Fighting for (and in) the heart of America

Yei! We finally got some XX diversity on board.

The gentlemen who made the monkeys comment also ended his speech with something to the effect that the children needed to be taught the truth that "in the beginning, God created." He got a large round of applause for that, even though the moderator of the hearings had asked the audience not to applaud.

On the other hand, please don't judge all of Kansas by the creationists. A number of people made excellent pro-science speeches. A couple of good lines I liked were when one man ended his speech with "Science isn't decided by voting, ... but school Board elections are."; and a lady science teacher in a Catholic high school, after pointing out that evolution does not conflict with the Catholic faith, said that "the Kansas state school board doesn't get to decide what the definition of science is."

Round two of the public hearings is in Topeka, the state capitol, tomorrow night. Stay tuned for more news from Kansas.

On the other hand, please don't judge all of Kansas by the creationists.

— Jack Krebs

The American Fundamentalist movement is sowing the seeds for the destruction of American power in the world. The American position of power and prosperity is due in no small part by strong scientific education and funding.

It will be interesting to see what the Fundies will do a few decades from now when the fruits of their efforts are realized and America has to take a back seat in the world to Europe and China....the up-and-coming power-houses.

Round two of the public hearings is in Topeka, the state capitol, tomorrow night. Stay tuned for more news from Kansas.

— Jack Krebs

The American Fundamentalist movement is sowing the seeds for the destruction of American power in the world. The American position of power and prosperity is due in no small part by strong scientific education and funding. It will be interesting to see what the Fundies will do a few decades from now when the fruits of their efforts are realized and America has to take a back seat in the world to Europe and China . . . .the up-and-coming power-houses.

Anybody who is planning to speak at the public hearing in Topeka on Tuesday might consider getting there early so you can sign up to speak toward the beginning.

The American Fundamentalist movement is sowing the seeds for the destruction of American power in the world.

"the Kansas state school board doesn't get to decide what the definition of science is."

Methodological naturalism is scientifically problematic in origins science because it violates two key aspects of the scientific method. It philosophically limits both the formation and testing of competing hypotheses. It limits hypothesis formation by philosophically ruling out a logical, evidence-based competitor to the evolutionary hypothesis, that is, that life and its diversity are the result of a process that is at least partially guided. Criticisms of the naturalistic hypothesis are also disallowed to ensure that the outlawed competitor does not intrude through the back door. Without any substantive competitor, evolution cannot be effectively tested or falsified, and is thereby converted into a dogma, doctrine or ideology. As such, naturalistic evolution actually ceases to fall within the realm of science.

It limits hypothesis formation by philosophically ruling out a logical, evidence-based competitor to the evolutionary hypothesis, that is, that life and its diversity are the result of a process that is at least partially guided.

Criticisms of the naturalistic hypothesis are also disallowed to ensure that the outlawed competitor does not intrude through the back door.

Without any substantive competitor, evolution cannot be effectively tested or falsified, and is thereby converted into a dogma, doctrine or ideology. As such, naturalistic evolution actually ceases to fall within the realm of science.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh, those nasty ole fundie boogeymen troublemakers! What's a poor little American evolutionist to do these days?

I thought about the evolutionists' claim that Earth life originated from non-life via undirected chemical evolution. I thought about how this evolutionist claim, with its many Swiss-cheese holes, is taught in Topeka high-school biology textbooks

...clear problems involved with that claim (such as an irrefutably way-too-short time period in which to get the abiogenesis job done).

Tara says, "Evolution is more strongly supported than many other theories in science", but here is an example where it is clearly NOT.

'They believe that the naturalistic bias of science is in fact atheistic, and that if we don't change science, we can't believe in God. And so this is really an attack on all of science. Evolution is just the weak link'

This is a really interesting statement. Now if it said we live in a science minded society and each new discovery makes the bible and it's literal truth less likely that would be more accurate.

Truthfully virtually all religious beliefs cntradict science so why do they focus on Genesis and evolution? why not attack gravity which so many beings in the bible easily deny? Why not astronomy which again is shredded in the bible? Why not biology itself?

Also does it strike anyone as being odd that they will say life cannot come from non-life and then say people came back to life after being dead? Isn't that a mental contradiction?

We could go on. But why bother.

I have a question for ID proponents

Can you tell us how ID theory might explain the shared pattern of endogenous retroviruses observed in the genomes of humans and other great apes?

The theory of evolution has a wonderfully elegant explanation. I'd like to hear a similarly elegant non-evolutionary explanation from the ID folks. If ID is really a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution, it must be able to provide coherent explanations for phenomena like this.

So are there any takers? FL? You wanna give it a shot?

FL said:

"Oh? And who does "get to"? KCFS? NCSE? I don't think so; certainly not exclusively. All sides have some things to say on this one."

Since when? Why do you and your ilk continue to think that science is decided through a "town hall" process? Sorry, but "all sides" do not have a saying on what constitutes sound science.

"Professor Smith, I'm sorry but I just cannot accept the 'F' you gave me on my ID paper. I have many friends in Kansas who really liked what I had to say in this paper and they certainly have an equal say in its quality and scientific merit. And since my friends outnumber you, it deserves an 'A'. Please change my grade immediately. Oh, and another thing, we just decided that pigs fly so can you incorporate that into your lecture next week? Thanks, and we WILL see you in church on Sunday. God Bless, FL"

People sometimes write that the advance of the sciences is making it harder and harder to maintain that the Bible is literally true. This statement is misleading. It has been a very long time since it was possible to maintain the literal truth of the Bible in any rational way. There's no harder and harder about it. Since the matter is settled, it's pointless to blaim 21st Century science for something that happened a hundred years ago.

Jim,

You are quite correct. I didn't mean this as a debate point, just that the way it presented itself smacks of silliness.

I thought about the evolutionists' claim that Earth life originated from non-life via undirected chemical evolution. ... I thought about how this evolutionist claim, with its many Swiss-cheese holes, is taught in Topeka high-school biology textbooks with absolutely NO mention of the clear problems involved with that claim (such as an irrefutably way-too-short time period in which to get the abiogenesis job done). Nor mention of any possible alternatives.

It's just as Biblically sound to say that disease is caused by the wrath of God ass...

— Tara Smith

:) No one was supposed to catch that. Stupid typos, no editing function....grrr...

You can still go back and edit it using the MT editor.

But I kind of like it the way it is. Really drives home the point about slipping religion in through the back door...

Wait, I'm confused. Evolution CAN'T be taught because there is no competing theory? Wow, what a paradigm. Sounds like creationists can't lose.

"I have a question: if man comes from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

The proper response is, "Do you have children? Grandchildren?" If the answer is yes, "Then why are you still here?"

COULD THE BOARD RESPOND? That would have been great! Could have turned it into a gigantic teaching road trip.

I wonder what the ICD code is for "God ass"?

Great post Tara. I'm still laughing.

And nice catch Steve.

COULD THE BOARD RESPOND? That would have been great! Could have turned it into a gigantic teaching road trip.

I wonder what the ICD code is for "God ass"? Great post Tara. I'm still laughing.

Confusing evolution with abiogenesis?

"Irrefutable" claim of a "way-too-short time period" for abiogenesis? Can't you do better than that?

Problem is, there is no "evidence-based competitor." That's your biggest problem right there.

I've reviewed every American textbook on biology I can find that is currently in use. To the best of my knowledge and searching, none make a claim tha tlife arose from "non-life."

Can you cite the actual textbook being used in Topeka that makes these claims?

Note that this atmosphere contained no free oxygen gas and thus could not support life as we know it. (pg 343)

From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. (pg 344-345)

And, if there is a requirement that the difficulties with the hypothesis are presented, can we count on you to support adding the five or six pages necessary to put the real evidence into the books, so kids can learn all sides of the issue?

Sorry, but "all sides" do not have a saying on what constitutes sound science.

Can you tell us how ID theory might explain the shared pattern of endogenous retroviruses observed in the genomes of humans and other great apes?

.....a common theme of dissenters is to deny, implicitly or explicitly, the randomness of proviral integration into the host genome. If integration is non-random, they argue, the extreme improbability of ERVs showing up at the same loci across different species (a problem circumvented by acknowledging they represent ancestry, and not different, convergent instances of infection) effectivly goes out the window. To buttress this claim, creationists cite mainstream literature on specific aspects of integration specificity. For example, Zhu et al (1999) knocked out Sir3p and Sir4p, two components of silent chromatin, in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This was followed by a more than nine-fold decrease in Ty5 (one of the families of S. cerevisiae ERV) integration specificity, which normally (more than 90%) occur near the silent chromatin bounded telomeres and HM loci.

From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. (pg 344-345)

Nope. Evolutionists claim that life originated on Earth from non-life, via a process of undirected chemical evolution. Some use terms like "abiogenesis", sometimes "chemical evolution", sometimes "prebiotic evolution", to express said claim, but the claim is the same every time, no doubt about that.

Why such short time available? Well, there's the Late Heavy (meteoric) Bombardment, for one thing. And I don't think anyone here can refute that, which is why I chose to use the term "irrefutably".

I believe that in this particular area, ID is that evidence-based competitor to with that specific evolutionist claim.

So there you have it. Put the two quotes together and you have the standard evolutionist claim that life originated from non-life via undirected chemical evolution.

Tara, these examples also directly answer your objection about "this persistent confusing of abiogenesis with evolution." As you can clearly see from the textbooks themselves, I am not conflating ~anything~. Merely going by what the texts themselves say. Seems clear enough.

Why not?

I can't see what scientific criterion you would use to declare that any particular side does not.

But as for me, my focus is elsewhere for now. FL

FL,

The next time you need surgery please let me know and I'll recommend a good mechanic or perhaps I'll do it myself. Hey, what the hell, we all have opinions on medical issues, that's more than enough to qualify me or anyone else to practice medicine.

Come on FL, think through your statements before posting them.

FL, the Miller-Levine and Glencoe books specifically avoid making the claim that they know how life arose. You're suggesting they say what they don't.

On the other hand, they do cite the science that is quite solid.

So your request is that we don't tell the kids the facts. I find that an untenable idea, and questionable, ethically.

I find the following problems with FL's complaint.

1. Evolution makes no claim at all for how life originated. Evolution is a theory for how life diversified once it was established. In point of fact, Darwin rather harkens to Genesis for the origins of life, in the last paragraph of Origin of Species. That so few creationists/IDists know or pay heed to this convinces me they do not bother to learn the material they grouse about.

2. Complaints that 300 million years is not enough for life to arise on Earth rings rather hollow consider the alternative religious explanations, that life arose in 6,000 years, fully formed.

3. There is always a handful of scientists who "disbelieve" other aspects of other sciences. Mach refused to "believe" atomic theory; Einstein had difficulties with quantum mechanics. Neither of them claimed that those sciences they didn't understand should not be taught, nor did they see conspiracies against the facts by their colleagues.

Yes, there are creationists active in engineering and chemistry and physics. No, none of them has ever published a paper that denies evolution or which establishes an alternative hypothesis, such as ID. No, none of them is engaged in research which would lead to such publication.

The serious question for that small handful of scientists is why they ask for a special case for that science they disbelieve, if they ask it. As I noted, Einstein and Mach had the good sense not to stand in the way of advances in science they didn't particularly like or fully understand. The vanishingly small, and shrinking number of scientists who "disbelieve" Darwinian evolution mostly don't endorse creationist goals of stopping education in evolution (Dr. Behe specifically supports teaching Darwin, since, as he notes in Black Box, Darwin was right about evolution of animals and plants).

Arguments from authority don't wash in these cases. FL may deny evolution until the space cows come home, but diabetics need their evolution-based treatments daily, or more often. We literally cannot afford the folly of "intelligent design" when it would bollux up medicine and agriculture so badly.

4. The chief advocates of intelligent design, to a person, note that there is no hypothesis behind ID that can or should be taught in high schools -- including especially Dembski, Behe, and Nelson. I would defer to them on that issue. There simply is nothing to teach.

And in fact, that is the source of the Discovery Institute's complaints against the actions in Dover, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. DI knows that a court test will find no "there" there in intelligent design. Nothing to teach, no valid secular reason to require it be taught.

5. There is no "ID side" to this issue of what should be taught in public school science classes. There is no scientist willing to state a case for ID. To claim there are two sides to the issue is to claim falsely. Creationists successfully avoided a trial of creationism for more than 50 years, but when they were finally questioned, under oath, in the Arkansas trial, they confessed to two things that killed the chances for a law mandating creationism in science classes: First, they confessed they had no science to support the claims of creationism; and second, they confessed that creationism is based on a particular interpretation of Genesis, religious scripture. Discovery Institute, and all the paid advocates of ID are now scrambling to distance themselves from the court cases on ID, because they wish to avoid being put under oath for similar questions.

There is no laboratory where ID is practiced or researched. There is institution of higher education that offers a sequence of courses to train anyone in ID, largely because there is nothing to train.

The claims that such research exists, and that such hypotheses exist, are false claims, or at best, erroneous ones.

6. If you wish to deny the evidence that exists, please don't torture yourself and others with claims that you wish to do science. If you are open to the evidence, then you need to start with what is really in the literature and in the labs. NASA's astrobiology program is quite prolific. You should study with James Ferris, or at least pay heed to his work and his views, rather than distort them as IDists do when they complain about the textbooks (as you have done above). And especially you need to get hold of the work of Andy Ellington at the University of Texas. Your complaints about the difficulty of what you dismissively call "chemical evolution" have been tested in various labs, and your views of how the experiments should have come out appear to me to be significantly at odds with how things work in the universe. These reports probably cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs, but if you wish to present the case for and against them, you will not object to laying out the facts completely, I'm sure.

FL's complaints against chemical evolution, then, need to be taken up with God, or whoever FL believes the "designer" to be (I rather favor calling that power "the Wilber Force"). Some may regret that the ID view of the universe is not what the universe itself manifests. That is a religious issue, and not a scientific one. Scripture already covers what we are to do in such circumstances, and demanding that God change the universe, or teaching that the universe is something other than what it is, are not among the scriptural solutions.

Methodological naturalism is scientifically problematic in origins science because it violates two key aspects of the scientific method. It philosophically limits both the formation and testing of competing hypotheses. It limits hypothesis formation by philosophically ruling out a logical, evidence-based competitor to the evolutionary hypothesis, that is, that life and its diversity are the result of a process that is at least partially guided.

Ed Darell

"1. Evolution makes no claim at all for how life originated. Evolution is a theory for how life diversified once it was established. In point of fact, Darwin rather harkens to Genesis for the origins of life, in the last paragraph of Origin of Species. That so few creationists/IDists know or pay heed to this convinces me they do not bother to learn the material they grouse about."

As taught in HS evolution claims that life evolved from nothing. If along with an agreement to teach the parts of evolution theory that have strong factual evidence we also agree to fire teachers who teach the parts that have no factual support.

For example there is no support for amino acid to cell evolution. Yet in practice this is taught as fact in many many classrooms.

A unsupported fact that oppose a religious view IS a religious view. As such most teaching of evolution is a form of RELIGION and as such does not belong in school.

Unless you are honest and have a sticker on the book that says evolution cannot explain the origions of life and does not claim to. That is all we want. Follow the rules of science in science class not religion.