Kansas BOE wants to lie to students - Part I

Thanks very much for this work, Mike. During the hearings, we repeatedly made the point that our draft (Draft 2) of the standards is metaphysically neutral, and that the Minority's insertion of the word "unguided" was meant to make the draft support atheism in order to justify their inclusion of "intelligent design."

This deliberate conflation of a scientific, empirical conclusion about the idea of "unguided" and the idea of divine guidance is at the heart of the issue.

"I'm going to start with an addition that demonstrates true chutzpah. (For those of you not familiar with the Yiddish term, it is difficult to translate directly, but can best be described as the quality displayed by a man who craps on his neighbor's doorstep, then knocks and asks to borrow some toilet paper.) "

Thats a good one MIke, the more traditional defintion, is a person who murders their parents and then pleads for leniency because they're an orphan.

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. (Emphasis added.)

There is [] also a subtle but important difference between saying that something "has no discernable direction or goal" and saying that something is "unguided". The first statement is a description of a simple scientific fact. The second is a non-scientific, philosophical assessment, and does not necessarily follow from the first. And this is not an innocent or innocuous mistake.

. . . evolution as an unguided, contingent, materialistic process---as it must be for science even to study it. . .

For all the mendacity in the Kansas standards, and respectful of all the work you've put into this issue so far (and hopefully will continue to do), I don't think the insertion of the word "unguided" into the standards is anywhere near as malicious as it's being made out to be.

To begin with, the night-and-day distinction in plain English between "no discernable direction or goal" and "unguided" that you seek to draw simply isn't supported by either everyday language or the technical language of philosophy of science. To say that one of them is clearly "a statement of scientific fact" while the other one is clearly "a non-scientific, philosophical assessment, and does not necessarily follow from the first" is a distinction so subtle that its weight can't be carried by the language.

Certainly, the singling-out of evolution as unguided to the exclusion of gravity and plate techtonics as being unguided is a political ploy on the part of the Kansas creationists to set up evolution as atheistic. But as Lenny and others never tire of pointing out (nor should they ever tire), evolution is no more atheistic than the germ theory of disease, or dishawasher repair, or what have you. So of course there's an ulterior political motive that deserves to be criticized, but it is the singling out of evolution as unguided that is the problem, not the description itself. Who could seriously object to gravity being described as "unguided"?

If anything, the pedagogical case for describing evolution as unguided is even stronger. The single most common misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection is that it is "a process of randomness"; after this, I would venture that by far the next most common misunderstanding of evolution among laypersons is that it is goal-directed. Surely we've all lost count of the number of people asking things like "how did birds 'know' to grow feathers?" or "if evolution is 'trying' to create intelligence, why aren't more species intelligent like us?" I submit that one simply cannot give pedagogically appropriate responses to these misunderstandings without explaining that evolution is necessarily not "trying" to produce intelligent life, and necessarily does not and cannot "know" to grow certain features in advance of need. To give these kind of corrections and then to quibble and hand-wring about the use of the word "unguided" seems, at the very least, an overreaction.

I would go even further: the genius of Darwin and Wallace in proposing natural selection as a mechanism consists in its heart in showing how teleological effects can be explained in the absence of foresight. This is a fundamentally different sort of explanation from replacing, say, glass spheres holding planets in place with gravity holding planets in place. Sure, in both cases, if you're willing to define god(s) in such a way as to be invincible to analysis, you can keep belief in god(s) as a "first cause" or maybe "an underlying ontological ground", but if a student doesn't understand that evolution explains adaptive complexity without reference to intelligent foresight, then they have simply misunderstood evolution. What role would such a person understand natural selection to play? If you refuse to say that evolution is unguided, then in a Bizzaro-world inversion of Laplace students will look at natural selection and say, "teacher, I have no need of that hypothesis."

Mike Dunford - Perhaps the issue is if evolution is internally (self) or externally guided?

As least the Kansas Board of Education is teaching its students to be skeptical of its governmental bodies.

It appears to me that Mike and Greg have a fundamental disagreement about the scientificity of the unguidedness of evolution. Am I right?

— Nat Whilk

So of course there's an ulterior political motive that deserves to be criticized, but it is the singling out of evolution as unguided that is the problem, not the description itself.

Perhaps the issue is if evolution is internally (self) or externally guided?

I want to hear about those guiding mechanisms too. "Infinitely-long wavelength" EM waves were good for a laugh, hopefully the next thing will be too.

Whoa Lenny! I'm a good guy!

*points to white hat*

I know ID is a crock of you know. I was just trying to help clear up the "guided vs. unguided" thing. Evolution clearly has some internal guidence / optimization.

Perhaps it would be better to ask Mike and Greg whether they agree that an unseeable, unmeasurable, metaphysical intelligence guides any natural process, including evolution. I'm willing to place a small wager on the outcome.

Evolution clearly has some internal guidence / optimization.

It appears to me that Mike and Greg have a fundamental disagreement about the scientificity of the unguidedness of evolution. Am I right?

— Nat Whelk

The eight dissenting members worry that teaching evolution as suggested by the majority of the committee "will necessarily have the effect of causing students to reach an uninformed, but 'reasoned' decision that they, and all other human beings, are merely natural occurrences, accidents of nature that lack intrinsic purpose." In reality, nothing in the standards suggested by the writing committee would cause students to reach such a conclusion.

— Kenneth Miller

Ironically, only the statements suggested by the eight dissenting members would actually produce such a misconception

— Kenneth Miller

The final word on chutzpah: http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/SupremeChutzpah.html

it seems to me that the issue is purposelessness being the logical consequence of unguidedness. natural selection is not purposeless since it serves to adapt (to some degree) organisms to their changing local environments. this does not require guiding since overproduction of offspring will provide (through genetic variability) enough raw material for natural selection to take place. The genetic alterations that provide the variability do not require guiding either since it is not possible to predict exactly which changes will provide a reproductive/survival benefit ahead of the emergent changing local environment. Environmental changes to a great degree fall into scientific disciplines that are not biological. The teleology that is added on to this process to bring it all into a purposeful event for our benefit and to give meaning to our lives exists entirely outside the realm of science. This does not mean that it has no place in education in the humanities department at the high school level.

Whoa Lenny! I'm a good guy! *points to white hat* I know ID is a crock of you know. I was just trying to help clear up the "guided vs. unguided" thing. Evolution clearly has some internal guidence / optimization.

It's kind of funny to see Lenny, of all people, saying that it isn't possible for believers to see the hand of God, that evolution contradicts theistic views.

Please don't be so arrogant as to presume to tell me what I am saying. I know *exactly* what I am saying.

(more dick-waving from TS deleted)

(yawn)

Gee, I remember when this blog used to be a GOOD place to hang out . . . .

(sigh)

natural selection is not purposeless since it serves to adapt (to some degree) organisms to their changing local environments.

(more dick-waving from TS deleted)

— Lenny

Gee, I remember when this blog used to be a GOOD place to hang out ... .

Purpose requires intent, but natural selection has no intent.

I think they have a disagreement, but not a fundamental one.

But such a disagreement has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, if that's what you were hoping for.

There are many options, Lenny.

But such a disagreement has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, if that's what you were hoping for. And what if that's not what I was hoping for?

my error. i meant to say natural selection serves to adapt populations (not individual organisms) to their changing local environments. However there's a point of contention with ts which is that in my view it is the organism that is the agent being selected and not the allele since only organisms can reproduce and each allele is in some respect at "the mercy of" the other alleles carried by the individual. I think i disagree with Dawkins as well who voices that kind of opinion. Maybe that makes me arrogant to dispute the master. Also "purpose" is a value and "guided" is a process. i really dont think that there is any actual intention to guide but i see more of "the invisible hand" that Adam Smith used as a metaphor when describing his theory of capitalism. the ordered ecology produced by natural selection is entirely an unintended consequence. Also Lenny, youre a key person here, a lot of us get battered about in this arena it isnt necessary, but it does happen.

i meant to say natural selection serves to adapt populations (not individual organisms) to their changing local environments.

However there's a point of contention with ts which is that in my view it is the organism that is the agent being selected and not the allele since only organisms can reproduce and each allele is in some respect at "the mercy of" the other alleles carried by the individual.

Maybe that makes me arrogant to dispute the master.

Also "purpose" is a value and "guided" is a process.

i really dont think that there is any actual intention to guide but i see more of "the invisible hand" that Adam Smith used as a metaphor when describing his theory of capitalism. the ordered ecology produced by natural selection is entirely an unintended consequence.

Also Lenny, youre a key person here, a lot of us get battered about in this arena it isnt necessary, but it does happen.

ts

Really, what do you think you achieve here?

Really, what do you think you achieve here?

— Alan

More than you, that's for sure.

— ts

OT

Well, there's no functioning Bathroom wall at the moment.

I am sorry Lenny is leaving. I am also sorry if I was preaching in the other thread, I didn't mean to, just wanted to answer ts' questions honestly. I won't talk about my religious beliefs any more, but I think the rest of us should also consider separating the science from the opinions/beliefs/metaphysical conclusions, and refrain from making such conclusions based on the science, that is just what ID pretends to do. Not that anyone has to shut up, just keep the science and the philosophy separate. That is what ID fails to do, but we are smarter. Right?

I agree, Katarina.
It does seem counter-productive, when threads descend into religious debate, which is a side issue that plays into the hands of the IDers and their attempt to claim Darwinism as a religion.

You haven't been paying attention, Alan, and neither was Lenny. He kept accusing me of turning these into religious debates when the top level articles have been all about religion. And that's a consequence of fact, as PZ Myers and many other people have pointed out in the "Julian Sanchez has it wrong" and "My Response to Matzke" threads, that the evolution/ID debate is fundamentally about a clash between science and religion, much as some people here would like to deny it. Those threads seem to have allowed a lot of atheists to express some views that they've kept pent up, while some of the less sophisticated thinkers continued to yap at them about how they mustn't be critical of religion because it's bad strategy -- without ever managing to explain why that is.

Lenny's problem went way beyond not paying attention. I was his bogeyman, the source, in his view, of all his troubles at PT, but those daggers he thought he was throwing at me scattered a lot wider. Someone wrote at pharyngula: I'm especially dismayed at the implication by one PT poster (whom I once admired) that "ideological atheists" should be kicked out (from what?) because their views run contrary to some percieved strategy. (And what, exactly, is an "ideological atheist"?)

ts writes "You haven't been paying attention, Alan"

That's certainly true. I don't have time to more than dip in occasionally. I still, as an outside and fascinated observer, see the fundamental issue as political. The unholy alliance of Republican opportunists, fundie leaders etc. are exploiting belief to gain and hold power. It is possible to imagine a scenario when political and, indeed religious,debate are compromised. Why not defend freedom of thought, even if you might despise the views of others. Defending a broad education and the freedom to develop and express ideas, might produce the secularisation you perhaps seek as a by-product.

I defend freedom of speech as best I can. I'm not clear as to how freedom of thought is threatened or how I might defend it, but if it is and if I can then I should like to. I certainly don't want people to have views I despise, so I try to talk them out of it, but I abhore coercion. But this all applies to autonomous adults in autonomous settings. Certainly we don't want students to be free to think whatever might come into their heads or whatever might be imposed upon them from erroneous sources; we want them to develop and express ideas, but not exactly freely. The classroom is not a free speech zone. And they should have broad knowledge -- that's different from broad education. You might consider tightening up your concepts, or perhaps it's just my difficulty in grasping your intent. As for the unholy alliance, I definitely agree.

P.S. On achievement, I've learned quite a bit here and have developed some new insights, one of which, the scientific method as an epistemic source, unassailable by Humean scepticism, I think is very powerful. And I developed the ideas around this in trying to respond to people claiming that science and religion are both just as acceptable or equally rest on unproven assumptions. OTOH, I wonder when the last time was that Lenny developed a new insight; he and I seemed to clash because we had radically different goals, attitudes, and styles, despite having many common beliefs about evolution, ID, and such.

ts

The wedge strategy to control what is taught in schools is the threat to freedom, because a long game is being played here, and gaining a grip on what can be taught to young people is a key to building their political power base. This seems so much more important to address, challenge and reverse, rather than discussing the rationality of personal belief.

We should concentrate on debunking the cynical dishonesty of this unholy alliance, and engaging wherever possible with those who are misguided or misinformed, encouraging them to broaden their horizons.

I'm sure the fundamentalist leadership fear the exposure of their young people to real science will inevitably weaken their grip, and rightly so. It just seems that the vehement expression of anti-religious views is somewhat counter-productive, allowing the IDers to push their Darwinism = Atheism line.

I've also learned quite a bit here, for which I'm very grateful to contributors. My intent (as much as I could claim one) would be to see people engaging in geniune debate, such that insights are indeed developed, knowledge is improved and prejudices reconsidered.

PS When I said broad education,I was thinking unrestricted by any political dogma. I disagree about the classroom. Surely one can have a civilised discussion with youngsters without a descent into anarchy.

I think your clash with Lenny has more to do with ego (and I include Lenny) than goals.

OK, maybe my beef with your posts is that I don't understand them, for example I just looked up epistemic, and I'm still not clear. I did have three years of under-graduate biochemistry and can tie my own shoelaces, so your posts could be sailing over other people's heads too.:-)

Re PR (since science journals are pretty much only read by those who already have a decent education and school education is already corrupted by some cowardly, ignorant or dishonest creationist teachers): Can PT etc take over (or start) a radio, TV or satellite channel (or at least generate some programming)? Or is the internet approximately all that's available. The religious extremists have churches etc (and often the silence or collusion of the less extreme members) instead of reputable but much more limited (by comprehension as well as interest and culture) circulation things like journals. Neither science nor atheism has such a major lowest-common-denominator cultural outlet. Plus the creationists may well publish more (quantity an quality) popular or trashy books (rather by definition on the latter!).

The problem with being a scientist is the drive to be precise/accurate which leads to all these hypertext-like parentheses. :-D

Money's the key, SEF, but, whatever else you can say about the fundie leadership, you can't deny they can raise the dough.

ts,

Is it possible that you have made the assumption that the main use people have had for religion in the past was its explanatory power, but that now it is no longer needed, since science and thechnology have come a long way to explain natural phenomena?

I would argue that people seek religion more for comfort, stability, and sort of a solid foundation, than for logical reasons, or for its explanatory power of the natural world. Sure, it's nice if they can tie explanations in that fit in with natural observation, but this is not the main reason people embrace religion. I just wondered if you had considered that, and if you thought it important.

I disagree about the classroom. Surely one can have a civilised discussion with youngsters without a descent into anarchy.

— Alan

I think your clash with Lenny has more to do with ego (and I include Lenny) than goals.

— Alan

OK, maybe my beef with your posts is that I don't understand them, for example I just looked up epistemic, and I'm still not clear.