution, then that person’s rights are being violated. This is analogous to the peyote-users in Smith, who argued that their religious beliefs were offended by laws against drug use, so that their rights were being violated. The reason the Court rejected this argument in Smith is that it would create a sort of heckler’s veto over the anti-drug laws. And that is why the term is appropriate to the argument Mr. Edgington seems to endorse.
Empiricist, however, thinks about things backward all the way down the line. He says, for instance, that “[t]he censors are the people who want to ban the disclaimers. Sandefur is arguing for censorship in the essay above. He is the one who wants to silence the textbook. He is on the side of the people who ‘do not want to here [sic] it.’” Well, that is just silly. It is not censorship when the government simply chooses not to speak. Those who do not believe in evolution are perfectly free to say so, and to say that they disagree with a biology textbook, and students are every bit as free to say this on a school campus as anywhere else. The First Amendment protects that right. But it does not protect the “right” of government schools to say religious things. While one might say that the government is “censored” from endorsing a religious view, such “censorship” is done on command of the First Amendment, which says that the government may not establish religion. If that’s censorship, fine.
Those hostile to science love to throw around the word “dogma.” It’s the last refuge of those who have no substantive argument to make against science. Of course, Empiricist himself shows how baseless this charge is when he says “‘The Central Dogma of Biology’ was incorrect. Reverse transcriptase was discovered….” So, in other words, it was not dogmatic. People are permitted to question every scientific theory, even the most well established, and to prove it’s wrong if they can. After well over a century, nobody has done so with regard to evolution. There is a point at which the dissenters stop being noble, and start being crackpots. That point was passed long ago with regard to evolution. And as far as a scientific dogma, as Jacob Bronowski put it,
There is today almost no scientific theory which was held when, say, the Industrial Revolution began about 1760. Most often, today’s theories flatly contradict those of 1760. Many contradict those of 1900. In cosmology, in quantum mechanics, in genetics, in the social sciences, who now holds the beliefs that seemed firm sixty years ago…? The society of scientists is simple because it has a directing purpose: to explore the truth.
J. Bronowski, Science And Human Values 67-68 (rev. ed. 1965). If creationists could provide any evidence of creation, or if there really were any evidence “disproving” evolution, it would be received with skepticism, but ultimately it would carry the day. Such evidence is not forthcoming. And just as there is a point at which a dissenter can be safely called a crackpot, there is a point at which a fact—though never 100 percent certain—can be called an established fact. Evolution has reached that point. Calling scientists dogmatic for believing in it is an abuse of the term and a confession of irrelevancy.
(Since Panda’s Thumb offers the scientific evidence supporting evolution on a daily and sometimes an hourly basis, I have not attempted to restate it all here. Readers are invited to, well, read each of our posts, if they want more science.)
Fraser, on the other hand, agrees with my post but argues in favor of the “accomodationist” view of the First Amendment—i.e., that Smith was wrongly decided and that “people with sincere religious beliefs do have a right to seek exemption” from generally applicable, religiously neutral laws. This is a complicated and interesting debate, and I’ll just say a few words about it. First, I think Walter Berns’ article James Madison on Religion And Politics, in John Samples, ed., James Madison And The Future of Limited Government 135 (2002), presents the best short argument for accomodationism I’ve encountered. At some point, Berns argues, accomodationism makes sense—and he gives the example that Madison, who would have agreed with the Smith decision, nevertheless wrote a bill to allow Quakers exemption from military service for religious reasons.
For the non-lawyers, here’s the basic conundrum. The government passes a law: say, a law against drug use. Then along comes a person who says “my religious beliefs require that I use drugs.” Do you exempt him from the anti-drug laws? Under Smith, the answer is no, under “accomodationism,” the answer is yes. The problem with accomodationism is that it means government’s policies must be tailored to suit the religious sensibilities of each individual person in the community. Each person can say “hey, my religion says such-and-such, therefore I don’t have to obey your law” (or your law has to be written in the most narrow way possible). As the Smith Court held, this would make governing practically impossible, and as you can see, I agree with Smith. The problem with Smith, however, comes in cases involving conscientious objectors, or hat laws—the government bans hats in a certain building: then what about Hindus or Jews, who wear hats for religious reasons? Are they forbidden from entering that building? As Berns points out, “[ i]t is difficult, and among a democratic people, probably impossible, for the government to avoid taking cognizance of religion…by granting exemptions from the requirement to obey the law.” Id. at 139. Traditionally, Americans have granted some exemptions: the SAT test, for example, is offered on different days for those who observe the Sabbath on Saturday. But does that tradition rise to the level of a constitutional requirement? While I am partial to some exemptions myself, I think not—particularly since those exemptions can so easily be perverted into an establishment of religion.
Most importantly, I don’t see how believers in accomodationism can get around the central problem of the heckler’s veto. If government must jump through all sorts of special hoops any time a person can claim that his religion is offended by that particular law, then how can the government ever do anything?* Keep in mind that government is not allowed to inquire into the truth of any religion. It can ask whether a person sincerely believes in that religion, but that is all. In the jail cases that have arisen under RLUIPA, we have seen a microcosm of a reign of accomodationism and it isn’t pretty. RLUIPA is a federal law which imposes accomodationism in prisons: if a prisoner objects, for religious reasons, to a policy of a prison, the prison officials are required to prove that the policy is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling incarceration interest. The result has been a flood of cases in which prisoners claim a religious right to eat steak and potatoes and whatnot, and the courts have been required to take evidence as to the sincerity of these beliefs. It’s all been quite aggravating. But has it been productive? And can we run the rest of the world that way? Most importantly, does the Free Exercise Clause require it? I don’t think so. The only solution, I think, is Smith as a constitutional principle, and maybe a little accomodationism by statute in some rare cases, so long as it doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause.
Finally, I disagree with RPM that evolution “says nothing about…the origin of life.” I understand that many scientists would agree with this, but as a follower of the Richard Dawkins/Daniel Dennett school myself, I believe evolution can at least suggest the origin of life from replicating, non-living matter. But that is a debate for another day long in the future.
*-I should add that, as a libertarian, I would like to see all government’s acts required to pass strict scrutiny. I’m not very sympathetic to the “well, if we did that, government couldn’t do anything” argument, because I’d prefer to see government do less. But such a thing is at least on the distant horizon, and in our current state of affairs, I think accomodationism would just introduce chaos into an already too complicated system.
Comment #17008
Posted by mynym on February 19, 2005 03:37 PM (e) (s)
“<i>It’s been said before, but I’ll repeat it once again:
Evolution says nothing about a) the origin of the universe, b) setting objects in motion, or c) the origin of life.
Just thought I’d repeat that for those that haven’t been listening.</i>”
Actually, many people <i>have</i> been listening and reading editorials written by evolutionists, etc. It seems that only where there are free forums where the evolutionist will actually have to back up some of their vast mythological narratives of naturalism will they begin to limit the scope of “evolution” as you try to.
E.g.,
“Evolution is the framework that makes sense of the whole natural world from the formation of atoms, galaxies, stars and planets, to the AIDS virus, giant redwood trees and our own health and well-being.
….
Dorothy was lucky because the Wizard of Oz was wise. The wizards of the Kansas State Board of Education look foolish in comparison.”
—Dr. Maxine Singer
President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington
(Washington Post, August 18, 1999)
More? There is more. It is as if there is a public definition and a private definition of the buzzword “evolution.” And there seems to be specious and disingenuous rhetoric among evolutionist relying on the intellectual dishonesty of shifting the definition of “evolution” this way and that, all around.
Everyone who disagrees with evolution is “foolish” or “ignorant” for not knowing the definition of evolution, yet the evolutionists do not seem to know what they are talking about.
Comment #17009
Posted by mynym on February 19, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)
“One primary reason—and one that Mr. Edgington seems to adopt himself—is the belief that being taught facts that conflict with a person’s religious beliefs is somehow a violation of that person’s constitutional rights.”
This would all be moot if parents could spend their own tax money to educate their children as they saw fit. I.e., you would not find yourself discussing the vagaries of Judiciary, those who Jefferson called “….the subtle corps of sappers and miners…”, etc. But some of the same educators who maintain the textbook orthodoxy are those who reject school vouchers, etc. They want to continue indoctrinating children, by force of the State through judicial diktat if necessary, with Naturalism. That is the foundation of socialism, after all. They do not seem to believe in freedom of Conscience. For after all, they do not agree with the Founders in believing that consciousness itself is free of the physical. So they cannot seem to grasp the difference between education and their indoctrination.
The Founders, on the advent of modern socialism in the French Revolution:
“And what was their Phylosophy? Atheism; pure unadulterated Atheism … . The Univer[s]e was Matter only and eternal; Spirit was a Word Without a meaning; Liberty was a Word Without a Meaning. There was no Liberty in the Universe; Liberty was a Word void of Sense. Every thought Word Passion Sentiment
Feeling, all Motion and Action was necessary. All Beings and Attributes were of eternal Necessity. Conscience, Morality, were all nothing but Fate.”
Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 2, 1816)
in The Adams-Jefferson Letters
You will not have freedom of Conscience without admitting that consciousness is free, anymore than you will have civil rights sans civilization.
Comment #17011
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 19, 2005 04:01 PM (e) (s)
It may be useful to remember that Congress passed a law granting Native Americans exeptions from the law under the Smith decision. There is more than one way to accommodate the religious needs and wants of Americans.
Comment #17013
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 19, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)
Quite to the contrary, Mynym, Jefferson especially, and Madison, and at least a plurality of the founders agreed that freedom of conscience was impossible without education — and they saw the duty of the state to provide that.
You may call it indoctrination — but they saw it as prevention of tyranny by indoctrinators. They thought that without public education, religious groups would achieve unearned thrall over many citizens. It seems to me that they — Madison and Jefferson —were right.
Comment #17015
Posted by Empiricist on February 19, 2005 05:11 PM (e) (s)
Sandefur’s riposte contains a revealing and unintentionally hilarious comment about the word “dogma”. I referred to the “The Central Dogma of Biology” and Sandefur says:
Those hostile to science love to throw around the word “dogma.” It’s the last refuge of those who have no substantive argument to make against science.
Sadly, Sandefur’s knowledge of the history of genetics and molecular biology is rather impoverished so he does not recognize that the phrase “Central Dogma of Biology” was created by the scientist’s themselves. Here is a link to the National Institutes of Health defining the term. Perhaps Sandefur believes that these eminent scientists are “hostile to science”. I admit that when I gave the example built around the phrase “The Central Dogma of Biology” I thought that the reader would know enough scientific history to recognize the exquisite irony of the phrase that was crafted by the scientists themselves. It refers to a “Dogma” that was later shown to be false. Sandefur missed the connotations of jocularity. Personally I am not “hostile to science”. I love science and that is why I am troubled by its crude politicization. The true dogmatist is the individual who opposes a simple disclaimer pointing out the growing, changing and conditional nature of scientific knowledge.
Comment #17016
Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 05:16 PM (e) (s)
Put that disclaimer on every book, and would there be a problem?
Comment #17017
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 19, 2005 05:17 PM (e) (s)
DaveScot said:
The mustards have not mutated into novel new forms of life any more than any breed of dog is a novel new form. There is merely a change of scale in both cases. Existing structures changed size. Observations of what mutation + selection (even unnatural selection) is capable of producing are bounded and that is a simple fact. A simple fact which is denied in The Church of Darwin where bounded observations are extrapolated to unbounded power and the extrapolation is portrayed as a fact instead of an extrapolation.
Isn’t this the same guy who was arguing a few days ago that anyone who doesn’t recognize the differences between a bear and a cat just doesn’t get it?
You’re trying to move the goalposts, Dave, in classic creationist fashion. If you’re really claiming that radishes and broccoli structures differ only in size, then we should note (as I already did and you didn’t respond) that the same may be said for almost all of animal life. The only differences are on emphasis of organs between snakes and humans. By your proposed definitions, snakes and humans are not “novel” from each other.
I’ve known a few humans in my life who have been called snakes, but that was literary simile, not genetics.
There are few, if any structures a snake has that a human doesn’t have — including Jacobson’s organs. How far will creationism try to blur the lines ignoring real differences between species to make a point? Your claim that radishes and broccoli are almost the same species is as specious as a claim that humans and snakes are almost the same.
DaveScot said:
Not a single experiment has shown that chemicals can self-organize into the structures found in living organisms used in support of self-replication. Even the much touted Urey-Miller experiment in the 1950’s, which is still the state-of-the-art so to speak, which only managed to produce a few simple amino acids, has been shown to have not accurately simulated the conditions of the ancient earth. If you want to know more try googling “RNA world” which is the latest faddish failure in this regard.
Are you serious? There are a lot of new experiments in this area. How can you ignore the work of Andrew Ellington or James Ferris?
Here, let’s listen to Andy Ellington talking to the creationists (and others) on the Texas State Board of Education, on September 10, 2003:
(Dr. Ellington): I would initially like to point out that the primary purpose in having the Miller-Urey experiment in textbooks is to show that biological compounds can be generated by relatively simple prebiotic chemistry. This purpose is set forth in nearly every textbook. For example, in Raven, Page [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 320] 149, we find, “Organic building blocks arose from simpler chemicals.” However, the criticisms leveled by the Discovery Institute’s preliminary analysis of evolution in biology textbooks do not focus on this important fact. In other words, the argument against the inclusion of the Miller-Urey experiment almost never talk about the meaning of the experiment itself.
In addition, though, the criticisms that are advanced by the Discovery Institute are either completely wrong or misleading to the point of dishonesty. There are two prime examples of this, although others can be found. First, the Discovery Institute says that, “When the Miller-Urey experiment is repeated with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor, no amino acids are produced.” This statement is false. It is factually incorrect. Amino acids are produced when the Miller-Urey experiment is run with only carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen. This was shown in a classic paper by Schlessenger and Miller in the Journal of Molecular Evolution in 1983. The evidence is indisputable and has never been contradicted. [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 321]
Why is this information which is readily available in the scientific literature not cited by the Discovery Institute? Dr. Wells, in fact, often cites a chapter by Dr. Henrik Holland of Harvard University that purports to prove their point. To quote Dr. Wells, “In 1984 Henrik Holland confirmed that mixtures of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor yield no amino acids at all.” In fact, the Holland chapter cited by Dr. Wells was a review. The primary literature referenced in that chapter does not support Dr. Wells’ claims. The original papers never even tested to see whether amino acids were made or not. These facts can readily be discovered by anyone with scientific training, and yet, the Discovery Institute has chosen to both mislead you and the citizens of Texas.
Second, the Discovery Institute suggests that reducing gases would have not been present on the early Earth. This statement is false. It is factually incorrect. Current theories, in fact, support a mildly reducing atmosphere. Moreover, even if the overall atmosphere was neutral, there would have been multiple sites on the Earth’s surface that were [TRANSCRIPT PAGE 322] locally reducing. For example, reduced gases such as hydrogen are produced at sites of volcanic activity. At many locales on the early Earth electric discharges precisely like those shown in the Miller-Urey apparatus represented in the textbooks would have yielded amino acids and other organics.
Scientists are supposed to be impartial, judging evidence on its merits. However, having read the inaccurate testimony of the data submitted by the Discovery Institute, I can only conclude that their testimony with regard to the Miller-Urey experiment, in particular, is based solely on bias, rather than hard scientific evidence that is readily available and accurately reported in each textbook. As a further conclusion, I’d just like to especially ask not Dr. — or not doctors, but members Leo, Lowe and McLeroy to please ask questions of an expert that you’ve been getting answers to by nonexperts.
(The transcript to this hearing is available at the website archives of the Texas Education Agency.)
We have similar experts on this blog, and we should listen to them when the speak.
We’re 52 years past Stanley Miller’s experiment. It has never been refuted. It has been replicated dozens of times, and new experiments tend to show that complex, organic chemicals that are the precursors of life arise in many different conditions.
Comment #17020
Posted by Russell on February 19, 2005 06:14 PM (e) (s)
…the phrase “Central Dogma of Biology” was created by the scientist’s [sic] themselves. … It refers to a “Dogma” that was later shown to be false.
“Empiricist” seems awfully smug. But who knows? maybe we can learn something from him/her. When, and by whom, was the term first used? Was it not already with a conscious sense of irony? When was it shown to be “false”? Would it not be more accurate to describe it as “tweaked” rather than “false”?
(The first time I heard the term was when Temin and Baltimore described their discovery of reverse transcriptase, thus “tweaking” the “dogma”).
Comment #17024
Posted by RBH on February 19, 2005 06:45 PM (e) (s)
For those with fortitude and patience, the complete transcript of the September hearing is here. (Warning for dial-up users: It’s a 3.8 meg file.) Ellington’s testimony is on p. 319. Following his testimony there’s a Q&A between him and a member of the board who tries to trap Ellington on chirality that’s great fun to read. And the next guy, on p 329, compares Wells to Pons and Fleischman and cold fusion. :) There’s a series of good witnesses following close on that.
RBH
Comment #17027
Posted by frank schmidt on February 19, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)
One of the facts that Wells and the DI conveniently ignore is that much of the same stuff that comes out of the Miller-Urey expt. has been found in the Murchison meteorite, in similar proportions. Unless one wants to invoke an Intelligent Chemist somewhere up there, this means that Miller-Urey type chemistry happens elsewhere in the Universe. In other words, there is nothing special about our planet regarding the chemical conditions for life.
This is another example of the Principle of Copernicus and my Mom, who has often told me that, though she loves me dearly, the universe does not revolve around my wants and desires.
Comment #17031
Posted by steve on February 19, 2005 09:43 PM (e) (s)
If I remember correctly, hydrothermal vents are the current interest for origin-of-life research, not Miller-Urey experiments anyway, because it’s not thought that there was methane in the early atmosphere, and the chemistry you can get from hydrothermal vent-type systems circumvents that problem.
However, this post is off-topic, because it’s not evolution.
Comment #17034
Posted by Empiricist on February 19, 2005 09:54 PM (e) (s)
Ed Darrell states the following:
Self-organizing chemicals? Yes, all chemicals self-organize, and so far we have confirmed that each step required for chemicals to self-organize into living things is possible, replicable in experiments.
This is woefully inaccurate and misleading in my opinion. There are many different hypotheses regarding the initiation of life on Earth but none of these hypotheses is anywhere near experimental validation or replication. Here is a link to an article from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute about the “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life which posits an intermediate living form based on RNA. This idea was greatly energized by the discovery of catalytic RNAs called ribozymes. But no scientist is pretending that a putative RNA life-form has been defined, and no scientist is claiming to understand the extraordinary evolutionary process that might have yielded such an organism. Consider this quote from the article:
There remain many skeptics. Some doubt that precellular RNA-based life would have had sufficient time to evolve into the most primitive bacterial cells that fossil evidence has revealed. The earliest date to about 3.8 billion years ago, leaving a fairly narrow 150- to 500-million-year span between the end of Earth’s bombardment by solar system fragments and the appearance of the first simple bacteria. Therefore, some scientists, including Francis Crick, have indicated a preference for a theory called Panspermia, which speculates that earthly life had an extraterrestrial source. Others have explored the possibility that humble crystals of terrestrial clay might have served as “scaffolds” upon which the first genomes assembled themselves.
The knowledge in this area is so preliminary and the speculation is so open-ended that hypotheses involving extraterrestrial origin are under serious consideration. Of course, this class of theories allows for the possibility that this planet was seeded with a life-form that was actually “intelligently designed” by an extraterrestrial being. This territory is very dangerous indeed. Any teacher mentioning this possibility could face the wrath of select enraged constitutional scholars. Perhaps critics are afraid that a student reading the phrase “intelligently designed” might jump up, shout hallelujah, and initiate an illegal revival meeting.
One final point illustrating the undeniably nascent state of origins research. The possibility that early proto-organisms were composed of PNA, Peptide Nucleic Acid, instead of RNA is now under consideration.
Comment #17050
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 20, 2005 02:56 AM (e) (s)
RBH, one great difference between cold fusion and intelligent design is that ID lacks the experimental support cold fusion has …
Comment #17052
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 20, 2005 03:18 AM (e) (s)
Empiricist complains when I point out that chemicals self-organize. But those are the facts. I’ve tried without success to unite hydrogen and oxygen with flame and not get water, for example — can’t do it. Elements do not combine randomly, and this characteristic of elements in their molecular forms leads to self-organization of chemicals into pre-biotic substances. It’s not a complete description, but it’s accurate.
No hypothesis of life involves something other than self-organizing chemistry.
The “RNA World” materials are based on observations that RNA self-organizes, and then catalyzes more organization. Same principles, lots of laboratory demonstrations. So those discussions are not rebuttals of self-organization, but support for the concept.
Discussions about the “narrow window” of 150 million to 500 million years (!!) presume not only that biochemistry occurs on Earth, but also consider the observed self-organization of biochemistry elsewhere in the universe. The question is not whether chemicals combine into biotic precursors, but where and when, and how. These discussions tend to indicate that there are many different ways for life chemistry to get going, and that it probably happens in any comfortable place in the universe. Hence the recent space probes to moons of other planets in the solar system, and to Mars.
Again, I urge you to look at the work of Ellington and Ferris, and others. Look here, for example, at NASA’s astrobiology site, to see recent results based on the 1947 study that showed organic molecules organize on minerals.
Comment #17053
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 20, 2005 03:24 AM (e) (s)
Here’s a site with a bio of Dr. James Ferris, with links to .pdfs of some of his more recent publications:
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/faculty/ferris/ferris.html
Comment #17054
Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 03:51 AM (e) (s)
Russell says that I seem to be “awfully smug”. However, wouldn’t you agree, Russell, that acknowledging the uncertainties associated with the acquisition of scientific knowledge helps one to avoid the pitfalls of complacency? Further, avoiding complacency might help one to avoid smugness?
Russell also asks about the “central dogma”. Here is some background from the February 17, 2003 issue of Time magazine:
Baltimore opted for the study of tumor viruses, fully aware of the so-called central dogma that double stranded DNA transfers genetic information to single-stranded RNA, but that information never flows the other way. One scientist, however, Howard Temin, had earlier hypothesized that RNA-DNA transfer could occur, and in 1970 Baltimore set out to prove him right. Assuming that the accepted wisdom was wrong was easy, he says. “I was trained in chemistry and saw it as a chemical problem.”
Baltimore shattered the dogma with his very first experiment. He discovered the enzyme, now called reverse transcriptase, that enables a retrovirus to transfer information from RNA to DNA.
Russell also wonders if the neologists that coined the expression “central dogma” did so with a “conscious sense of irony”. All I can say is that I certainly hope so!
Comment #17056
Posted by Kristjan Wager on February 20, 2005 04:49 AM (e) (s)
the so-called central dogma that double stranded DNA transfers genetic information to single-stranded RNA
So we are taking Time Magazine’s word for it being the central dogma? I would repeat Russell’s question, which scientist first used that expression in the sense presented here? Please, provide a primary source.
Time Magazine is undoubtly a useful source for news about what is going on in the world, though I prefer The Economist, but it’s not particularly reliable, especially not when it comes to science.
Comment #17068
Posted by frank schmidt on February 20, 2005 10:46 AM (e) (s)
The phrase “Central Dogma” referred originally to the flow of information from DNA to proteins: DNA makes RNA (transcription) makes protein (translation), and yes, indeed, the term contains a definite sense of irony, since it was first enunciated by a group of iconoclastic molecular biologists.
Temin proposed the reverse flow of information based on considering how an RNA virus could incorporate a heritable change in a cell (i.e., at the DNA level). The characterization of reverse transcriptase by Temin, Baltimore, and coworkers verified the idea, but it needs to be remembered that this is essentially a case of copying nucleic acid information, and conceptually isn’t that different from DNA replication, or transcription of RNA from DNA.
The one case where the Dogma is inviolate is in the one-directional flow from nucleic acids to protein. There is no “reverse translation” system, and the origin of translation remains incompletely known. This is fortunate for science (it gives us things to do) and bad politically, because it gives the creationists a claim that this makes a Gap for God to work.
Incredulity, however, isn’t an argument. For example, how many of us, on learning about sex, couldn’t imagine our parents doing such a thing? Let alone twice.
Comment #17075
Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 11:27 AM (e) (s)
Kristjan Wager: The term “central dogma” is widely used in textbooks, and I have done scut work tracking down the NIH reference and the Time magazine reference to show that my use of the term is supported. Of course, it is certainly possible that Time magazine is not using the term correctly. But it is unclear to me why you believe that the onus is on your partner in colloquy to provide multiple references when you have not even provided an alternative meaning for the term “central dogma” nor have you provided a single reference. Of course, if you believe that demanding extensive references in a high-handed fashion is a useful communicative strategy then I will be happy to participate.
Kristjan Wager and Russell please present a precise alternative meaning for the term “central dogma”. Please provide scans from diary entries, scans from laboratory notebooks, and conference report excerpts where appropriate to give supporting evidence. These primary historical documents should precisely trace the genesis and elaboration of the term “central dogma” and present exacting proof of the alternative meaning that you propose. Please also upload mp3 audio recordings of interviews with the individuals who coined the term. Of course, you should also present signed affidavits testifying to authenticity. I hope that you understand that this is satirical. My point is that conversations are actually a cooperative process. Perhaps you can move the conversation forward.
Comment #17077
Posted by wildlifer on February 20, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)
As far as I can tell, the term was coined by Francis Crick, Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, Nature. 1970 Aug 8;227(5258):561-3.
The reference, of course, is to specific principles RNA/DNA follow.
From wikipedia:
The central dogma of molecular biology (sometimes Crick’s central dogma after Francis Crick who coined the term and discovered some of the principles) states that the flow of genetic information is “DNA to RNA to protein”. With a few notable exceptions, all biological cells conform to this rule.
It can be stated in a very short and oversimplified manner as “DNA makes RNA makes proteins, which in turn facilitate the previous two steps as well as the replication of DNA”, or simply “DNA → RNA → protein”. This process is therefore broken down into three steps: transcription, translation, and replication. By new knowledge of the RNA processing, a fourth step must be included: splicing.
Comment #17080
Posted by frank schmidt on February 20, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s)
Although the idea of one-directional information flow was current well before the term “Central Dogma” was used. I believe that Watson wrote about messing with it on the train from London to Cambridge as reported in The Double Helix.
Comment #17082
Posted by Frank Schmidt on February 20, 2005 12:09 PM (e) (s)
More on the Central Dogma: The phrase is used as a section heading in the first edition of Watson’s Molecular Biology of the Gene, copyright 1965. So it was probably in use right after the discovery of mRNA and the code in 1960-61.
Comment #17084
Posted by Russell on February 20, 2005 12:14 PM (e) (s)
Kristjan Wager and Russell please present a precise alternative meaning for the term “central dogma”…. diary entries, scans from laboratory notebooks, …mp3 audio recordings … signed affidavits testifying to authenticity.
It seems I failed to communicate my point. Let me try again. I got the impression that “empiricist” was saying that scientists actually regarded the “central dogma” as, well, dogma. In fact, since there is no “dogma” in science, the term was never used (so far as I know; of course I could be wrong) except ironically. (Sort of like the Left’s coinage of the term “politically incorrect”)
The reason I noted that “empiricist” seems awfully smug is this:
Sadly, Sandefur’s knowledge of the history of genetics and molecular biology is rather impoverished so he does not recognize that the phrase “Central Dogma of Biology” was created by the scientist’s themselves
I don’t see where Mr. Sandefur has indicated any misunderstanding of the term’s use or history. Rather, I got the sense that “empiricist” is tone-deaf to the irony of the term. Here’s his introduction of the term in this thread:
All this self-satisfied dogmatism reminds me of the “The Central Dogma of Biology”: … The happy dogmatist would say circa 1960s that this is not just a theory this is a fact! He would warn you never to let any small-minded know-nothing rabid fundamentalist tell you otherwise. ….
So, who was this “happy dogmatist”? Who actually regarded the “central dogma” as “dogma”? Who said it was a “fact”?
I don’t see Mr. Sandefur stating or implying any incorrect use of the term (though, if he did, I don’t think it would be “sadly”, since that’s really not his job). Rather - and here’s the delicious irony -“empiricist” (whose moniker suggests that he prides himself on strict reliance on the data) seems to have imputed the “misunderstanding” to Mr. Sandefur, based on his own mistaken preconceptions of the sticker opponents’ views.
Comment #17097
Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)
Russell: I gave an example from molecular biology in which scientists are not being dogmatic. An example in which scientists were required to refine and modify a theory that was shown to be incomplete and inaccurate. Note, very carefully - the scientists did change the theory. I certainly hope that other readers did not miss this vital fact. Indeed, that was the key point of my example. Here is a precis: One should not be dogmatic when formulating or imparting scientific knowledge. After Russell presumably read my comment in a rather idiosyncratic manner it appears that he misunderstood it at a basic level and concluded that I was accusing scientists of being dogmatic! Now he indicates that I am “tone-deaf to the irony”. Wow!
Comment #17110
Posted by Russell on February 20, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)
After Russell presumably read my comment in a rather idiosyncratic manner it appears that he misunderstood it at a basic level and concluded that I was accusing scientists of being dogmatic!
No, you continue to miss the point. You claim Mr. Sandefur misunderstood. Show where.
Moreover, YOU say
All this self-satisfied dogmatism reminds me of the “The Central Dogma of Biology”… The happy dogmatist would say circa 1960s that this is not just a theory this is a fact!
Is it an idiosyncratic misreading of your comment to infer that you believe there were such “happy dogmatists”? If so, my apologies.
But there’s another, more important point in all of this.
Humor me in this little thought experiment. Suppose we travel back to the 1960’s and learn that there’s a group pushing for the inclusion of a sticker to be plastered on every textbook warning that the “flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein” is just a theory. Is the effect of that more likely to be (a) students being reminded that this observation is no different from all other observations in science, and while basically accurate, may be tweaked in the future or (b) this observation stands out from all the other observations in this textbook in that it’s on especially shaky ground, and may be completely off base.
Just as an aside, do you imagine this group is a bunch of disgruntled RNA enthusiasts, miffed that their favorite molecule is being given short shrift, or do you think it’s more likely to be a group worried that too much is being ascribed to mindless mechanistic molecules, robbing God of his glory?
Comment #17133
Posted by DonkeyKong on February 20, 2005 07:29 PM (e) (s)
You guys are sleep walking…
“There are three problems, however, with this argument. First, evolution, being science, differs from religion in that it is a testable, confirmable theory, which can be compared with observed results.”
Evolution from amino acid to cell has not been tested or confirmed. Nor has increased complexity over time as a effect of an evolution cause. Increased complexity over time I will give you. But your linkage to gradual evolution is unproven. The argument that no other way is visible runs throughout the evolution theory.
The lack of tests, and confirmations of those tests is exactly what makes evolution quasi science. The usage of quasi-science because there is no stronger scientific explaination and calling it factual science is a from of Darwinism religion.
I believe religion should be kept out of school.
Comment #17134
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 20, 2005 07:39 PM (e) (s)
in Commnent # 16866 asked the question
Hey Dave — what “novel new body forms” do humans have that other primates don’t?
to which DavidScot replied in Commnent # 16947
Gene sequencing machines. Space shuttles. Blogs. Just to name a few.
So DavidScot believes that these are biological extensions of humans but programs can not create other programs to perform a function without humans needing to design the final program.
DavidScot better watch out if he ever gets into an accident….he could be up for a Battery charge because he inflicted damage on a human new body form.
Comment #17137
Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 07:52 PM (e) (s)
So when the DMV calls and wants to know why I haven’t had my car inspected, I’ll tell them that I had it “amputated” by a tow truck.
Comment #17215
Posted by Mike S. on February 21, 2005 10:53 AM (e) (s)
While one might say that the government is “censored” from endorsing a religious view, such “censorship” is done on command of the First Amendment, which says that the government may not establish religion. If that’s censorship, fine.
Doesn’t the First Amendment say that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion? I don’t think the stickers are a good idea, but I do think that the establishment clause has been wildly distended to include all sorts of non-Congressional acts. Wouldn’t the school boards actions be considered an executive act, not legislation?
I realize that reams of pages have been written about the establishment clause, and that there is lots of case law on it. I’m just wondering what your brief synopsis is of how we got from ‘Congress shall make no law’ to ‘no governmental entity in the entire country can say anything with regard to religious beliefs’. That is, I think the stickers are a bad idea, but I don’t see how the courts should be allowed to have jurisdiction over this particualar matter.
Comment #17318
Posted by Fraser on February 21, 2005 04:10 PM (e) (s)
Case law says that the Fourteenth Amendment extended First Amendment restrictions on government to the state governments and all their component parts, such as school boards.
Comment #17321
Posted by Fraser on February 21, 2005 04:18 PM (e) (s)
Most importantly, I don’t see how believers in accomodationism can get around the central problem of the heckler’s veto. If government must jump through all sorts of special hoops any time a person can claim that his religion is offended by that particular law, then how can the government ever do anything?* Keep in mind that government is not allowed to inquire into the truth of any religion. It can ask whether a person sincerely believes in that religion, but that is all. In the jail cases that have arisen under RLUIPA, we have seen a microcosm of a reign of accomodationism and it isn’t pretty. RLUIPA is a federal law which imposes accomodationism in prisons: if a prisoner objects, for religious reasons, to a policy of a prison, the prison officials are required to prove that the policy is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling incarceration interest. The result has been a flood of cases in which prisoners claim a religious right to eat steak and potatoes and whatnot, and the courts have been required to take evidence as to the sincerity of these beliefs. It’s all been quite aggravating. But has it been productive? And can we run the rest of the world that way? >>
1. If the constitution was set up to be productive, it would just have created a dictatorship. Justice requires inefficiency (appeals, protection of due process, etc.).
2.It’s true you can make absurd claims under the Fist Amendment, but it’s equally absurd to say the government can tell an Orthodox Jew or Muslim “You’ll eat pork or go hungry.” I object to the government being able to force anyone to violate their fundamental beliefs, which is the logical outcome of Smith (in practice, of course, it’ll be the fringe religions that suffer).
3. The pre-Smith standard—government can overrule religion when there’s a compelling interest—actually worked pretty well. After the Amish won the right to do all their Amish things I don’t believe the courts have ever found the government didn’t have a compelling interest. So no, I don’t think the heckler’s veto is that terrible a threat or in practice allows everyone to decide at whim whether or not to obey the law.
4. And no, I also don’t think that letting people practice their religion automatically translates into an “establishment.” If we go that way, the First Amendment’s religious guarantees are close to meaningless.
Comment #17343
Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 21, 2005 06:35 PM (e) (s)
Thanks to Russell for his common sense on this “dogma” nonsense. It’s a confession of the creationists’ weakness that they would spend so much time arguing that science actually contains the concept of “dogma,” and do so on the basis of the use of the term in which it is so obviously not being used to actually refer to dogma.
Doesn’t the First Amendment say that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion? I don’t think the stickers are a good idea, but I do think that the establishment clause has been wildly distended to include all sorts of non-Congressional acts…. I’m just wondering what your brief synopsis is of how we got from ‘Congress shall make no law’ to ‘no governmental entity in the entire country can say anything with regard to religious beliefs’.
When the First Amendment was originally written, several states had established churches, and one reason for the Establishment Clause was to permit those to continue. This is why the Clause says “no law respecting an establishment of religion,” rather than “no law establishing religion.” The Clause was, as Akhil Reed Amar puts it in his must-read book The Bill of Rights, essentially “agnostic” as to the desirability of established churches; the clause was primarily a protection for federalism—for the independent prerogatives of states. Indeed all of the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government; the Supreme Court held that states were not prohibited from violating the freedom of speech, or the rights of private property, or other fundamental protections of the Bill of Rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment changed this by declaring that from now on “no state” shall do certain things: first, no state could abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; second, no state could deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; third, no state could deprive any person of the equal protection of the laws. Although the privileges or immunities clause was originally intended as the primary guarantor of individual freedom under the Amendment, it was quickly erased from the Constitution in the Slaughterhouse Cases. In the years that followed, the Due Process Clause was instead held to protect certain rights from state interference. Under this theory, which I’ve explained at length here, certain political absolutes are considered a part of the Constitution and cannot be violated, even when the legislature approves of the violation. What are those political absolutes? The Supreme Court has held that they are those principles which are “essential to ordered liberty,” and this includes certain provisions of the Bill of Rights. No government is truly free, for example, if it allows searches without a warrant, or if it allows the taking of private property without just compensation. These principles are therefore “incorporated” to the states by the Due Process Clause. When a state deprives a person of life, liberty or property in a manner that fails to include certain safeguards (like warrants or just compensation), then the state is said to be taking a person’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Establishment Clause was first “incorporated” to the states in the case of
Comment #16741
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 17, 2005 09:43 PM (e) (s)
According to Chad Edginton’s website, he has been a “Alliance Defense Fund Blackstone Fellowship Intern, Christian Legal Society” and “Science and History Teacher [at] Park Avenue Christian School.”