Not only are these animals new to science, but they're adapted to very specific environments --- some of them, to a single room in one cave.
Mike Elzinga · 19 January 2006
I see over on the York Daily Record Dover Biology page( http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3413427 ) that the issue of cloning has come up and may be leading to another strange controversy.
Registered User · 19 January 2006
Great article.
All he left out was the fact that the Discovery Institute and its employees are notorious unrepentant lying idiots.
Registered User · 19 January 2006
"If it's talking about the ramifications about genetic engineering, that's important," said Judy McIlvaine. She doesn't believe teachers are going to tell ninth-graders how to make a human being
I think most 9th graders know how to make a human being. When I was in 9th grade, I spent a lot of time trying out potential, um, lab partners.
The proposed curriculum states "students will be able to discuss the ramifications of using DNA to design their own children and cloning."
In Part II of the course, students will discuss the ramifications of using the concepts of eternal damnation and paradise to brainwash their own children.
buddha · 19 January 2006
For the other side of the controversy, here's Schönborn, spouting shit.
natural cynic · 19 January 2006
Ahem, Dr. Sprackland, SUV's couldn't have possibly been made by God. Maybe by Satan, however.
Registered User · 19 January 2006
Shonborn
Philosophy is the "science of common experience" which provides our most fundamental and most certain grasp on reality. And, clearly, it is philosophical knowledge of reality that is most in need of defense in our time.
Sure, Card. Clearly. Whatever you say. Amen. Huzzapo-guapo with sleigh bells and fifteen tiny rain gear. In fact, it's a gas.
Havermayer · 19 January 2006
One flaw is that it refers to ID as not being science since it invokes a supernatural cause. However, a creationist could counter that this is just an arbitrary rule enforced by the scientific elite, and means that evidence of design would be ignored or missed. One further paragraph explaining the differences between science and religion (that religious and philosophical views such as "design" and god cannot be tested, etc) and that evolution is not in conflict with religion would have made it more convincing to a creationist.
JohnS · 19 January 2006
Just as my estimate of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was going up, I found the balancing op-ed there, Why we care about Darwin wars. It is by David Klinghoffer, and published with the same date.
Amazingly, he claims religion is the primary inspiration for scientific inquiry and those who defend 'Darwinism' will be the downfall of American scientific supremacy.
I don't suppose it will last, but 100% of the 7 comments so far on the P-I site are critical of Klinghoffer's effort. Yes, I had to register so I could join the pile-on.
Renier · 19 January 2006
It goes like this: I own an SUV, but am not a mechanic. I know that when I turn the key in the ignition, the engine starts. I do not know how the engine works, but I accept that (today at least) it does. According to "irreducible complexity," the fact that I don't know how the engine works doesn't mean that someone else might know. Instead, I am supposed to believe that God made the car. And therein lies the hubris.
Brilliant!!!
Renier · 19 January 2006
Some comment on the newspaper article by a guy called Steve E. I just HAVE to show it here, it is REALLY funny.
The evidence for evolution comes from numerous diverse lines of evidence in geology, paleontology, ecolology, taxonomy, organismal biology, genetics, botany, zoology, biochemistry, etc.
To paraphrase the above post:
A city slicker visits his farmer cousin in the country. Not having the proper foot gear, he notices as he attempts to walk across the barnyard that he is up to his knees in this yucky stuff he has never seen before. "S**t" he yells, thereby naming the phenomenon. "Where could this huge amount of S**t have come from," he wonders? He thinks hard on this for a minute, but reaches no suitable answer, for S**t is outside of his experience or reasoning. Therefore, he logically concludes that it must demonstrate the existence of God, for there could be no other rational explantation. He then sits down to meditate on what he has done to deserve this affliction.
Thus is Intelligent Design (copyright and trademark applied for) proven.
Paul Flocken · 19 January 2006
From the article cited by Mike Elzinga: After the meeting, board members Judy and Rob McIlvaine, both said they would take a look at the wording of the curriculum.
I wonder when the state of education in this country reaches the point that the "wording of the curriculum" contains all the words of the curriculum; ie, the curriculum is nothing but a script that the teachers are supposed to follow complete with all the answers to all the questions the students are going to (supposed to) ask, as determined by the publicly pressured and politicized committees writing the curriculums. Could it ever get that bad?
Sincerely, Paul
Greg H · 19 January 2006
Instead, I am supposed to believe that God made the car.
For some reason this amused me to no end.
And I think a more telling point:
According to "irreducible complexity," the fact that I don't know how the engine works doesn't mean that someone else might know.
Which led me to think - just because we don't currently understand something, doesn't mean we won't in the future - heck, maybe even tomorrow. Is this the infamous "God of the Gaps" I keep reading about? If so, a better name might be "God of the Filling in the spots I'm ignorant about because I'm too lazy to learn anything new".
Greg H · 19 January 2006
Paul,
It's called state mandated standardized testing. Please feel free to run screaming in terror, because yes, it really is that bad. We are rapidly becomeing a nation of "teach the test" rather than a nation of students.
Mr Christopher · 19 January 2006
I couldn't resist. The intelligent designer made me register and reply to the nutty David Klinghoffer.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 19 January 2006
Which led me to think - just because we don't currently understand something, doesn't mean we won't in the future - heck, maybe even tomorrow. Is this the infamous "God of the Gaps" I keep reading about?
— Greg H
That's the one.
AC · 19 January 2006
I particularly liked this part:
Nevertheless, facts and truth are not determined by opinion polls, and the reality is this: Evolution is a fact. Darwin's theory is an explanation of how evolution works, so dumping Darwin still leaves the reality of evolution as a process.
— Robert Sprackland
Trouble is, evolution isn't as present and obvious a reality as, say, a speeding train. We would rightly doubt the sanity of someone standing on the tracks, looking right at the oncoming train as it blared its whistle, and insisting that this whole idea of locomotives is "just a theory". But that same person might have earplugs and be looking in another direction. He would have that luxury for a time. The result would be the same.
I think it's time we had a national ad campaign, or a new slogan for our money: "Reality does not care what you think."
Flint · 19 January 2006
We are rapidly becomeing a nation of "teach the test" rather than a nation of students.
From which I suppose we can conclude that the word 'becomeing' was on the test!
Were standardized tests imposed through ignorance, laziness, stinginess, or the dynamics of uncontrolled bureaucracy? Well, no, they were created in response to the rather obvious inadequacy of some schools and school systems. Before standardized testing, the (few) truly excellent schools were as good as anything today, but the lousy schools were completely useless. I'm old enough to remember when the top graduate of Silage County High School had no chance of passing any courses even at Parsons College.
So we have a tradeoff. Without any standards, Johnny never learned to write his name. With standardized tests, everyone learns to spell 'Johnny' (the name on the test). Presumably, this is an improvement. After all, standardized tests do not require that good schools dumb down their curricula. And I don't think that happens much, either.
It's also the case that standardized tests facilitate the task of evaluating a teacher. How many graduates go on to college and how well they do is pretty uncontrolled; too many factors involved. How well students do on the standardized test is pretty clear: the better the students do, the better the teacher must be. So the motivation to teach to the test can be very strong.
By and large, I think the cure is somewhat better than the disease. But of course, since we no longer suffer the disease, the cure is all we have to bitch about.
InsultComicDog · 19 January 2006
Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) presents his argument that "evolution is not completely true"... good for a chuckle.
I have to chime in with Havermayer. I wish people would stop saying things like this:
[ID] violates the No. 1 rule of science by invoking supernatural entities...
As Havermayer points out, it's too easy to dismiss such a statement as just some arbitrary rule.
A much better statement is that ID violates the No. 1 rule of science by invoking untestable, unpredictable entities.
Of course, many (most?) would say that supernatural entities are untestable and unpredictable by definition. But not everyone thinks of it that way. Even those who do may fail to understand the relevance.
I'm sure most people would classify prayer as supernatural, even those that believe that prayer can truly heal the sick. Yet we can readily test whether prayer predictably heals the sick under controlled conditions. We've done so, and found that it doesn't.
The problem, of course, is that some will argue that prayer doesn't work that way. It's unpredictable, and can't be tested under controlled conditions. That's what really moves it out of the realm of science.
The same is true for ID. Calling it supernatural misses the critical point.
AD · 19 January 2006
I actually believe that, in a way, the same problem that causes standardized testing causes this evolution debate. We, as a society, routinely fail to instill intellectual curiosity in the members of our society. Without the desire to understand issues (and, more so, the resulting ability to understand bogus arguments), everyone is much more likely to buy some half-assed insane explanation because it is convenient, ties in with what they already think, etc...
How many people really think critically about anything?
I guarantee that if most creationists truly sat down and thought openly and objectively about their ideas, they would be forced to reject them. Likewise, I know a few "scientists" who might have to do the same, however. The thought of one particular astronomy teacher of mine who proclaimed, in class, that the big bang was evidence that atheists were correct comes to mind.
We're surrounded by illogical idiots! Unfortunately, one group of them is unusually loud and well-financed.
Larry Fafarman · 19 January 2006
Comment #73473 posted by Renier on January 19, 2006 07:49 AM
"It goes like this: I own an SUV, but am not a mechanic. I know that when I turn the key in the ignition, the engine starts. I do not know how the engine works, but I accept that (today at least) it does. According to "irreducible complexity," the fact that I don't know how the engine works doesn't mean that someone else might know. Instead, I am supposed to believe that God made the car."
Brilliant!!!
"Brilliant" ? More like stupid. The writer shows that he has absolutely no understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity -- just like former Dover school board member William Buckingham showed when he testified in the Dover trial -- see page 12 on
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1027_day16_am.pdf The fact that the writer is a Ph.D. zoologist makes his show of ignorance about ID even more appalling.
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run. And if the car was to be built in a string of factories, with each factory adding just one part, and furthermore if it was necessary to drive the car from one factory to another during assembly, the car could not have been built. THAT is the correct analogy for biological irreducible complexity.
This op-ed article is such a disgrace that if I were pro-evolution I would try to hide it rather than flaunt it.
Joe Shelby · 19 January 2006
Larry just posted something to the same effect as I was reviewing my post in "preview", but I'll post this anyways...
Actually, it does present Behe's argument incorrectly. Not that I give Behe any credibilty at all, but I'd rather it be shot down on its own lack of merits not on what its assumed incorrectly to mean.
believed that certain biological structures were too complex to have evolved by chance. He called this premise "irreducible complexity."
Behe's definition of IC is not that its too complex to have evolved, but that an IC system the interrelating parts produce a system which breaks down if any one of those parts is broken or missing. His definition of IC is fine and anybody can acknowledge it as a reasonable definition; in engineering its obvious (its also considered evidence of a flawed design possessing no fail-safes).
Behe is wrong in that 1) many of his cited examples of IC aren't really IC (yet he rarely changes his arguments in the face of such facts), and 2) he asserts that IC implies design and can't have evolved on through natural processes (also disproved on numerous occasions, yet he still uses his same discredited examples).
Joe Shelby · 19 January 2006
adendum: I should have added "in nature" to my Behe is wrong #1. IC in engineering (especially software) is all over the place, but many of his IC in nature examples aren't.
Mr Christopher · 19 January 2006
Larry is a crack up to be sure, but reading him first thing in the morning is not advised.
Wislu Plethora · 19 January 2006
Behe's definition of IC is not that its too complex to have evolved, but that an IC system the interrelating parts produce a system which breaks down if any one of those parts is broken or missing.
— Joe Shelby
Of course Behe's premise is that IC systems are too complex to have evolved by mutation and natural selection, otherwise he would have no point at all. Simply arguing that IC = "absence of parts means the thing won't work" is not much of a revelation; it could apply to almost any biological structure. The question Behe asks is, if a thing is IC, how could it not be the work of a designer? The mistake he makes is in assuming IC based on facts not in evidence, and plugging in the gapgod for an explanation.
William E Emba · 19 January 2006
Just as my estimate of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was going up, I found the balancing op-ed there, Why we care about Darwin wars. It is by David Klinghoffer, and published with the same date.
Klinghoffer was the columnist in the Wall Street Journal who got all the facts wrong about the Sternberg case.
UnMark · 19 January 2006
The line the vast majority of news outlets use to describe ID is that "some aspects of life are too complex to have evolved by chance [or Darwinian evolution]." I think Dr. Sprackland's analogy is spot on in light of this. However, I still think it leaves the door open to creationists pointing out that the SUV *does* have a designer.... He didn't go far enough in his assertion of facts at the bottom - IMO, just mentioning bacterial resistance would have driven home the evolution is fact statement. But now Larry will claim that micro-evolution (bacterial resistance) is uncontested - macro-evolution (speciation) is. . . . Bah!
Cudos to Dr. Sprackland.
Cheers!
Flint · 19 January 2006
"Brilliant" ? More like stupid. The writer shows that he has absolutely no understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity
On the contrary, the writer has honed in on the central point without becoming bogged down in the details. Behe's argument really is "I can't understand how this structure could have evolved, therefore it did not evolve, therefore goddidit."
In the Dover trial, as Judge Jones' decision makes perfectly clear, Behe's definition of IC was defined away to total uselessness. Behe disallows scaffolding. He disallows exaptation. He disallows any intermediate steps that lack an essentially infinite level of detail. And as Jones pointed out, what Behe is left with is the claim that "this structure, lacking any of its parts, couldn't possibly perform the *same function* it performs now, so it couldn't have evolved." And Jones points out that (1) a structure can arise by LOSING parts as well as by adding them; (2) a structure serving one function can be co-opted to serve a different function; and (3) ample evidence was provided to show that organisms exist lacking one or more of Behe's listed "parts" and still function just fine, doing the *same thing*. In other words, Behe's claims are refuted.
So, skipping over all this, WHY would Behe (in the face of actual refuting evidence, and forced to redefine himself into irrelevance) not abandon his claims of IC? Alternatively, why would he make no attempt to support his claims through any research? Jones saw the obvious as clearly as anyone else: Behe WANTED his claims to be true as a matter of doctrine and not science.
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run.
Except of course there are running cars which lack spark plugs, lack fuel injectors, lack batteries, and indeed one would be hard pressed to name ANY part such that no possible cars could run without it. IC simply breaks down on examination, in Larry's example just as surely as in Behe's testimony.
Stephen Elliott · 19 January 2006
Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 19, 2006 10:05 AM (e)
Comment #73473 posted by Renier on January 19, 2006 07:49 AM
...
"Brilliant" ? More like stupid. The writer shows that he has absolutely no understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity --- ...
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run.
No Larry,
If the vehicle was IC then removing a single spark plug would make it inoperative. In fact remove any single thing including a door a seatbelt etc, should render it useless if it was IC.
Maybe you also don't understand what IC would actually mean.
Anyway it was only an analogy. Discrediting that does not validate the IC argument.
yellow fatty bean · 19 January 2006
Yes, but we can all agree that the Dilbert cartoon show was completely unfunny.
Steve T · 19 January 2006
Things are starting to make sense to me now. It's *Larry* that doesn't understand what IC is, which may be why we always seem to be arguing in circles. (Hey, I'm just trying to find some positive spin for what always seems to happen in these threads.) Proponents of ID do NOT say that IC means that the whole cannot run without the parts. All biologists would agree with that at least as a general principle: remove someone's heart or brain and they would die. Duh. Instead, they say that IC means that the separate parts could not come about on their own through selection because none of the parts would have a purpose (and therefore be positively selected for) unless all of the parts were present. The argument then would be: the SUV had to be designed because there would be no use for a spark plug (which is required for the SUV to run) without the existence of the SUV.
Ed Darrell · 19 January 2006
Comment #73473 posted by Renier on January 19, 2006 07:49 AM
"It goes like this: I own an SUV, but am not a mechanic. I know that when I turn the key in the ignition, the engine starts. I do not know how the engine works, but I accept that (today at least) it does. According to "irreducible complexity," the fact that I don't know how the engine works doesn't mean that someone else might know. Instead, I am supposed to believe that God made the car."
Brilliant!!!
To which Mr. Fafarman responded:
"Brilliant" ? More like stupid. The writer shows that he has absolutely no understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity --- just like former Dover school board member William Buckingham showed when he testified in the Dover trial --- see page 12 on
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1027_day1... The fact that the writer is a Ph.D. zoologist makes his show of ignorance about ID even more appalling.
But, Larry, that is Behe's argument exactly. I heard him make that argument, in Arlington, Texas, before an audience of mostly science students. Biochem prof Ed Bellion pressed Behe on exactly how he, Bellion, could explain ID to his students so they could go look for it and confirm it in nature. In the ensuing exchange Behe conceded that the examples offered in his book were things he -- Behe -- didn't know, not necessarily things others didn't know. As to how to tell ID from anything else, Behe said: "I can't tell you. But I know it when I see it."
Now, Larry, I don't want you to do this for me; do this on your own, at your own desk, for your own edification: Find any difference between the argument about the SUV and what Behe actually said to the biochemists in Arlington, Texas.
Did I mention that Behe's speech was sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ?
W. Kevin Vicklund · 19 January 2006
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run. And if the car was to be built in a string of factories, with each factory adding just one part, and furthermore if it was necessary to drive the car from one factory to another during assembly, the car could not have been built. THAT is the correct analogy for biological irreducible complexity.
— Larry
You are almost correct. The bolded part of your statement is what I disagree with. It either shouldn't be there or it should say "and furthermore if it was assumed that it was necessary to drive the car from one factory to another during assembly" That is the real reason IC is not a scientific criticism of modern evolutionary theory - it ignores or assumes away significant mechanisms such as "scaffolding" and optimisation. Even if you can demonstrate that something is IC, it doesn't have any bearing on whether it evolved.
I do agree that the example given was quite poor, the primitive form of GotG, rather than the derived form that is IC.
Larry .before you call anyone stupid,take a long hard look in the mirror.You can remove some of the spark plugs and some of the injectors, but the engine will still run.You can push start a vehicle down a hill without a battery and it will run. Vehicles, are manufactured adding parts at other factories,(how could you drive them anyway if they are not complete,that makes no sense) Engines,transmissions,wheels,seats were all working independently before some one decided to put them in a vehicle. My Ford Explorer has to be the result of random mutation,it could not have been from ID.
It's also the case that standardized tests facilitate the task of evaluating a teacher. How many graduates go on to college and how well they do is pretty uncontrolled; too many factors involved. How well students do on the standardized test is pretty clear: the better the students do, the better the teacher must be. So the motivation to teach to the test can be very strong.
— Flint
This is absolutely wrong! My wife is an elementary teacher, and this is disproven quite easily by the difference between her last year and this year. Last year was some miraculous mess - a generation of garbage. Every single teacher in her grade at her school was utterly exasperated because somehow that entire group of kids was terrible! They did badly on all tests, they acted out, talked, fought, and so on. Just awful kids. I don't know how that happened, just a big statistical anomaly, but all the teachers of that grade experienced it (and in talking to the lower grades, found out this wave of terror had been pounding its way up the years - but that the next year after would be great!). Now this year, she has great kids. More like normal kids, I suppose, but on the good end of the spectrum at least.
A student's performance on a test, assuming at least basic competence by the teacher, is far more a factor of the student's abilities and home life than anything else. And when a teacher gets a bad class, she gets punished for it.
I know of no teachers that think standardized tests are a good thing. And I know a lot of (elementary, at least) teachers! There's no more room in elementary school to educate kids. They're inundated with so many specific tests they must pass that they have to spend all their time effectively just teaching kids the answers to the test. Kids are NOT LEARNING anymore! It's killing education. And in fact, administrators come in to observe, and they discuss how you need to be "teaching to the standards". Teach to the test isn't just motivated, it's mandated.
Did you know they practically don't teach science in elementary anymore? They have to spend all their time on math and writing, because that's what the test is on. My wife squeezes in science where she can, and that's not very much. And forget music and art! They are things of the past. These kids are not rounded, they're hardly even really learning anything.
I think that lack of science should be of great concern to the visitors of this site.
I don't own this blog, so I can't tell others here how to conduct themselves, but before we waste any more time on Larry's willful cluelessness, I'd just like to advise everyone that he's all but explicitly conceded that we're right and his side's wrong about evolution, so there's really no need to go over old ground with him again. Following is my last response to him, on the Bathroom Wall, pasted here to prove my point (Larry's words in italics):
Splitting hairs won't work, Larry. Your latest final word was:
I never conceded that evolution is useful or valid...What I really mean is, "OK, even if it is true that evolution theory is essential in biology, it is not necessary to accept evolution theory in order to use it."
In science, if you "use" a theory, and thereby get good results, and accept the results, then for all practical purposes, you "accept" the theory that got you the results, whether or not you say you "accept" it. In international law, this is known as "de-facto recognition." In everyday life, it's known as "facing reality."
Since you have admitted that real biologists can make real use of evolution (and not ID) in the real world, you have effectively admitted that the theory of evolution is "true" in all pracitical senses of the word, and religiously-based attacks on it are not. Therefore, there is no further reason to argue with you. Goodbye.
Donald M · 19 January 2006
Larry Fafarman writes:
This op-ed article is such a disgrace that if I were pro-evolution I would try to hide it rather than flaunt it.
Yes, that is exactly right. This op-ed is a joke and total mis-representation (yet again sigh) of ID.
Sprackland writes "It is a sad indictment against science education that most Americans do not understand or accept biological evolution and its profound influence on our lives." Well, since it is the Darwinians who hold sway over what can and can not be taught in a science classroom (and apparently non-science classrooms as well), who but themselves are to blame for this 'sad indictment'.
Stephen Elliott · 19 January 2006
WOW! Larry has his first supporter.
Donald, Perhaps you could explain nice and simply just what ID is.
A few questions Donald.
1. How does ID explain the human immune system better than evolution? 2. Why should a designer bother with an immune system when it would be simpler to just not design things we need to be immune from?
You gotta read this guy Klinghoffer:
Whatever its merits as science, Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling. Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help.
So what he is saying is that ID has all the flavor of evolution but none of the calories?
His understaning of the history is just as nutty. Read him and weep.
Rome is on board in terms of agreeing (with me, and many others) that ID is not science. Hopefully you won't perpetuate the lie, often repeated here and by NCSE staff, that Rome affirms full-blown evolution. It does not. What Rome affirms is that it is acceptable for the flock to believe that God used evolution as a secondary means---much like He uses gravity to move the planets. That is, theistic evolution is acceptable.
According to Catholic dogma, it is unacceptable to believe that, any point, God was not in control. While free to affirm common descent, a Catholic must also affirm that God did, or at least could have, intervened---rarely or often as needed, to guarantee that His plan was not thwarted. And, according to official Catholic doctrine, man is part of God's sovereign plan.
So here is a litmus test: any version of evolution that declares that man was not inevitable is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
harold · 19 January 2006
One nit-picking point -
The article suggests that "most Americans don't accept biological evolution".
This is incorrect. What polls actually show is that Americans resist admitting that human beings evolved from hominid ancestors. But the vast majority of Americans do accept that other animals, plants, microbes, viruses, and so on are the result of evolution. Granted, the general public has a very poor understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. But the majority of Americans do not "reject evolution".
Anyone exposed to American culture for a even a brief period of time will see that evolution, an ancient earth, a fossil record, and so on, are taken for granted, and that dinosaurs, ice age mammals, and the like are frequently made reference to. As is human evolution, for that matter. "Cave men", "neanderthals", "ape men", and so on are almost universally accepted images. It's just considered impolite to admit the modern humans are descended from earlier species, rather than magically created.
This is a non-trivial point. The deluded and obsessive creationists of the internet do NOT represent a majority view. Claims that the specific features of bacteria had to be created by magic, for example, are widely received with skepticism and even ridicule.
And if the car was to be built in a string of factories, with each factory adding just one part, and furthermore if it was necessary to drive the car from one factory to another during assembly, the car could not have been built. THAT is the correct analogy for biological irreducible complexity.
— Larry Fafarman
So does the fact that living organisms do not need to be assembled in factories demonstrate that they're not irreducibly complex?
W. Kevin Vicklund · 19 January 2006
According to Catholic dogma, it is unacceptable to believe that, any point, God was not in control. While free to affirm common descent, a Catholic must also affirm that God did, or at least could have, intervened---rarely or often as needed, to guarantee that His plan was not thwarted. And, according to official Catholic doctrine, man is part of God's sovereign plan.
So here is a litmus test: any version of evolution that declares that man was not inevitable is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
— Heddle
Not so. From your first paragraph, all Catholic doctrine requires is that God had control and the ability to intervene. If God had to intervene at some point, that implies that man was not inevitable prior to that point.
Mr. Heddle: Rome does indeed affirm full-blown evolution, as THE credible explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, including the PHYSICAL attirbutes of humans. Read this paragraph:
What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.
Note the emphasis I added: according to the Church, evolution adequately explains the physical attibutes of life-forms, but not the spiritual element of man, about which evolution -- and all other science -- is silent.
harold · 19 January 2006
David Heddle -
Your attempt to draw a distinction between evolution and "full blown" evolution is strange.
Science cannot address such issues as whether or not evolution is "God's will", or whether the emergence of human beings was "inevitable". (If anyone disagrees, please be sure to post a SCIENTIFIC test of these propositions. Simply stating that science can work whether or not these things are true is irrelevant.)
Evolution is evolution. There is no difference between gravity and "full blown" gravity.
So, David Heddle, if you wisely agree that the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of cellular and post-cellular life on earth, whatever your religious or political views, please do the honest thing, and oppose the teaching of dishonest, pseudo-scientific, politically-motivated nonsense as "science" in public schools (whether labelled "science", or labelled "philosophy" or whatever else but taught explicitly as a denigration of and contradiction to the contents of main stream science classes).
Flint · 19 January 2006
Hamumu:
I fear we're wandering off the topic. However, while I'm open to correction from those with more direct experience, I don't see how what you say even intersects with what I wrote.
You argue that a teacher's performance is influenced by the nature (and capabilites) of the students, and I wouldn't dispute this. I was comparing the use of standardized test results as a measure of teaching competence, with the use of *nothing whatsoever*, where teachers could teach whatever they felt like (or didn't), make up tests that measured nothing much, assign arbitrary grades regardless of the "terrible kids", etc.
You seem to be saying that *given standardized tests so we have some basis of comparison*, results can vary a great deal from year to year. Yep, no question about it, so long is there is *some basis of comparison.* I guess I didn't make that clear.
A student's performance on a test, assuming at least basic competence by the teacher, is far more a factor of the student's abilities and home life than anything else. And when a teacher gets a bad class, she gets punished for it.
But, once again, the only way to *recognize* a bad class is to have a standard of comparison. Yes, I agree that the *actual* performance of any student is mostly a factor of home life - how closely the parents watch their child's performance, how well the parents have instilled the positive value of education, etc. But without any standards, how can we determine the actual performance? I've been in classes where performance (and behavioral problems) were so awful that the teacher gave every single child an A grade just to get rid of them. This was before standardized testing closed off that option.
I know of no teachers that think standardized tests are a good thing.
Nor do I. Standardized testing may help identify bad teachers (over the course of time, with bad classes of students averaging out), but it also hobbles good teachers. It's a two-sided coin. Bad teachers don't like to be spotlighted, and good teachers don't like to be stifled.
Kids are NOT LEARNING anymore! It's killing education.
You imply that before standardized tests, kids DID learn. But in fact, this was very widely variable. Truly good teachers lucky enough to have good kids could educate them FAR better before standardized testing choked off any such opportunity. Truly bad teachers could pass kids who learned absolutely nothing. Again, two sides.
Did you know they practically don't teach science in elementary anymore? They have to spend all their time on math and writing, because that's what the test is on. My wife squeezes in science where she can, and that's not very much. And forget music and art! They are things of the past. These kids are not rounded, they're hardly even really learning anything.
Let me ask, then. Should we DROP math and writing, so as to buy the time to teach science, music and art? If you were in charge, knowing (as you imply here) that there simply isn't enough time in the day to cover even half of what would be nice to cover, what would you DE-emphasize? Or would you recommend 12-hour school days?
This isn't a problem with standardized testing, really. Granted, whatever the tests cover is going to be where the time is spent. But there's still only so much time, and to pay Paul, you gotta rob Peter. Tests or no tests.
I think that lack of science should be of great concern to the visitors of this site.
I'm sure you're right. But you may have noticed that spelling, grammar, vocabulary and paragraph structure are a deep mystery to most of our scientific types - we can see this directly in the posts. As for art and music, who can say? But science, now, people here understand that very well.
Flint · 19 January 2006
I don't find anything exceptional in what Heddle wrote. The Catholic Church does indeed take a teleological view of evolution: that it was God's chosen method of achieving the results we see around us today. And perhaps the process itself doesn't specify any particular set of results, but the process is guided by the Hand of God. Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its finest.
In principle this position can't be disproved. Science has no way to detect the Hand of God. So we either take it on faith, or we do not. Catholics take it on faith. So be it.
Wislu Plethora · 19 January 2006
I don't find anything exceptional in what Heddle wrote.
— Flint
Indeed. When Heddle posts something that doesn't collapse under the weight of internal contradictions and logical fallacies and make a big mess, we should be thankful.
Beer · 19 January 2006
It goes like this: I own an SUV, but am not a mechanic. I know that when I turn the key in the ignition, the engine starts. I do not know how the engine works, but I accept that (today at least) it does. According to "irreducible complexity," the fact that I don't know how the engine works doesn't mean that someone else might know. Instead, I am supposed to believe that God made the car. And therein lies the hubris.
This is open for attack. I realize that ID people make equally bad analogies and base their whole philosophy on them, but let's not "stoop to their level" if you will.
The SUV isn't alive, much like a mousetrap or Mt. Ruchmore (or a soda can as in the Kirk Cameron video on Google.)
harold · 19 January 2006
Flint -
Heddle seems to imply that there is a difference between evolution and "full blown evolution".
The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution. It does not have a special "full blown" variant.
As is true of all scientific theories, it contradicts theological and philosophical ideas only when they make alternate, testable predictions about physical reality, and are shown to be wrong.
If God had to intervene at some point, that implies that man was not inevitable prior to that point.
It implies no such thing, given that (and also according to Catholic doctrine) God is omnipotent and omniscient. For example, God's sovereign plan was for the Jews to occupy the Promised Land. That means the Jewish conquest of said land, troubled as it was, was nevertheless inevitable. To carry out His plan, God had to intervene repeatedly, for example by parting the Red Sea. Does that mean that before He parted the Red Sea the Jews' acquisition of the Promised Land was not inevitable? Of course not.
Whether God's interventions in evolution, rare or numerous, were themselves foreseen and foreordained is a separate theological issue. But the outcome, that man exists, must be viewed by the Catholic faithful as inevitable.
Raging Bee,
We've been through this a few times. If one doesn't quote mine, and one views all the Catholic teachings ex cathedra, the true picture is obvious. Official Catholic teaching does not allow that the spiritual aspect of man could have been placed in any-old intelligent species (including whales) that happened to evolve. And, of course, full blown (undirected) evolution does not even guarantee that any intelligent species had to have evolve on earth. Catholic teaching goes beyond saying that God made the soul and, thankfully, evolution provided an acceptable container species.
Harold
Science cannot address such issues as whether or not evolution is "God's will", or whether the emergence of human beings was "inevitable".
Science does take a stand. Evolution would certainly argue that man is not an invetible consequence of the initial conditions.
please do the honest thing, and oppose the teaching of dishonest, pseudo-scientific, politically-motivated nonsense as "science" in public schools
For like what--the hundredth time?
or labelled "philosophy"
No, that I will not oppose--which is not to say that I approve of any syllabus for a philosophy class that contains ID. But I absolutely support the legitimacy of ID being part of a philosophy course.
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Your attempt to draw a distinction between evolution and "full blown" evolution is strange.
Does this correspond roughly to the IDC crowd's distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'?
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Well, since it is the Darwinians who hold sway over what can and can not be taught in a science classroom (and apparently non-science classrooms as well), who but themselves are to blame for this 'sad indictment'.
How would you know, Donald? You refuse to read articles explaining the working of evolution by actual evolutionary biologists (your 'Darwinians'), and, indeed, you essentially declare that such articles are irrelevant. Seems to me you'd be one of the worst possible people to make ANY statement on evolution at all.
Here is a metaphor for Donald: he signs up for a college class in, say, chemistry. He doesn't show up most of the time. When he does show up, he constantly raises his hand and tells the prof that chemists are all full of shit, and that chemists are all members of a a cabal trying to monopolize their field unfairly and keeping out new ideas. He reads none of the assigned texts. He shows up for none of the labs. he hands in no assignments. When the final comes, Donald shows up, takes the final and flunks. Afterwards, he tells the prof that since chemistry is totally invalid, it's up to the professor to prove to HIM, Donald, that any of the chemistry textbooks are valid, and that in fact he should be given an A.
Ubernatural · 19 January 2006
#73530, Mr Christopher
You gotta read this guy Klinghoffer:
Whatever its merits as science, Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling.
I don't get why a "Darwinian" philosophy has to be such a bad thing. If I were to prove God exits, it wouldn't change who anyone on earth is any more than if I proved that God doesn't exist. Every person is still the same individual. If there really is no higher power that wants us to do good things guiding our morality, it doesn't negate all of the good things people have done because that's what they thought God would have wanted. That "holy" morality is still real. In fact, being a "Darwinist" enables a person to attribute this noble morality to something that we have in fact created, for ourselves. If God is not real, that means that we created God, the concept. If that is not uplifting or ennobling, I don't know what is.
Of course we created the bad stuff that tags along with religion too...
Does this correspond roughly to the IDC crowd's distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'?
No, the Catholic position does not even remotely rule out "macroevolution."
It also does not rule out irreducible complexity. That is, while it may not recommend declaring any present "gap" or apparent discontinuity as a sign of divine intervention--it does not preclude the possibility. And, in fact, ruling out the possibility (as opposed to just ignoring it) is indeed contrary to Catholic teaching.
Mr. Heddle: which Catholic teaching specifically says that scientists should compromise or discard science when trying to explain physical phenomena? AFAIK, the Church affirms evolution by saying, at the very least, that we mortals should not substitute fake science for real science. Miracles and interventions do happen, of course, but they are, by definition, supernatural, unexplainable by natural laws, outside the realm of science, and real science does not assume them or incorporate them to reach a pre-set conclusion.
The Church demands that we believe that Mankind was created according to God's plan -- that's not the same as sayng that scientists can prove it.
AD · 19 January 2006
Science does take a stand. Evolution would certainly argue that man is not an invetible consequence of the initial conditions.
This statement is false.
Evolution would argue that man was not an inevitable consequence of the initial physical conditions. Catholicism, in this case, is speaking to the initial supernatural conditions, which science avidly refuses to state any opinion on.
You're confusing answers to the same question based on the level of the answer. For instance, if you ask me "Why is that water boiling?", I can:
-Explain molecular agitation and the physical process of boiling.
-Explain that God created the water and this process, and thus, it boils.
-Explain that I wanted some tea.
All of these are possible (and, depending on assumptions in the latter two cases, correct) answers, yet NONE of them are answering in contradiction to each other. It is entirely plausible that all three are true! Certainly it is not physically necessary that the specific water in that pot would have boiled at that specific time, yet thanks either to my actions from free will, the will of God, or both, it was inevitable that the water would boil in a non-phyiscal sense.
That's the problem with your argument. The fact that, through physical means there is no inevitable consequence that could be tested, proven, or even possible does not contradict a non-physical inevitability.
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Whatever its merits as science, Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling.
This is a meme that seems to be repeated endlessly, but is seldom addressed: WHY is 'Darwinism' supposedly so degrading and unennobling? I was first taught evolution in junior high school science classes, like 30 years ago, and despite what these christianists think, it hasn't made me a nihilist, it hasn't convinced me that people are worthless, it hasn't given me a 'dismal view' of mankind, it hasn't made me beat my wife and children, or take drugs. None of those things. In fact, it opened up to me a whole way of looking at the world, history, and humans that to me is far more rich and interesting, and insightful than some literalist interpretation of Genesis. Fundies always seem to think that humans being descended from apes is some horrible thing that should depress everyone, and that everyone else of course feels the same way. It's never bothered me in the slightest. To me, it's given me an amazing sense of being a part of history. And of course, there are many, many others who feel the same way.
But people Klinghoffer can't wrap their brains around this. To them, 'Darwinism' makes them feel like they're not 'special', and so they have to project this reaction onto everyone else.
Moses · 19 January 2006
Comment #73557
Posted by David Heddle on January 19, 2006 12:28 PM (e)
Science does take a stand. Evolution would certainly argue that man is not an invetible consequence of the initial condition.
Just because David Heddle the Astronomer makes an assertion? May as well put these words in the mouth of evolution to knock it down:
"Evolution would certainly argue that cats are not an invetible consequence of the initial condition."
"Evolution would certainly argue that chickens are not an invetible consequence of the initial condition."
"Evolution would certainly argue that flowers are not an invetible consequence of the initial condition."
"Evolution would certainly argue that worms are not an invetible consequence of the initial condition."
I think what science says is more along these lines:
Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. The living species of today are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years. The phylogenetic tree at right represents these relationships for the three major domains of life.
And doesn't address the origin of any specific creature, man or otherwise.
...Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling.
Using a jackhammer as a vibrator doesn't work, either, for the same reason: that's not what it's made for!. Someone should tell Klinghoffer to read the instructions before turning the appliance on.
And if Klinghoffer can't find a better "philosophy" than Darwinism, is that anyone else's fault?
k.e. · 19 January 2006
Hmmmm ID a philosophical idea ? Hardly an original idea.
How about the comparing it to other ideas in the history of religions,with evidence from archeology,anthropology,neuroscience,psychology,psychoanalysis and so on that show that once humans do not have to spend every hour of the day trying to collect enough food just to survive that certain members of society will actually have the time to find ample 'evidence' to support a whole panoply of heavenly creatures AND give themselves a comfortable life style that guarantees they will never have to lift an implement heavier than a pen or a prayer.
Couple that with the rise of Kings, Queens and empire builders plus a shortage of resources producing a need to justify that power and the authority to take those resources from those that would challenge it, those priests and their ideas become even more important.
ID follows the tried and true method of religious obscurantism. Good old cause and effect, and critical thinking, the one thing that the religious apologists would prefer was kept from the public view, keeps those pens going full time trying to bury that line of thought. Now that would be an interesting Philosophical subject.
Hmmmm I'm thinking why not do as the ID crowd ask and call it "Darwinism" and a philosophy and teach it in a philosophy course or a comparitive dogma course now you will note that it is already taught in neo-con economics and the effects of propaganda in politics those guys don't mess about they want the best ideas.
Raging Bee,
You are missing the boat. I am not saying that the Catholic Church really does think ID is science, or that a Catholic scientist should do science differently, I am only saying that when they state that it is acceptable for Catholics to affirm evolution, it is with the caveats I pointed out.
AD,
You refute my statment: "Evolution would certainly argue that man is not an invetible consequence of the initial condition." by virtually repeating it:
Evolution would argue that man was not an inevitable consequence of the initial physical conditions
Exactly. That is what I meant. Reproduce the earth exactly as it was 4.5 billion years ago and there is no guarantee than any intelligent life, let alone man, will evolve. Maybe this time a errant cosmic ray ruins everything. Man was not inevitable--but the Catholic Church teaches that he was.
Let me ask, then. Should we DROP math and writing, so as to buy the time to teach science, music and art? If you were in charge, knowing (as you imply here) that there simply isn't enough time in the day to cover even half of what would be nice to cover, what would you DE-emphasize? Or would you recommend 12-hour school days?
Absolutely, I would drop math and writing (partially)! The problem is that, because of the perceived failure of American schools, they just keep heaping on more work (in nice testable areas only), earlier and earlier, to the detriment of the students' entire performance. Kids are being buried in work, and they are failing more because of it. And they're losing more important things, like learning social skills, and actually having time to play, which is something children of the 20th century did in a mysterious thing called "spare time". Kindergarten used to teach you to play well with others, now it teaches you math and spelling! The powers that be think you can just keep cramming more in and get smarter kids, but the opposite is true. You absolutely wouldn't believe what the standards say has to be completed in 6 weeks. It's down to the point where it says things like improper fractions are going to be covered for ONE day.
It's a huge topic, totally not to be discussed here (and neither of us knows enough about it), but I should clarify my complaint with your original post: the testing does NOT measure the teacher in any way. And why should we do this anyway? It is trivial to see whether a teacher is doing a good job or not, just by observing them in the class (assuming you, the observer, are qualified to do so - i.e. a trained administrator or teacher). That observation is a lot cheaper than running a national test, too. And it has NOTHING to do with what grades their students get. A good teacher will not get A's out of morons, and a bad teacher will not get F's out of smart kids (unless of course they're so bad that they're just assigning grades wrong!). Standardized testing has never weeded out a bad teacher or rewarded a good one. After all, you have derided "teaching to the test" as a bad behavior (I agree), and yet it is the BEST way to get kids to succeed on the tests. If you educated a student well, giving them a solid grounding in all the areas of life, they would not be as suited to passing these tests as someone who drilled on the test questions by rote. So effectively, you could say that bad teachers are rewarded by standardized tests!
Basically, the arguments you are making, I recognize as the things that make my wife and her friends roll their eyes when they hear them from parents or see them in letters to the editor. You are uninformed on the topic. I am too, but I have some secondhand awareness of it. Since, as you agree, the vast majority of teachers believe standardized tests are wrong, shouldn't we listen to them? It's their job to know how to educate, so I imagine they're right! A little bit like scientists and evolution...
Don't go by what you "know" in your gut, listen to the experts who have studied the topic at length. Nothing is ever as black and white simple as it seems. If an eye seems too complex to have evolved, that doesn't mean it didn't, it just means you don't know enough!
Sorry for pulling off-topic, I do very much enjoy seeing Larry's latest... thoughts?... so I'll get back to keeping up with that.
Bill Gascoyne · 19 January 2006
Yes, but we can all agree that the Dilbert cartoon show was completely unfunny.
Oh, I don't know, I got quite a kick out of Alice starting an Elbonian campaign to "Shave the Children."
ben · 19 January 2006
Science cannot address such issues as whether or not evolution is "God's will", or whether the emergence of human beings was "inevitable".
Science does take a stand. Evolution would certainly argue that man is not an invetible consequence of the initial conditions.
Does science "take stands?" I thought science attempted to find explanations for physical phenomena. Evolution doesn't make assertions, it provides a theoretical framework for understanding the origin of biological diversity, based on the available evidence. It does not rule out the possibility that divine intervention made the evolution of human beings inevitable, because that cannot be ruled out. It could be demonstrated, which would require the theory to be modified to accomodate that evidence, but it hasn't been demonstrated. The closest evolution comes to giving a press release on these pointless religious matters is to say that, as yet, no evidence has been found to support religion's claims, nor is any part of the theory related to those claims, so they are irrelevant. I think Heddle willfully confuses the actions and statements of individuals who subscribe to the validity of the theory with the theory itself.
NJOsprey · 19 January 2006
Re: the Dover BoE review of: The proposed curriculum (which) states "students will be able to discuss the ramifications of using DNA to design their own children and cloning."
The faculty teaching that course might be interested in the Hugo and Nebula award winning novella "Beggars in Spain" written by Nancy Kress. The story, subsequently expanded into a trilogy, asks a basic question: Suppose some children could be genetically modified so that they did not need to sleep?
All sorts of interesting ramifications are explored: the "sleepless" might be excluded from athletic and academic competition, since they would gain an unfair advantage in having more time to practice or study. Social jealousy would bloom, since the sleepless would have more time to work and build their personal fortunes. Would such a group feel the need to withdraw from society due to a need for self-protection and a sense of superiority over the "sleepers?" Would new forms of bigotry and discrimination arise?
Other science fiction writers have explored similar themes (Heinlein in the Lazarus Long stories). But few make the subject as accessible as Kress.
In short, such a part of the curricula could be very exciting to children, introducing the need to place the impact of technological advances into the context of a society that may not be ready for them. This would be a very good unit to couple with social studies or a unit on diversity.
Unfortunately, this is not something likely to appear on a standardized test.
ben · 19 January 2006
Sprackland writes "It is a sad indictment against science education that most Americans do not understand or accept biological evolution and its profound influence on our lives." Well, since it is the Darwinians who hold sway over what can and can not be taught in a science classroom (and apparently non-science classrooms as well), who but themselves are to blame for this 'sad indictment'.
Donald, to what "sway-holding" group do you ascribe the 'sad indictment' that the majority of Americans cannot locate Iraq on a world map, and that a significant % of them cannot even locate their own country? Why aren't you making a parallel argument that this pedagogical failure shows that we should teach alternative theories of geography?
Flint · 19 January 2006
Hamumu:
I confess I find your post largely incoherent and self-contradictory. I'm left with the vague feeling that standardized tests were dreamed up by bureaucratic ignoramuses, in order to address problems that never existed, despite the objections of those with superior hands-on knowledge, for inscrutable purposes. And that they are not only retained, but even increased, by Evil Forces comprehensible to nobody. And furthermore they are a true ill wind, bad for students, crippling to good teachers, rewarding to bad teachers, and perhaps loved only by those making obscene profits off the testing industry.
Somehow, I think there are more sides to this story, but this is the only side you get to hear. And my only knowledge comes from having lived through the time when there were no such tests. Lacking any budget, the (uneducated) administrators hired (uneducated) teachers whose performance they were incompetent to assess, but it didn't matter because all the kids dropped out at 16 to work in the fields where they belonged (according to parents who resented losing farmhands who weren't learning anything anyway from teachers who didn't know anything).
The question will always remain: HOW can we objectively assess the levels of knowledge and capability of our public school graduates? How can we compare these traits with graduates in other nations?
I remember being in the very first classes to experience standardized testing, which (at the start) happened once a year. Maybe there's a curve here: No standardized testing lets really terrible schools go undetected. Too much testing gets in the way of a decent education. How much is just right?
Anyway, back to laughing at Larry...
AC · 19 January 2006
Whatever its merits as science, Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling. Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help.
— David Klinghoffer
Standard empty Christian moralizing. According to people like Klinghoffer, "young Americans" have always been in need of religion to save them from something. If anything, what they need is a solid "reality-based" education to save them from - well - people like Klinghoffer.
And what is "Darwinism as a philosophy" anyway? Last time I checked, evolution was something that happens to organisms; individuals have no say in the matter. If he's talking about things like "social Darwinism", does he expect us to believe that humans have only been screwing each other over since 1859?
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run.
— Larry
And why not? Because its systems aren't redundant. They are also not self-repairing. We design cars, and we design them with this "weakness" because we can afford to - cars operate in a world of mechanics. If cars were meant to operate in the absence of mechanics, they would need a much more robust design. Redundant systems. Self-repairing systems. Perhaps even the ability to build their own parts and assemble themselves....
Well, since it is the Darwinians who hold sway over what can and can not be taught in a science classroom (and apparently non-science classrooms as well), who but themselves are to blame for this 'sad indictment'.
— Donald M
Yes, I'm sure people being obstinate has nothing to do with it. Must be those mean old Darwin bullies!
For additional irony points, go to your local megachurch and base a sermon around this. Let me know if a science lesson breaks out in the middle of it.
Let me ask, then. Should we DROP math and writing, so as to buy the time to teach science, music and art? If you were in charge, knowing (as you imply here) that there simply isn't enough time in the day to cover even half of what would be nice to cover, what would you DE-emphasize? Or would you recommend 12-hour school days?
— Flint
How about sports?
uberhobo · 19 January 2006
Whenever I hear someone complain about evolution or athiesm taking the flair out of life, I think of Sartre's wonderful essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," which talks about how empowering it is to be in charge of your own life, complete with the ability to decide what morality is in the absence of an absolute authority.
If you care to read on, the full text is available here
Sir_Toejam · 19 January 2006
No standardized testing lets really terrible schools go undetected. Too much testing gets in the way of a decent education. How much is just right?
hmm. I graduated long before the existence of standardized testing, so I can't claim to have seen what's in them. These have appeared even after the times i spent actually teaching high school myself. Could i assume they are similar to a standard SAT, but even more basic in nature?
if so, the first question that comes to my mind is, why are these tests getting in the way of a teacher's normal lesson plan?
I assume the questions are fairly basic ones relating to general questions in standard subjects.
if so, is it simply the time taken out to "cram" for these exams that causes the problem? I do remember a couple of weeks in senior lesson plans that were devoted to prepping for SAT's, but that really didn't interfere with the standard lesson plans too much.
If that is the case, then it probably is a temporary phenomenon, and as class preparation from freshman level on adjusts to making sure to include the appropriate subject material, the amount of time taken that would detract from normal lesson plans would decrease.
However, if, like the SAT's, they are a complete "comprehensive" exam, perhaps the time taken to review "old" material is the problem?
if that is the case, as much as I'm sure everyone is gonna groan at this suggestion; why not change the standardized tests to be administered per grade level? One for freshman that covers first year subjects, one for sophmores, etc.
that way, the testing would be more naturally integrated into standard lesson plans, and less time would be required for "review".
that said, again not having seen the exams, the other explanation could be that the tests do NOT actually reflect standard lesson plans for the average high schooler in any way, shape or form, and THAT is what is causing the problems.
I find this actually to be an important issue that does in fact, directly impact on the creo/evo debate.
I hope someone with actual experience with the exams chimes in. In the meantime, I'm going to stop postulating and do some research...
If i find anything interesting, I'll post a topic in the ATBC area.
harold · 19 January 2006
David Heddle -
"Reproduce the earth exactly as it was 4.5 billion years ago and there is no guarantee than any intelligent life, let alone man, will evolve. Maybe this time a errant cosmic ray ruins everything. Man was not inevitable---but the Catholic Church teaches that he was."
I see. You are trying to argue falsely that evolution is at odds with Catholic doctrine, even though the leaders of the Catholic church think it isn't. I'm honestly not sure whether you're trying to dispute evolution or the Catholic church, but you miss the mark either way.
First of all, others have pointed out that this is a straw man version of Catholic theology.
It is also wrong with regard to evolution, or any other scientific theory.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows, nor is likely to ever know, whether the emergence of human beings became "inevitable" from a physical, scientific point of view at any point in past space and time, either the "instant after the big bang", somewhere on the surface of "the earth as it was 4.5 billion years ago", or anywhere else. The question borders on being meaningless.
Catholic theology does not require absolute physical determinism; in fact, it incorporates the concept of "free will".
Some scientists are philosophical determinists (so are some Protestant theologies, as well as many non-Christian theologies and philosophies). At least some of these would argue that the world of this instant was indeed inevitable from the "beginning of time". But many scientists are not of this view. Other posters have implied that they don't think that the emergence of current species was inevitable, for example. I have no opinion on that matter.
Science can make many accurate predictions about the physical world, but it cannot address the philosophical question of absolute determinism. To suggest the science argues against determinism, as you do, is especially naive. As is the suggestion that Catholic theology requires determinism.
As I said at the beginning, you're just desperately trying to claim that Catholicism "isn't really" compatible with the theory of evolution, and making false statements about both in your effort to do so.
Donald M · 19 January 2006
Arden Chatfield writes:
How would you know, Donald? You refuse to read articles explaining the working of evolution by actual evolutionary biologists (your 'Darwinians'), and, indeed, you essentially declare that such articles are irrelevant. Seems to me you'd be one of the worst possible people to make ANY statement on evolution at all.
With all due respect, Mr. Chatfield, you don't have a clue what I have and have not read. Secondly, I didn't make any claim about evolution in this post...my point had to do with Sprackland's complaint about the acceptance of evolution among the general public.
Stephen Elliot:
A few questions Donald.
1. How does ID explain the human immune system better than evolution?
2. Why should a designer bother with an immune system when it would be simpler to just not design things we need to be immune from?
As neither of the questions are relevant to this discussion, I don't see the point in them. But lest I again be accused of "dodging" questions agains:
1. I never said ID explained the immune system "better" than evolution. I said evolution hasn't explained how the immune system arose in the first place. I said nothing about ID.
2. pointless question
RBH · 19 January 2006
A question for Larry
Larry wrote
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run. And if the car was to be built in a string of factories, with each factory adding just one part, and furthermore if it was necessary to drive the car from one factory to another during assembly, the car could not have been built. THAT is the correct analogy for biological irreducible complexity.
Here is my question:
On the basis of the most recent (re)definition of "irreducible complexity" by the leading intelligent design "theorist", is a three-legged stool, with its four components (3 legs and a seat), "irreducibly complex"?
Is the answer
A. Yes
B. No
C. Don't know
RBH
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
With all due respect, Mr. Chatfield, you don't have a clue what I have and have not read.
Splendid. Because you sure made it look HERE like all you read is Behe's apologetics:
Because none of them "substantively" refute anything, nor do they explain what needs to be explained: how did the immune system evolve. To understand why studies like the ones cited here don't cut the mustard on this question, I'll defer to Behe himself in this post at ID The Future...a web-site that I know you all know and love. Behe explains very well what the problems are with studies like the ones cited here.
Perhaps you expect that rattling off a list of such studies settles the issue, but it doesn't. The IC systems Behe described in his book nearly ten years ago remain unexplained with respect to any actual research studies in peer reviewed journals that provide the step-by-darwinian step detailed testable (and thus potentially falsifiable) model of how evolution built these systems. Grand evolutionary extrapolations (the great GEE of evolution as in "golly GEE whiz, look at the wonders evolution has wrought"), are little more than vigorous hand waving and eloborate excersizes in begging the question. You'll have to do better than that because I'm not just taking your word for it that these questions are settled or "explained".
Of course, its far easier to resort to low-level ad hominems or obvious attempts to change the subject (i.e. red herrings), than to provide the necessary details. No one is being fooled by these rhetorical gimmicks.
Indicate that you aren't just dismissing the actual science references people point you toward, and branch out a little further from just parroting Behe, and people here might take you a BIT more seriously.
But that would be too hard, huh?
Why should a designer bother with an immune system when it would be simpler to just not design things we need to be immune from?2. pointless question
Why is it pointless? 'God works in mysterious ways'?
Flint · 19 January 2006
Sir_Toejam:
When I was in high school in New York, there existed (may still exist) standardized NY State exams called "Regent's Exams." And my math teacher was for many years on the committee that drew up the math test. His students always did spectacularly well on these tests, and he was regarded accordingly as a truly outstanding teacher.
In his class, I discovered that the lessons were presented as follows: "Class, today we are going to practice question 2. Everyone take notes, you will be tested on this. To solve a question 2, you take the number after the word "his", and divide that by the number after the word "sells". Take the result and..."
So a little memorization, and we all had question 2 down. During the school year, we spent a week drilling on each question on the test. We did great.
Steviepinhead · 19 January 2006
Stephen Elliott's question:
2. Why should a designer bother with an immune system when it would be simpler to just not design things we need to be immune from?
Donald M's response:
2. pointless question
Stevie's assessment: Donald M? Pointless person.
And (argument from authority) us pinheads actually know something about points.
Which is more than Donald M seems to know about, well, anything he's so far talked about.
I see. You are trying to argue falsely that evolution is at odds with Catholic doctrine, even though the leaders of the Catholic church think it isn't. I'm honestly not sure whether you're trying to dispute evolution or the Catholic church, but you miss the mark either way.
No, I am not arguing that evolution is at odds with Catholic theology. I am arguing (actually simply reitering what the Church teaches) that theistic evolution is compatible.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows, nor is likely to ever know, whether the emergence of human beings became "inevitable" from a physical, scientific point of view at any point in past space and time, either the "instant after the big bang", somewhere on the surface of "the earth as it was 4.5 billion years ago", or anywhere else. The question borders on being meaningless.
It is not meaningless, and even though I am not a biologist I know that the question of whether evolution would produce similar structures (let alone identical) given the same initial conditions is one of interest. I have never heard or read a biologist making the statement you made, that the question of repeatable evolution is meaningless.
Catholic theology does not require absolute physical determinism; in fact, it incorporates the concept of "free will".
Nobody said it did. If the Jews hadn't whined after the spies returned, perhaps God wouldn't have made them wander for 40 years in the desert. But in any event, it was inevitable that they would end up in the Promised Land. Catholic theology absolutely teaches that God's plan cannot be thwarted by man (or unforeseen mutation.)
As I said at the beginning, you're just desperately trying to claim that Catholicism "isn't really" compatible with the theory of evolution, and making false statements about both in your effort to do so.
No and no. It is compatible with theistic evolution. And I can back up my statements with reference to official Vatican pronouncements.
Mr Christopher · 19 January 2006
Donaled M tried to side step
Why should a designer bother with an immune system when it would be simpler to just not design things we need to be immune from?
with
pointless question
When we dig up evidence on ancient cultures (like things they designed and created one of the first questions we try and understand about how they lived and what they did is "why". What was their intended purpose, what were they thinking, what motivated them, why did they do it, etc. Their motives and means are neccessary to understanding them as a people and culture.
When we pose these logical questions to the intelligent design creationists they use some sort of thought stopping cliche as Donald M has done here. Dembski will out right ban you from his smile a while a creationist blog for asking those same questions.
Their reasons are obvious. The absurdity of what they are trying to sell becomes superimposed against a back drop of creationist fairy tales.
"Why should a designer bother with an immune system when it would be simpler to just not design things we need to be immune from?"
That is a very logical and very good question. One that any true believing ID cultist doesn't want to examine or answer. Another good question would be "why did he design such an unreliable immune system?"
Yes, Virginia, intelligent design creationism is a theory in crisis. It has lost or surrendered in two federal court cases in less than one month. Not only is intelligent design creationism a theory in crisis, it is on the run. Running as fast as it can from the light of reason and the watchful eye of science.
Run, Donald M, run!
Now excuse me while I go back to laughing at Larry.
.
W. Kevin Vicklund · 19 January 2006
Exactly. That is what I meant. Reproduce the earth exactly as it was 4.5 billion years ago and there is no guarantee than any intelligent life, let alone man, will evolve unless God intervenes because he has a master plan (or the universe is only pseudo-random). Maybe this time a errant cosmic ray ruins everything. Man was not inevitable---but the Catholic Church teaches that he was.
— Heddle
The bold part was added by me. The point is, our definitions of inevitable are different. The word you are looking for is pre-ordained.
Or to rephrase things, "full-blown" evolution states apparently random, theistic states partially or fully non-random, and atheistic evolution states purely random (or pseudo-random with no intervention). No-one should expect Catholics to accept atheistic evolution. Are you conflating "full-blown" with atheistic?
Dean Morrison · 19 January 2006
My ... Larry's got his trolling down to a fine art.
One post and what - 15 Larry related replies - That's a good payoff ratio for him don't you think? If he pop's up again how about refering him back tho the '1000 post 'Larry thread, or the bathroom wall?
No, I am not arguing that evolution is at odds with Catholic theology. I am arguing (actually simply reitering what the Church teaches) that theistic evolution is compatible.
No shit.
Hey Heddle, I'm still waiting for you to tell us (1) why your religious opinion is any more authoritative than anyone else's, and (2) why science should give a flying fig about your religious opinions.
For extra credit, you can also tell me why YOUR opinions about the New Testament are correct and CAROL'S are dead wrong.
Larry Fafarman · 19 January 2006
Comment #73684 posted by RBH on January 19, 2006 04:03 PM
A question for Larry
Here is my question:
On the basis of the most recent (re)definition of "irreducible complexity" by the leading intelligent design "theorist", is a three-legged stool, with its four components (3 legs and a seat), "irreducibly complex"?
Is the answer
A. Yes
B. No
C. Don't know
The answer depends on a number of factors.
Was the stool originally designed with four legs and then lost one of the legs? If so, the stool might already be unstable.
Some stools or seats are designed to work with just one leg. They are spikes which you stick in the ground and they have a seat on top.
People can lose all four limbs, all five senses, and be paralyzed from the neck down, and still survive. That does not disprove the concept of irreducible complexity.
Here, Donald, let me repeat my questions for you once more, just in case you missed them the first dozen times:
What, again, did you say the scientific theory of ID is? How, again, did you say this scientific theory of ID explains these problems? What, again, did you say the designer did? What mechanisms, again, did you say it used to do whatever the heck you think it did? Where, again, did you say we can see the designer using these mechanisms to do ... well . . anything?
Or is "POOF!! God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- dunnit!!!!" the extent of your, uh, scientific theory of ID .... ?
How does "evolution can't explain X Y or Z, therefore goddidit" differ from plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill "god of the gaps?
Here's *another* question for you to not answer, Donald: Suppose in ten years, we DO come up with a specific mutation by mutation explanation for how X Y or Z appeared. What then? Does that mean (1) the designer USED to produce those things, but stopped all of a sudden when we came up with another mechanisms? or (2) the designer was using that mechanism the entire time, or (3) there never was any designer there to begin with.
Which is it, Donald? 1, 2 or 3?
Oh, and if ID isn't about religion, Donald, then why do you spend so much time bitching and moaning about "philosophical materialism"?
(sound of crickets chirping)
You are a liar, Donald. A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought. Still.
Paul Campos is the wild-eyed, well-entrenched media crank who also wrote "The Obesity Myth" and has proselytized about the "exaggerated" or "nonexistent" correlation between being overweight and a variety of health woes for years. His ID piece affirms that he's all about volume and demagoguery and that he cares not a whit about evaluating background material when he sits down to extrude another colinically-generated screed.
Sir_Toejam · 19 January 2006
Paul Campos is the wild-eyed, well-entrenched media crank who also wrote "The Obesity Myth" and has proselytized about the "exaggerated" or "nonexistent" correlation between being overweight and a variety of health woes for years
hmm. who proposed on PT recently that crank anti-health assertions seem to be a hobby common to a great many ID proponents?
add this guy to that list as well.
there does seem to be significant evidence of a pattern here.
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Wow, Donald and Heddle on the same thread.
Where's Carol?
And Larry! He's here too!
Have you guys ever noticed that aside from a few comments back and forth between Heddle & Carol, the trolls here never talk to each other? They all seem to studiously ignore each other. I wonder why?
Sir_Toejam · 19 January 2006
They all seem to studiously ignore each other. I wonder why?
guilt by association?
or maybe each and every one is absolutely convinced that they alone know THE TRUTH(TM), and are wont to prove that they independently derived it all by themselves?
limpidense · 19 January 2006
The trolls don't talk to, much less argue with, one another because it would be like some ugly, fat guy staring as himself in a full-length mirror while both (rare as it would be) sober and naked: depressing and yet embarrassing.
Stuart Weinstein · 20 January 2006
Farfaman writes:"Brilliant" ? More like stupid. The writer shows that he has absolutely no understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity --- just like former Dover school board member William Buckingham showed when he testified in the Dover trial --- see page 12 on http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1027_day1... The fact that the writer is a Ph.D. zoologist makes his show of ignorance about ID even more appalling.
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run. "
Diesel engines do not require spark plugs or a host of other things..
Have you guys ever noticed that aside from a few comments back and forth between Heddle & Carol, the trolls here never talk to each other? They all seem to studiously ignore each other. I wonder why?
Because they all hate each other and think that everyone but themself is going to hell. (shrug)
Except for Larry. Larry is just a crank.
Larry Fafarman · 20 January 2006
Comment #73941 posted by Stuart Weinstein on January 20, 2006 04:55 AM
Farfaman writes: " What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run. "
Diesel engines do not require spark plugs or a host of other things..
Diesel cars are just a different kind of animal. So what is your point?
Some cars -- electric cars --- don't even have engines.
If Larry is now reduced to using man-made objects like cars, which everyone SEES are designed and manufactured, to illustrate "irreducible complexity" in living things -- which aren't very similar to man-made things -- that should be taken as an indication that he can't convincingly make the concept work for living things. Probably because every single example of irreducible complexity in living things cited so far, has been explicitly proven not to be so.
Yet more "de-facto recognition" on Larry's part that ID/creationism is an empty sham.
Flint · 20 January 2006
Diesel cars are just a different kind of animal. So what is your point?
Dang, another irony meter! I suppose if we call a car an "animal" and then say this animal has its own "kind", then the point (that the complexity is not irreducible) somehow vanishes. Removing the spark plugs changes the "kind", and since one kind can never become another kind, IC is true. Or something like that.
Thin entertainment, perhaps, but better than nothing.
Larry Fafarman · 20 January 2006
Comment #73987 posted by Raging Bee on January 20, 2006 08:32 AM
If Larry is now reduced to using man-made objects like cars, which everyone SEES are designed and manufactured, to illustrate "irreducible complexity" in living things --- which aren't very similar to man-made things --- that should be taken as an indication that he can't convincingly make the concept work for living things.
Excuse me, I was not the one who introduced the car analogy for irreducible complexity -- it was introduced by the author of this op-ed piece. If you think the analogy is not valid, you should complain to him. His email address is director@curator.org
Sheeeesh. It takes all kinds.
Donald M · 20 January 2006
Chatfield writes:
Why is it pointless? 'God works in mysterious ways'?
The question is asking why something is designed one way instead of another. But, that is not the issue, the issue is whether it is designed in the first place. In that sense the question is a pointless red herring.
Of course, what I think you mean in asking the question is to try and use this as an argument that sub-optimal design means no design at all. But no one has yet given a precise, scientifically verifiable answer to what 'sub-optimal' means with respect to biological systems, so there's no scientific way to determine what sub-optimality actually is.
Donald M · 20 January 2006
Lenny:
Here, Donald, let me repeat my questions for you once more, just in case you missed them the first dozen times:
---snipped the rest of Lenny's red herring, irrelevant questions ---
It's real simple, I've haven't said anything about ID, so the only point I can see to your questions is to change the subject. In other words, a red herring. Same goes for your comment about philosophical materialism.
You are a liar, Donald. A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought. Still.
I love you, too, Lenny!
Sir_Toejam · 20 January 2006
It's real simple, I've haven't said anything about ID
and you wonder why Lenny calls you a liar??
hilarious!
It would be like saying you are talking about 8 cylinder combustion engines, tires, doors, axels, windshields, seatbelts, and transmissions, but no... you of COURSE aren't talking about a motor vehicle.
no sireebob.
----snipped the rest of Lenny's red herring, irrelevant questions ----
Which Donald KNOWS better than to try to answer . . . . .
But then, my questions make their point all by themselves. I don't need Donald's cooperation. (shrug)
Steve C. · 21 January 2006
Robert Sprackland Writes:
He called this premise "irreducible complexity."
It goes like this: I own an SUV, but am not a mechanic. I know that when I turn the key in the ignition, the engine starts. I do not know how the engine works, but I accept that (today at least) it does.
After looking at the postings I did not see one mention of the fact that an SUV is designed and made by engineers and others in a factory. It's entire manufacture actually supports the ID concept, i.e. it was purposefully designed and put together by an outside agent(s).
SUV's, of course, do not have sex and reproduce. (shrug)
Sir_Toejam · 21 January 2006
SUV's, of course, do not have sex and reproduce. (shrug)
hmm. didn't i see a commercial recently where a robot and a giant monster mated and produced an SUV as a child?
of course, that child could be sterile, like a mule.
Steve C. · 22 January 2006
"SUV's, of course, do not have sex and reproduce. (shrug)"
If that's the crux of your argument then Sprackland should not have used an SUV as his anti-ID example.
I was referring to YOUR silly argument that SUV's incidcate deisgn of biological organisms.
SUV's don't have sex and reproduce. They are not subject to natural selection. Living organisms are.
steve s · 22 January 2006
Comment #74792
Posted by Steve C. on January 22, 2006 12:25 PM (e)
"SUV's, of course, do not have sex and reproduce. (shrug)"
I bet Optimus Prime got it on.
Sir_Toejam · 22 January 2006
After looking at the postings I did not see one mention of the fact that an SUV is designed and made by engineers and others in a factory. It's entire manufacture actually supports the ID concept, i.e. it was purposefully designed and put together by an outside agent(s).
ok, let's say for arguemnt's sake one agrees with you on this point.
how is it that you identify the outside agent responsible?
can you delineate the goal of postulated responsible agent by looking at the end product?
how?
Sir_Toejam · 22 January 2006
I bet Optimus Prime got it on.
hmm. i don't recall any offspring...
I suppose we would be looking for 'Optimus Second'?
Betsy Markum · 2 June 2006
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $86228. Isn't that crazy!
113 Comments
Sir_Toejam · 18 January 2006
not bad at all.
covers the bases in a nice, concise manner.
I sent him an email commending his article.
thanks mike.
Beer · 19 January 2006
Mike Elzinga · 19 January 2006
I see over on the York Daily Record Dover Biology page( http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3413427 ) that the issue of cloning has come up and may be leading to another strange controversy.
Registered User · 19 January 2006
Great article.
All he left out was the fact that the Discovery Institute and its employees are notorious unrepentant lying idiots.
Registered User · 19 January 2006
"If it's talking about the ramifications about genetic engineering, that's important," said Judy McIlvaine. She doesn't believe teachers are going to tell ninth-graders how to make a human being
I think most 9th graders know how to make a human being. When I was in 9th grade, I spent a lot of time trying out potential, um, lab partners.
The proposed curriculum states "students will be able to discuss the ramifications of using DNA to design their own children and cloning."
In Part II of the course, students will discuss the ramifications of using the concepts of eternal damnation and paradise to brainwash their own children.
buddha · 19 January 2006
For the other side of the controversy,here's Schönborn, spouting shit.
natural cynic · 19 January 2006
Ahem, Dr. Sprackland, SUV's couldn't have possibly been made by God. Maybe by Satan, however.
Registered User · 19 January 2006
Shonborn
Philosophy is the "science of common experience" which provides our most fundamental and most certain grasp on reality. And, clearly, it is philosophical knowledge of reality that is most in need of defense in our time.
Sure, Card. Clearly. Whatever you say. Amen. Huzzapo-guapo with sleigh bells and fifteen tiny rain gear. In fact, it's a gas.
Havermayer · 19 January 2006
One flaw is that it refers to ID as not being science since it invokes a supernatural cause. However, a creationist could counter that this is just an arbitrary rule enforced by the scientific elite, and means that evidence of design would be ignored or missed. One further paragraph explaining the differences between science and religion (that religious and philosophical views such as "design" and god cannot be tested, etc) and that evolution is not in conflict with religion would have made it more convincing to a creationist.
JohnS · 19 January 2006
Just as my estimate of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was going up, I found the balancing op-ed there, Why we care about Darwin wars. It is by David Klinghoffer, and published with the same date.
Amazingly, he claims religion is the primary inspiration for scientific inquiry and those who defend 'Darwinism' will be the downfall of American scientific supremacy.
I don't suppose it will last, but 100% of the 7 comments so far on the P-I site are critical of Klinghoffer's effort. Yes, I had to register so I could join the pile-on.
Renier · 19 January 2006
Renier · 19 January 2006
Paul Flocken · 19 January 2006
From the article cited by Mike Elzinga:
After the meeting, board members Judy and Rob McIlvaine, both said they would take a look at the wording of the curriculum.
I wonder when the state of education in this country reaches the point that the "wording of the curriculum" contains all the words of the curriculum; ie, the curriculum is nothing but a script that the teachers are supposed to follow complete with all the answers to all the questions the students are going to (supposed to) ask, as determined by the publicly pressured and politicized committees writing the curriculums. Could it ever get that bad?
Sincerely,
Paul
Greg H · 19 January 2006
Greg H · 19 January 2006
Paul,
It's called state mandated standardized testing. Please feel free to run screaming in terror, because yes, it really is that bad. We are rapidly becomeing a nation of "teach the test" rather than a nation of students.
Mr Christopher · 19 January 2006
I couldn't resist. The intelligent designer made me register and reply to the nutty David Klinghoffer.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 19 January 2006
AC · 19 January 2006
Flint · 19 January 2006
InsultComicDog · 19 January 2006
Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) presents his argument that "evolution is not completely true"... good for a chuckle.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/01/evolution_not_c.html
qetzal · 19 January 2006
AD · 19 January 2006
I actually believe that, in a way, the same problem that causes standardized testing causes this evolution debate. We, as a society, routinely fail to instill intellectual curiosity in the members of our society. Without the desire to understand issues (and, more so, the resulting ability to understand bogus arguments), everyone is much more likely to buy some half-assed insane explanation because it is convenient, ties in with what they already think, etc...
How many people really think critically about anything?
I guarantee that if most creationists truly sat down and thought openly and objectively about their ideas, they would be forced to reject them. Likewise, I know a few "scientists" who might have to do the same, however. The thought of one particular astronomy teacher of mine who proclaimed, in class, that the big bang was evidence that atheists were correct comes to mind.
We're surrounded by illogical idiots! Unfortunately, one group of them is unusually loud and well-financed.
Larry Fafarman · 19 January 2006
Joe Shelby · 19 January 2006
Joe Shelby · 19 January 2006
adendum: I should have added "in nature" to my Behe is wrong #1. IC in engineering (especially software) is all over the place, but many of his IC in nature examples aren't.
Mr Christopher · 19 January 2006
Larry is a crack up to be sure, but reading him first thing in the morning is not advised.
Wislu Plethora · 19 January 2006
William E Emba · 19 January 2006
UnMark · 19 January 2006
The line the vast majority of news outlets use to describe ID is that "some aspects of life are too complex to have evolved by chance [or Darwinian evolution]." I think Dr. Sprackland's analogy is spot on in light of this. However, I still think it leaves the door open to creationists pointing out that the SUV *does* have a designer.... He didn't go far enough in his assertion of facts at the bottom - IMO, just mentioning bacterial resistance would have driven home the evolution is fact statement. But now Larry will claim that micro-evolution (bacterial resistance) is uncontested - macro-evolution (speciation) is. . . . Bah!
Cudos to Dr. Sprackland.
Cheers!
Flint · 19 January 2006
Stephen Elliott · 19 January 2006
yellow fatty bean · 19 January 2006
Yes, but we can all agree that the Dilbert cartoon show was completely unfunny.
Steve T · 19 January 2006
Things are starting to make sense to me now. It's *Larry* that doesn't understand what IC is, which may be why we always seem to be arguing in circles. (Hey, I'm just trying to find some positive spin for what always seems to happen in these threads.) Proponents of ID do NOT say that IC means that the whole cannot run without the parts. All biologists would agree with that at least as a general principle: remove someone's heart or brain and they would die. Duh. Instead, they say that IC means that the separate parts could not come about on their own through selection because none of the parts would have a purpose (and therefore be positively selected for) unless all of the parts were present. The argument then would be: the SUV had to be designed because there would be no use for a spark plug (which is required for the SUV to run) without the existence of the SUV.
Ed Darrell · 19 January 2006
W. Kevin Vicklund · 19 January 2006
S. C. Hartman · 19 January 2006
Rome is on board!
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/01/18/vatican_paper_hits_intelligent_design/
JONBOY · 19 January 2006
Larry .before you call anyone stupid,take a long hard look in the mirror.You can remove some of the spark plugs and some of the injectors, but the engine will still run.You can push start a vehicle down a hill without a battery and it will run. Vehicles, are manufactured adding parts at other factories,(how could you drive them anyway if they are not complete,that makes no sense)
Engines,transmissions,wheels,seats were all working independently before some one decided to put them in a vehicle.
My Ford Explorer has to be the result of random mutation,it could not have been from ID.
Hamumu · 19 January 2006
Raging Bee · 19 January 2006
I don't own this blog, so I can't tell others here how to conduct themselves, but before we waste any more time on Larry's willful cluelessness, I'd just like to advise everyone that he's all but explicitly conceded that we're right and his side's wrong about evolution, so there's really no need to go over old ground with him again. Following is my last response to him, on the Bathroom Wall, pasted here to prove my point (Larry's words in italics):
Splitting hairs won't work, Larry. Your latest final word was:
I never conceded that evolution is useful or valid...What I really mean is, "OK, even if it is true that evolution theory is essential in biology, it is not necessary to accept evolution theory in order to use it."
In science, if you "use" a theory, and thereby get good results, and accept the results, then for all practical purposes, you "accept" the theory that got you the results, whether or not you say you "accept" it. In international law, this is known as "de-facto recognition." In everyday life, it's known as "facing reality."
Since you have admitted that real biologists can make real use of evolution (and not ID) in the real world, you have effectively admitted that the theory of evolution is "true" in all pracitical senses of the word, and religiously-based attacks on it are not. Therefore, there is no further reason to argue with you. Goodbye.
Donald M · 19 January 2006
Stephen Elliott · 19 January 2006
WOW! Larry has his first supporter.
Donald,
Perhaps you could explain nice and simply just what ID is.
A few questions Donald.
1. How does ID explain the human immune system better than evolution?
2. Why should a designer bother with an immune system when it would be simpler to just not design things we need to be immune from?
Mr Christopher · 19 January 2006
David Heddle · 19 January 2006
harold · 19 January 2006
One nit-picking point -
The article suggests that "most Americans don't accept biological evolution".
This is incorrect. What polls actually show is that Americans resist admitting that human beings evolved from hominid ancestors. But the vast majority of Americans do accept that other animals, plants, microbes, viruses, and so on are the result of evolution. Granted, the general public has a very poor understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. But the majority of Americans do not "reject evolution".
Anyone exposed to American culture for a even a brief period of time will see that evolution, an ancient earth, a fossil record, and so on, are taken for granted, and that dinosaurs, ice age mammals, and the like are frequently made reference to. As is human evolution, for that matter. "Cave men", "neanderthals", "ape men", and so on are almost universally accepted images. It's just considered impolite to admit the modern humans are descended from earlier species, rather than magically created.
This is a non-trivial point. The deluded and obsessive creationists of the internet do NOT represent a majority view. Claims that the specific features of bacteria had to be created by magic, for example, are widely received with skepticism and even ridicule.
Steve Reuland · 19 January 2006
W. Kevin Vicklund · 19 January 2006
Raging Bee · 19 January 2006
Mr. Heddle: Rome does indeed affirm full-blown evolution, as THE credible explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, including the PHYSICAL attirbutes of humans. Read this paragraph:
What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.
Note the emphasis I added: according to the Church, evolution adequately explains the physical attibutes of life-forms, but not the spiritual element of man, about which evolution -- and all other science -- is silent.
harold · 19 January 2006
David Heddle -
Your attempt to draw a distinction between evolution and "full blown" evolution is strange.
Science cannot address such issues as whether or not evolution is "God's will", or whether the emergence of human beings was "inevitable". (If anyone disagrees, please be sure to post a SCIENTIFIC test of these propositions. Simply stating that science can work whether or not these things are true is irrelevant.)
Evolution is evolution. There is no difference between gravity and "full blown" gravity.
So, David Heddle, if you wisely agree that the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of cellular and post-cellular life on earth, whatever your religious or political views, please do the honest thing, and oppose the teaching of dishonest, pseudo-scientific, politically-motivated nonsense as "science" in public schools (whether labelled "science", or labelled "philosophy" or whatever else but taught explicitly as a denigration of and contradiction to the contents of main stream science classes).
Flint · 19 January 2006
Flint · 19 January 2006
I don't find anything exceptional in what Heddle wrote. The Catholic Church does indeed take a teleological view of evolution: that it was God's chosen method of achieving the results we see around us today. And perhaps the process itself doesn't specify any particular set of results, but the process is guided by the Hand of God. Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its finest.
In principle this position can't be disproved. Science has no way to detect the Hand of God. So we either take it on faith, or we do not. Catholics take it on faith. So be it.
Wislu Plethora · 19 January 2006
Beer · 19 January 2006
harold · 19 January 2006
Flint -
Heddle seems to imply that there is a difference between evolution and "full blown evolution".
The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution. It does not have a special "full blown" variant.
As is true of all scientific theories, it contradicts theological and philosophical ideas only when they make alternate, testable predictions about physical reality, and are shown to be wrong.
David Heddle · 19 January 2006
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Ubernatural · 19 January 2006
David Heddle · 19 January 2006
Raging Bee · 19 January 2006
Mr. Heddle: which Catholic teaching specifically says that scientists should compromise or discard science when trying to explain physical phenomena? AFAIK, the Church affirms evolution by saying, at the very least, that we mortals should not substitute fake science for real science. Miracles and interventions do happen, of course, but they are, by definition, supernatural, unexplainable by natural laws, outside the realm of science, and real science does not assume them or incorporate them to reach a pre-set conclusion.
The Church demands that we believe that Mankind was created according to God's plan -- that's not the same as sayng that scientists can prove it.
AD · 19 January 2006
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Moses · 19 January 2006
Raging Bee · 19 January 2006
...Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling.
Using a jackhammer as a vibrator doesn't work, either, for the same reason: that's not what it's made for!. Someone should tell Klinghoffer to read the instructions before turning the appliance on.
And if Klinghoffer can't find a better "philosophy" than Darwinism, is that anyone else's fault?
k.e. · 19 January 2006
Hmmmm ID a philosophical idea ? Hardly an original idea.
How about the comparing it to other ideas in the history of religions,with evidence from archeology,anthropology,neuroscience,psychology,psychoanalysis and so on that show that once humans do not have to spend every hour of the day trying to collect enough food just to survive that certain members of society will actually have the time to find ample 'evidence' to support a whole panoply of heavenly creatures AND give themselves a comfortable life style that guarantees they will never have to lift an implement heavier than a pen or a prayer.
Couple that with the rise of Kings, Queens and empire builders plus a shortage of resources producing a need to justify that power and the authority to take those resources from those that would challenge it, those priests and their ideas become even more important.
ID follows the tried and true method of religious obscurantism. Good old cause and effect, and critical thinking, the one thing that the religious apologists would prefer was kept from the public view, keeps those pens going full time trying to bury that line of thought. Now that would be an interesting Philosophical subject.
Hmmmm I'm thinking why not do as the ID crowd ask and call it "Darwinism" and a philosophy and teach it in a philosophy course or a comparitive dogma course now you will note that it is already taught in neo-con economics and the effects of propaganda in politics those guys don't mess about they want the best ideas.
David Heddle · 19 January 2006
Hamumu · 19 January 2006
Bill Gascoyne · 19 January 2006
ben · 19 January 2006
NJOsprey · 19 January 2006
Re: the Dover BoE review of: The proposed curriculum (which) states "students will be able to discuss the ramifications of using DNA to design their own children and cloning."
The faculty teaching that course might be interested in the Hugo and Nebula award winning novella "Beggars in Spain" written by Nancy Kress. The story, subsequently expanded into a trilogy, asks a basic question: Suppose some children could be genetically modified so that they did not need to sleep?
All sorts of interesting ramifications are explored: the "sleepless" might be excluded from athletic and academic competition, since they would gain an unfair advantage in having more time to practice or study. Social jealousy would bloom, since the sleepless would have more time to work and build their personal fortunes. Would such a group feel the need to withdraw from society due to a need for self-protection and a sense of superiority over the "sleepers?" Would new forms of bigotry and discrimination arise?
Other science fiction writers have explored similar themes (Heinlein in the Lazarus Long stories). But few make the subject as accessible as Kress.
In short, such a part of the curricula could be very exciting to children, introducing the need to place the impact of technological advances into the context of a society that may not be ready for them. This would be a very good unit to couple with social studies or a unit on diversity.
Unfortunately, this is not something likely to appear on a standardized test.
ben · 19 January 2006
Flint · 19 January 2006
Hamumu:
I confess I find your post largely incoherent and self-contradictory. I'm left with the vague feeling that standardized tests were dreamed up by bureaucratic ignoramuses, in order to address problems that never existed, despite the objections of those with superior hands-on knowledge, for inscrutable purposes. And that they are not only retained, but even increased, by Evil Forces comprehensible to nobody. And furthermore they are a true ill wind, bad for students, crippling to good teachers, rewarding to bad teachers, and perhaps loved only by those making obscene profits off the testing industry.
Somehow, I think there are more sides to this story, but this is the only side you get to hear. And my only knowledge comes from having lived through the time when there were no such tests. Lacking any budget, the (uneducated) administrators hired (uneducated) teachers whose performance they were incompetent to assess, but it didn't matter because all the kids dropped out at 16 to work in the fields where they belonged (according to parents who resented losing farmhands who weren't learning anything anyway from teachers who didn't know anything).
The question will always remain: HOW can we objectively assess the levels of knowledge and capability of our public school graduates? How can we compare these traits with graduates in other nations?
I remember being in the very first classes to experience standardized testing, which (at the start) happened once a year. Maybe there's a curve here: No standardized testing lets really terrible schools go undetected. Too much testing gets in the way of a decent education. How much is just right?
Anyway, back to laughing at Larry...
AC · 19 January 2006
uberhobo · 19 January 2006
Whenever I hear someone complain about evolution or athiesm taking the flair out of life, I think of Sartre's wonderful essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," which talks about how empowering it is to be in charge of your own life, complete with the ability to decide what morality is in the absence of an absolute authority.
If you care to read on, the full text is available here
Sir_Toejam · 19 January 2006
harold · 19 January 2006
David Heddle -
"Reproduce the earth exactly as it was 4.5 billion years ago and there is no guarantee than any intelligent life, let alone man, will evolve. Maybe this time a errant cosmic ray ruins everything. Man was not inevitable---but the Catholic Church teaches that he was."
I see. You are trying to argue falsely that evolution is at odds with Catholic doctrine, even though the leaders of the Catholic church think it isn't. I'm honestly not sure whether you're trying to dispute evolution or the Catholic church, but you miss the mark either way.
First of all, others have pointed out that this is a straw man version of Catholic theology.
It is also wrong with regard to evolution, or any other scientific theory.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows, nor is likely to ever know, whether the emergence of human beings became "inevitable" from a physical, scientific point of view at any point in past space and time, either the "instant after the big bang", somewhere on the surface of "the earth as it was 4.5 billion years ago", or anywhere else. The question borders on being meaningless.
Catholic theology does not require absolute physical determinism; in fact, it incorporates the concept of "free will".
Some scientists are philosophical determinists (so are some Protestant theologies, as well as many non-Christian theologies and philosophies). At least some of these would argue that the world of this instant was indeed inevitable from the "beginning of time". But many scientists are not of this view. Other posters have implied that they don't think that the emergence of current species was inevitable, for example. I have no opinion on that matter.
Science can make many accurate predictions about the physical world, but it cannot address the philosophical question of absolute determinism. To suggest the science argues against determinism, as you do, is especially naive. As is the suggestion that Catholic theology requires determinism.
As I said at the beginning, you're just desperately trying to claim that Catholicism "isn't really" compatible with the theory of evolution, and making false statements about both in your effort to do so.
Donald M · 19 January 2006
RBH · 19 January 2006
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Flint · 19 January 2006
Sir_Toejam:
When I was in high school in New York, there existed (may still exist) standardized NY State exams called "Regent's Exams." And my math teacher was for many years on the committee that drew up the math test. His students always did spectacularly well on these tests, and he was regarded accordingly as a truly outstanding teacher.
In his class, I discovered that the lessons were presented as follows: "Class, today we are going to practice question 2. Everyone take notes, you will be tested on this. To solve a question 2, you take the number after the word "his", and divide that by the number after the word "sells". Take the result and..."
So a little memorization, and we all had question 2 down. During the school year, we spent a week drilling on each question on the test. We did great.
Steviepinhead · 19 January 2006
David Heddle · 19 January 2006
Mr Christopher · 19 January 2006
W. Kevin Vicklund · 19 January 2006
Dean Morrison · 19 January 2006
My ... Larry's got his trolling down to a fine art.
One post and what - 15 Larry related replies - That's a good payoff ratio for him don't you think?
If he pop's up again how about refering him back tho the '1000 post 'Larry thread, or the bathroom wall?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 January 2006
Wow, Donald and Heddle on the same thread.
Where's Carol?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 January 2006
Larry Fafarman · 19 January 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 January 2006
Here, Donald, let me repeat my questions for you once more, just in case you missed them the first dozen times:
What, again, did you say the scientific theory of ID is? How, again, did you say this scientific theory of ID explains these problems? What, again, did you say the designer did? What mechanisms, again, did you say it used to do whatever the heck you think it did? Where, again, did you say we can see the designer using these mechanisms to do ... well . . anything?
Or is "POOF!! God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- dunnit!!!!" the extent of your, uh, scientific theory of ID .... ?
How does "evolution can't explain X Y or Z, therefore goddidit" differ from plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill "god of the gaps?
Here's *another* question for you to not answer, Donald: Suppose in ten years, we DO come up with a specific mutation by mutation explanation for how X Y or Z appeared. What then? Does that mean (1) the designer USED to produce those things, but stopped all of a sudden when we came up with another mechanisms? or (2) the designer was using that mechanism the entire time, or (3) there never was any designer there to begin with.
Which is it, Donald? 1, 2 or 3?
Oh, and if ID isn't about religion, Donald, then why do you spend so much time bitching and moaning about "philosophical materialism"?
(sound of crickets chirping)
You are a liar, Donald. A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought. Still.
Beaming Visionary · 19 January 2006
On the other hand, I bring you the diametric opposite of Sprackland's insightful op-ed:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/3009878p-11697540c.html
Paul Campos is the wild-eyed, well-entrenched media crank who also wrote "The Obesity Myth" and has proselytized about the "exaggerated" or "nonexistent" correlation between being overweight and a variety of health woes for years. His ID piece affirms that he's all about volume and demagoguery and that he cares not a whit about evaluating background material when he sits down to extrude another colinically-generated screed.
Sir_Toejam · 19 January 2006
Arden Chatfield · 19 January 2006
Sir_Toejam · 19 January 2006
limpidense · 19 January 2006
The trolls don't talk to, much less argue with, one another because it would be like some ugly, fat guy staring as himself in a full-length mirror while both (rare as it would be) sober and naked: depressing and yet embarrassing.
Stuart Weinstein · 20 January 2006
Farfaman writes:"Brilliant" ? More like stupid. The writer shows that he has absolutely no understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity --- just like former Dover school board member William Buckingham showed when he testified in the Dover trial --- see page 12 on
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1027_day1... The fact that the writer is a Ph.D. zoologist makes his show of ignorance about ID even more appalling.
What the principle of irreducible complexity says is that if you remove the spark plugs, or remove the fuel injectors, or remove the battery, or remove any of a host of things, the car won't start or run. "
Diesel engines do not require spark plugs or a host of other things..
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 January 2006
Larry Fafarman · 20 January 2006
Raging Bee · 20 January 2006
If Larry is now reduced to using man-made objects like cars, which everyone SEES are designed and manufactured, to illustrate "irreducible complexity" in living things -- which aren't very similar to man-made things -- that should be taken as an indication that he can't convincingly make the concept work for living things. Probably because every single example of irreducible complexity in living things cited so far, has been explicitly proven not to be so.
Yet more "de-facto recognition" on Larry's part that ID/creationism is an empty sham.
Flint · 20 January 2006
Larry Fafarman · 20 January 2006
Donald M · 20 January 2006
Donald M · 20 January 2006
Sir_Toejam · 20 January 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 January 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 January 2006
Steve C. · 21 January 2006
Robert Sprackland Writes:
He called this premise "irreducible complexity."
It goes like this: I own an SUV, but am not a mechanic. I know that when I turn the key in the ignition, the engine starts. I do not know how the engine works, but I accept that (today at least) it does.
After looking at the postings I did not see one mention of the fact that an SUV is designed and made by engineers and others in a factory. It's entire manufacture actually supports the ID concept, i.e. it was purposefully designed and put together by an outside agent(s).
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 January 2006
SUV's, of course, do not have sex and reproduce. (shrug)
Sir_Toejam · 21 January 2006
Steve C. · 22 January 2006
"SUV's, of course, do not have sex and reproduce. (shrug)"
If that's the crux of your argument then Sprackland should not have used an SUV as his anti-ID example.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 January 2006
Take it up with Sprackland. (shrug)
I was referring to YOUR silly argument that SUV's incidcate deisgn of biological organisms.
SUV's don't have sex and reproduce. They are not subject to natural selection. Living organisms are.
steve s · 22 January 2006
Sir_Toejam · 22 January 2006
Sir_Toejam · 22 January 2006
Betsy Markum · 2 June 2006
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $86228. Isn't that crazy!