sex, lies and a math mistake

Excellent. Thanks for keeping the Discoverup Institute's feet to the fire!

John West and Casey Luskin, both of whom apparently slept through all of their math and ethics classes.

"The scientific controversies relating to evolution"?

Scientific controversies?

Please, don't let the ID advocates "frame" the debate.

Same old worn out false statements, with a few new ones added. Thanks for sharing this.I am in a state that is about to revise the science standards. I am sure our state board members have been sent this document. It will be helpful to know what they have seen

I love the fact that the DI actually has the gall to list Pennsylvania for anything. That is the state where they received the "Big Boot."

So it seems from your post you are against critical analysis of Darwinian Evolution?

This doesn't surprise me. Lying has always been a fundamental part of fundamentalism. They're fundamentslly liars. Which also makes them fundamentally hypocrites.

Great post, Dave. Thanks.

"Dolly Sheriff" said: "So it seems from your post you are against critical analysis of Darwinian Evolution?"

Before you get started, "Dolly," please define "critical analysis" for us.

And also, please differentiate between "Darwinian Evolution" and "evolution."

Thank you.

So it seems from your post you are against critical analysis of Darwinian Evolution?

— Dolly Sheriff

Dolly wrote:

"So it seems from your post you are against critical analysis of Darwinian Evolution?"

No. It seems from this post that scientists are against the uncritical slander of any scientific theory and the blatant misrepresentation that creaationist claims represent critical analysis in any way shape or form.

I, and nearly every biologist, critically analyze evolution every day. Every time we perform an experiment, every time we sequence a gene, every time we test a hypothesis, we provide another opportunity for evolutionary theory to be falsified. Those who attack evolution don't do any of these things, therefore they don't critically analyze evolution at all. They just cry and whine and refuse to even examine the evidence due to prior religious convictions. Does that sound like critical analysis to you? Does that sound like the way to overthrow a scientific theory? Does that sound like something an honest scientist would do?

If these people had even one speck of scientific integrity they would be in the lab day and night, they would be out in the field examining nature, they would be doing real science instead of pulling all this political crap and lying to everyone. If you want to critically analyze something, try ID. No hypothesis no evidence, no proposed mechanism, no proposed designer, etc. Critically analyze that.

Strand II (Content of Science), Standard II (Life Sciences), 9-12 Benchmark II, Performance Standard #9

Previous Text:
Understand the data and observations supporting the conclusion that species today have evolved from those earlier, distinctly different species.

Suggested by IDnet-NM:
Evaluate the data and observations that bear on the claim that species today have evolved from those earlier, distinctly different species.

Adopted:
Critically analyze the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms.

I think that this is a fair and worthwhile change by anyone's standards!

No, it's not worthwhile because it suggests there is a scientific controversy over common descent, and therefore amounts to lying to the students. Cdesign proponentsists think lying is a good thing.

Critically analyze risks and benefits associated with technologies related to energy production. Critically analyze how humans modify and change ecosystems (e.g., harvesting, pollution, population growth, technology). 9-12 Benchmark II: Understand that scientific processes produce scientific knowledge that is continually evaluated, validated, revised, or rejected. 3. Understand how new data and observations can result in new scientific knowledge. 4. Critically analyze an accepted explanation by reviewing current scientific knowledge.

In no way do the science standards support the teaching of notions of intelligent design or creation science or any of its variations.

Dolly Sheriff: Strand II (Content of Science), Standard II (Life Sciences), 9-12 Benchmark II, Performance Standard #9 Previous Text: Understand the data and observations supporting the conclusion that species today have evolved from those earlier, distinctly different species. Suggested by IDnet-NM: Evaluate the data and observations that bear on the claim that species today have evolved from those earlier, distinctly different species. Adopted: Critically analyze the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms. I think that this is a fair and worthwhile change by anyone's standards!

Dave wrote:

"In no way do the science standards support the teaching of notions of intelligent design or creation science or any of its variations."

Neither does the Discovery Institute either (they consistently and specifically do not encourage the teaching of ID in schools), but they do encourage " the critical analysis of the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms.

“Five states (Kansas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Minnesota) have already adopted science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.”

Actually, ALL states should require learning about the scientific controversies relating to evolution! But you know what? Creationism is NOT scientific! Intelligent Design is NOT scientific! So they could not even be discussed if you restrict the learning to actual issues of science.

Dale Asked:

"Where is all that from?"

See Dave's link in his original post above:
To see what NM’s ID community was demanding in the new standards compared to what they actually ended up getting, please see “Do NM’s Science Standards Embrace Intelligent Design?”

Dolly Sheriff: Dave wrote: "In no way do the science standards support the teaching of notions of intelligent design or creation science or any of its variations." Neither does the Discovery Institute either (they consistently and specifically do not encourage the teaching of ID in schools), but they do encourage " the critical analysis of the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms.

Discoverup Institute

BRILLIANT!

Neither does the Discovery Institute either (they consistently and specifically do not encourage the teaching of ID in schools), but they do encourage “ the critical analysis of the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms.

Adopted: Critically analyze the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms.

— Dolly Sheriff

they do encourage “ the critical analysis of the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms. - Dolly Sherrif

There is no "controversy" about the basic concept of common descent in the scientific community, except in the fevered minds of Creationists, and until there is credible evidence to the contrary, there will be none. The debates that do exist are about details within the otherwise accepted framework of the theory that would be beyond the scope of a secondary school's science curriculum to address.

Mike Elzinga: The issue here is that any crackpot can “critically analyze”. Crackpots of every stripe do it all the time. So standards should be able to eliminate crackpots from dominating the biology classroom. How? By restricting any discussed controversies to those raised by people who submit themselves to the rigors of peer-review and have a track record of playing straight with their colleagues and the public. That should rule out the Discovery Institute along with most other crackpots.

Maybe this is just a typo on the part of the creationists at the DI. Maybe they meant to say "these are the 5 states who kicked us in the teeth and told us not to come back with our recycled creationism myths dressed up as science"?

Just sayin'...Typos happen

Are you suggesting that school children first need to “submit themselves to the rigors of peer-review” before they are allowed to “critically analyze”?

Thanks for the compliment Glen.

The other issue here is that renaming something in order to repudiate its prior associations is just about as sophisticated as hiding from someone by covering your eyes.

"Critical analysis" is "Creation Science" is "Intelligent Design." The same crowd of lawyers, PR scam-artists, and pseudoscientists is behind them. The same long-ago dealt with arguments are proposed in favor of them.

Taking the DI at their word, I think I'll legally change my name to get out from under my credit card debt. That's a load off my mind.

There is no “controversy” about the basic concept of common descent in the scientific community, except in the fevered minds of Creationists...

— gsb

For the Discovery Institute spokeperson currently using the name "Dolly Sheriff" -

Before you get started, “Dolly,” please define “critical analysis” (or "critically analyze") for us.

And please explain why creationists do not declare "critical analysis" is appropriate for physics or astronomy or cosmology or chemistry or mathematics or geology or paleontology or any other science than biology.

And please explain by what right "...NM’s ID community was demanding..." a change to a science teaching standard, based on a proven-to-be religious, not scientific, viewpoint.

Make that "IDers' pretense at a dichotomy that they know is false."

I think we are forgetting the original topic of this post. Have another look at the change in NM that I highlighted. There is a definate move to relax the previous dogmatic wording ...or am i going mad???

The DI Briefing packet made the following claims:

Various States and School Districts have successfully
implemented such a policy:

Minnesota: “The student will be able to explain how scientific and
technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge
portions of or entire accepted theories and models including...
[the] theory of evolution....”3

New Mexico: Students will “critically analyze the data and
observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on
Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled
organisms.”4

Pennsylvania: Critically evaluate the status of existing theories
(e.g., germ theory of disease, wave theory of light, classification of
subatomic particles, theory of evolution, epidemiology of aids).5
South Carolina: “Summarize ways that scientists use data from
a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects
of evolutionary theory.”6

Grantsburg, Wisconsin: “Students shall be able to explain
the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
This policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or
Intelligent Design.”

Ouachita Parish, Louisiana: “[T]he teaching of some scientific
subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life,
global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy…
[T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand,
analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific
strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent
to the course being taught.”7

I think these are accurate. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

IDers "critically analyze" evolution much the same way that moon hoaxers "critically analyzed" the Apollo footage...

Oh so you believe all that Apollo stuff too!!

just joking ;)

I vote mad.

Dolly Sheriff: I think we are forgetting the original topic of this post. Have another look at the change in NM that I highlighted. There is a definate move to relax the previous dogmatic wording ...or am i going mad???

This reminds me of a summit conference among world powers that never could get started because the participants couldn't decide on the shape of the table. Turns out, this isn't nearly as trivial as it sounds, because table shape imposes a good many implications about power relationships.

And similarly, the exact wording of curriculum goals is a battle over innuendo and implication. The goal is to find some way to *suggest* that evolution is scientifically doubtful, or scientifically challenged, without actually saying so. Even more indirectly, to suggest that evolution alone among all scientific disciplines should be the target of "critical analysis" which is inherent in all of science.

And of course, somehow not noticing that at the 9th grade level, pupils are being exposed for the first time to the general scope and shape of science, including (rather hazily) which useful categories and disciplines science has been split into, and why, and what sorts of things each discipline is concerned with, and what the most obvious and stable theories are within each discipline.

Clearly, this is NOT the place to start introducing the sorts of current-research disputed details incomprehensible to anyone below grad school level anyway. Genuine scientific controversies simply don't belong in 9th grade curricula. At most, some historical treatment (how the germ theory of disease arose, for example) can give a general flavor of how science progresses.

So 9th grade is exactly the place for as close to dogma as science comes - things like gravity pulls weights down, natural selection helps life evolves, the world is round. In other words, scientific conclusions beyond any rational dispute today. The ONLY reason to "relax the previous dogmatic wording" of conclusions at this level is religious. Nobody is fooled.

Well put Flint. I appreciated your thoughtful, gracious reply. I think that it represents the sane side of the debate, which does not resort to name calling. With that kind of articulate reply, you could almost win me over!

It's not that funny when you consider that both groups are really just subsets of the same larger group. Moon hoaxers are fundamentalists who simply refuse to believe that the earth is round whence everything that disproves them must be false. Creationists/IDists are fundamentalists that think the earth is 5k years old and that all life on earth was zapped into existence, therefore evolution must be false. Both groups are rejecting observable, verifiable science simply because it contradicts their primitive religious beliefs.

ID is nothing more then basic run-of-the-mill creationism that has been dressed up to sound sciency(in order to try and circumvent the courts). Unfortunately it takes a bit more then a cheap labcoat to turn a preacher into a scientist. ID has no scientific hypothesis, does not even have a scientific definition, and makes no predictions. It's not science. The DI can release a million more press releases and it won't alter that fact. Since ID was destroyed as a "vehicle" for their agenda, the creationists at the DI have been forced to try and come up with a new strategy. "Critical Analysis" is the best they could come up with. Sad isn't it?

Although this analysis is correct and very useful, the message sent out by the DI will be interpreted as correct by it's supporters. They won't think to analyze it further or to verify it's correctness, but instead will broadcast it as the truth.

So it seems from your post you are against critical analysis of Darwinian Evolution?

I have no issue with any public high school that wants to teach the controversy. The controversy being

1) Intelligent design is not science.
2) Intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.

I think we should encourage teaching the controversy.

Mr_Christopher: I have no issue with any public high school that wants to teach the controversy. The controversy being 1) Intelligent design is not science. 2) Intelligent design is religion masquerading as science. I think we should encourage teaching the controversy.

If my memory does not fail me, 9th grade science is not the place to introduce science controversies and in depth critical thinking. At that age students are basically facing science for the first time and you are trying to "digest" the last few hundred years of science progress. Students should be learning the basic indisputable facts and theories of science. It is not until graduate school that you can come up with a baggage of knowledge that will allow you to critically analyze the concept of science and really begin to understand the nuances involved in science (barely). So, leave the school children to be exposed to what are non disputed aspects of science. That is just plenty to learn at that level.

Hello, short time reader first time poster.

Dolly, part of the problem with "Critical Analysis" of evolution in schools is that so many of the ID arguments SOUND good even though they aren't, there's at least one article in The T.O. Archive (IIRC it's in the post of the month section) where students were split into teams to debate evolution vs. ID and the evolution side lost because they didn't have an answer to some arguments that are known to be false. This means that the students are given the impression that the arguments are valid when they aren't simply because their fellow students didn't find answers to those arguments in their research. While critical analysis skills are important they should be developed in an environment where getting the wrong answer doesn't have negative effects beyond the teacher pointing out the flaw in their analysis.

Additionally having critical analysis attached specifically to evolution implies that evolution is deserving of critical analysis more than other disciplines which simply isn't true.

I will agree that critical analysis skills are valuable but attaching them to evolution in classrooms of kids who don't really have an understanding of evolution or skill at critical analysis isn't a very good idea.

We never get an honest answer from these ID/Creationists.

All this angst about getting “critical analysis” language into the educational standards isn’t fooling anyone around here. We are familiar with the Wedge Document.

The ID/Creationists want a piece (eventually all) of the action in the biology classroom. Getting a foot in the door is simply the first step. They will go about it politically, legally, by bullying, with word games, by raising holy hell; whatever it takes, except doing real science.

If they can put so much money and effort into these kinds of activities, why can’t they ever do any real research and submit themselves to the fires of peer-review just as legitimate scientists do?

If they think they belong in the biology classroom, how about Fleishmann and Pons? L. Ron Hubbard? Depak Chopra? How about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Wouldn’t Joe Newman and his “Energy Machine” be a nice addition to a physics class? How about Carl Collins and isomer bombs? How can the ID/Creationists overlook so much “critical thinking and controversy” that could be used to educate students who need to be taught critical thinking? Why should the ID/Creationists have exclusive access?

Why do ID/Creationists want the biology class? Why have they fought their anti-evolutionist battles for so long? What is this “critical analysis” pretense all about in the case of students who have not yet accumulated enough knowledge and experience to detect the sophisticated frauds of so many hucksters?

Why does ID/Creationism not accept a part in a Critical Thinking course in which students are taught to dissect and analyze the claims and tactics of hucksters? Over the years ID/Creationism has used the full pallet of these techniques. They would be an ideal case study in pseudo-scientific huckstering in a Critical Thinking course designed for this purpose.

The honest answer: It isn’t about science; it’s about religion, politics, and power.

I think we do need to be careful regarding how we teach science and evolution in the public school system. While there is no scientific controversy between ID and evolution, there is a SOCIETAL controversy. I think teachers should briefly present ID/creationism and then discuss why it falls horribly short. Sadly, students think about the 'controversy' the second you bring up evolution. (For example, I think showing the recent NOVA special would be appropriate while a debate among students is a very poor choice)

I teach an intro evolution course at the college level and myself and others have found it helpful to address the 'controversy' early so we can move on to real science.

As a teacher of ninth graders, I want to reiterate Flint's comments. Most of my ninth graders aren't developmentally ready to critically analyze their way out my classroom door, much less critically analyze a (the) bedrock theory of biology. If I can get them to simply understand the relationship between cause and effect by the time they leave my classroom, I have made a big step.

What weaknesses of evolutionary theory am I supposed to have them "analyze"? That there are no transitional fossils? There are. That evolution violates the second law? Hah! That some structures are irreducibly complex? No scientific evidence of that has been offered. To effectively teach them to critically analyze, I would have to offer a viable alternative as a comparison. None exists.

The standards rewritten as they are are just "teach the controversy" in more subtle language. Those of use who actually truly spend time with the students who are the real brunt of this whole thing know that. And I will not teach a controversy where none exists.

Are you suggesting that school children first need to “submit themselves to the rigors of peer-review” before they are allowed to “critically analyze”?

Dolly, you're just pretending to have reading comprehension skills this bad, right?

Sheep Sheriff - one of the punch lines, I mean claims in the fiction brief, oops educator brief, is that research is currently being done to prove creationism, sorry, design. Of the thousands of places research is occurring, could you list five examples of who is doing research, where, and what is their topic; related to design of course.....thanks

So it seems from your post you are against critical analysis of Darwinian Evolution?

Here are a few more competitors that, under the ID/cdesign proponentsists’/Creationist’s proposals for “Critical Thinking”, would have legitimate claim to equal time.

1. J. B. Rein and ESP

2. Precognition

3. Uri Geller and spoon-bending, telekinesis and psychokinetic powers.

4. Bigfoot, Nessie, and all the other crypto-creatures out there.

5. Ghosts

6. Homeopathic medicines.

7. The healing waters at Lourdes.

8. Dowsing

9. Crop circles.

10. UFOs and Area 21

11. EMF and cancer

12. Cold fusion.

13. Astrology (has the advantage of being Behe approved)

14. Channeling of spirits of the dead.

This list could easily be much longer.

The question that these bring up is this: What has ID/Creationism done to distinguish itself from these other areas of controversy, any one of which could just as easily be used to teach “critical thinking”?

Why couldn’t time be better spent on adding these items to the curriculum instead of ID/Creationism? After all, they generate considerable interest. Lots of money is spent on them. Television exploits them. Why not teach them?

Can ID/Creationism be demonstrated to be scientifically superior to these?

Strand III

Standard I: Understand how scientific discoveries, inventions practices and knowledge influence and are influenced by, individuals and societies.

Benchmark I: Examine and analyze how scientific discoveries and their applications affect the world, and explain how societies influence scientific investigations and applications.

Performance Standard 16: Understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the cause of the Big Bang, the future of Earth).

Performance Standard 17: Identify important questions that science cannot answer (e.g., questions that are beyond today’s science, decisions that science can only help to make, questions that are inherently outside the realm of science).

Dave, you and I will continue to disagree on this I think. I'd love to think that New Mexico isn't ID friendly, but it certainly seems to be taking a firm position on the fence. The language of the standards (shown above) displays the crack in the system that has allowed ID to seep through into (at least) Rio Rancho. And while I remain hopeful that this year's December meeting will eliminate ID from Rio Rancho schools, I worry that the way these standards are written will continue to encourage others to try to teach religion in our science classes.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it's Area 51 not 21.

I don’t mean to nitpick, but it’s Area 51 not 21.

Boosterz -

All the good stuff was moved to Area 21 after _Independence Day_ came out. Now it's just the anti-grav machine and the "Moon Landing" sets at Area 51. Try to keep up.

As people like Behe and others in the Discovery Institute have not demonstrated they can do critical analysis, it seems unreasonable to expect kids in high school to be capable of it.

Dolly Sheriff said:

Dave said: “In no way do the science standards support the teaching of notions of intelligent design or creation science or any of its variations.”

Neither does the Discovery Institute either (they consistently and specifically do not encourage the teaching of ID in schools)

Creationists say the darndest things. Let's not forget leading intelligent design creationists William Dembski and Philip E Johnson are both on record for advocating the bible code.

Dembski has an advanced math degree and he fell for the bible code, how funny is that? Johnson is an attorney trained in examining evidence and he too fell for the bible code. Talk about dumb as a fence post.

Yeah we should be teaching the controversy alright, starting with the new DI fellow who believes in BigFoot.

Too funny!

I worry that the way these standards are written will continue to encourage others to try to teach religion in our science classes.

I've noticed that the ID guys, desperate for something they can point to as real scientific research, have lately been acclaiming any publication that uses the word "design" as supportive of their doctrine. Of course, biologists typically use "design" as a short way of saying "the way things are put together," with no implication of intelligence--to a biologist, there is nothing the least bit contradictory in saying that a structure has been "designed by natural selection."

Now it sounds like they are attempting to do much the same thing with words like "critical analysis." Of course, critical analysis of evidence is something that pretty much every science course endeavors to teach, so you'll find those words in a lot of teaching goals that have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Science courses do indeed teach critical analysis, but in a high school course that is very much at the beginning level--a high school student might reasonably carry out a critical analysis of the evidence supporting a conclusion in a single teacher, but no sane teacher would expect a high school student to carry out a "critical analysis" of the evidential basis of an entire field of study comprising hundreds of thousands of publications over more than a century.

Here are a few more competitors that, under the ID/cdesign proponentsists’/Creationist’s proposals for “Critical Thinking”, would have legitimate claim to equal time.

— Mike Elzinga

Let’s not forget leading intelligent design creationists William Dembski and Philip E Johnson are both on record for advocating the bible code.

— Mr_Christopher

Mike Elzinga--

What prompted you to ignore the flat earth theory? The earth is not round! It is an oblate spheroid-- as my dictionary, explains, "flattened at the poles." That's right-- flattened!

Which, come to think of it, means the flat earth theory has more scientific evidence going for it than intelligent design has.

Here is part of the DI's policy on school education:

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3164&program=CSC%20-%20Science%20and%20Education%20Policy%20-%20School%20District%20Policy

What I'd really like to know is what the DI believes should be taught as the strengths of neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory? Perhaps someone can point me to a place where they list these strengths? Or maybe there is a ID proponent out there that can answer this?

Thank you

What I’d really like to know is what the DI believes should be taught as the strengths of neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory?

Well, they say Hitler was a big believer, so that's a plus. Also, we like that it has elements that are a smidge counterintuitive; that lets us jump on the momentary confusion introduced by our shoddy, straw-man representations of it to really poison the well good when we discuss it. We like that. What else? Oh yeah, they give some of those fossils really goofy names, so we can all have a little private chuckle when there's no real scientists around. Atheists tend to like it, that's definitely a strength: see "poisoning the well" above. Monkeys smell, and they make some people uncomfortable the way they look at you as if they were smart, so when we say "did you come from a monkey?" it really gets the congregation riled up. That's fun.

--The Discovery Institute

"ALL states should require learning about the scientific controversies relating to evolution!"

And they don't, because they teach the neo-Darwinist theory as established fact, and it is merely one hypothesis.

The controversies are NOT about whether evolution occurred, they are about HOW evolution occurred.

OK, Bach has gone completely incoherently full goose bozo...

Bill Gascoyne said: "OK, Bach has gone completely incoherently full goose bozo…"

Agreed - People, please don't feed the troll. Do NOT reply in any way to "Bach."

O'Learly is big on ESP,telekinesis and psychokinetic powers just have a look at her post about her book. These ID types are nutter's. Their idea of "research" is reduced to reading a few popular books on a subject and thinking about it while waiting for the bus.

Bach's non-sequiter off-topics have been sent to the Bathroom Wall. You'll have to guess what he was saying by the responses - kinda like trying to see a galaxy via a really strong gravitational lens.

But not to worry - you didn't miss much.

Trolls, be off with ye, I say.

Dave

As you know, because of the “pseudoscience code of silence” the DI is unlikely to endorse critical analysis of any of those, or of the mutually contradictory creationist positions from which they seek to “distance themselves.”

Frank J posted 11/20/07 4:16 PM Mike Elzinga Wrote: Here are a few more competitors that, under the ID/cdesign proponentsists’/Creationist’s proposals for “Critical Thinking”, would have legitimate claim to equal time.

On Page 12 of 24, the PDF document declares “Five states (Kansas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Minnesota) have already adopted science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.” But on page 13, they declare that ”Four states (Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.” These people clearly have trouble with numbers bigger than three, as PZ pointed out last week: : four is not five.

Anonymous:

On Page 12 of 24, the PDF document declares “Five states (Kansas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Minnesota) have already adopted science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.” But on page 13, they declare that ”Four states (Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.” These people clearly have trouble with numbers bigger than three, as PZ pointed out last week: : four is not five.

There is no inconsistency between the two statements. The first statement lists states that "have already adopted" the requirement and the second statement lists states that "have" the requirement. Kansas does not appear in the second list because Kansas dropped the requirement. ;-)

1. J. B. Rein and ESP

For “Rein” read “Rhine”.

I think I caught another one. I believe that it is a shrine at Lourdes, not water.

I know you have to go there to be healed, which means that proximity is involved somehow. Then the question becomes, how close do you have to be? How does the healing depend on distance? One over r squared?

I don't know of any experiments that have placed people with the same illness at varying distances from the shrine and measured the amount of healing that took place. It appears as though it could be done though. Which makes it somewhat more testable than ID.

. . . they teach the neo-Darwinist theory as established fact, and it is merely one hypothesis.

— realpc

The controversies are NOT about whether evolution occurred, they are about HOW evolution occurred.

Oh Dear! Do you suppose we have compounded our own problem by going from ID/MissingLink/Creationism to ID/MissingLink/cdesign proponentsists/MissingLink/Creationism now with two missing links instead of one?

— Mike Elzinga

Except that you will find that many of the DI fellows and supporters do in fact deny that evolution occurred, except in terms of minor variations “within kinds”.

Henry - of course, that makes sense. Several commenters have in the past pointed out the ludicrousness of the concept of a barrier to speciation, as well as the difficulty in defining a species in the first place (never mind the far vaguer term "kind").

Unless another significant “mutation” comes along, the period beginning with Dembski’s admission that ID can “accommodate all the results of Darwinism,” (2001) will be looked back on as a long one of “stasis.”

Mike, that sounds suspiciously like multiple-designer ID (MDID). If you think about it, it makes far more sense than ID that assumes a single designer. Why are there so many similarities in nature? The designers copy each other. Why so many subtle differences? The designers do not copy perfectly. Why the duck-billed platypus? Design-by-committee. And so on.

Curiously, none of the major ID proponents has ever made any reference to the possibility of MDID, despite the fact that the ability to "detect design" without making any inferences about a designer must logically accept the possibility of multiple designers.

It's almost as if they already had a specific, individual designer in mind...

Nigel,

Actually they are 2 different "theories." I searched for the link to Richard B. Hoppe's "Multiple Designers Theory" (Panda's Thumb, Sept. 2004) but I got a "syntax error" and could only see the comments that followed.

Anyone know how to retrieve the article? Is this a PT glitch that needs to be fixed?

Frank, I too have syntax errors upon trying to load
Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory (Richard B. Hoppe, September 23, 2004).

I suspect it's something to do with the migration to Movable Type 4.0; what once was valid syntax is no longer.

Damn evolving platforms!

I am informing the Crew; perhaps RBH can track down the erroneous coding segment.

Thanks for the tip! - Dave

Mike, that sounds suspiciously like multiple-designer ID (MDID).

Mike, that sounds suspiciously like multiple-designer ID (MDID). If you think about it, it makes far more sense than ID that assumes a single designer. Why are there so many similarities in nature? The designers copy each other. Why so many subtle differences? The designers do not copy perfectly. Why the duck-billed platypus? Design-by-committee. And so on.

he/they tend wherever possible to resolve design problems by jerry-rigging old designs.

Allrighty then! Looks like
Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory (Richard B. Hoppe, September 23, 2004) has been repaired, and is ready for action.

Cheers, Dave

As long as we're on the topic of why aren't IDers trying to learn about the designer, I want to say their equating what IDers do with what archaeologists do drives me crazy. It's true archaeologists can't always figure out what an object was designed for, and sometimes not if it's natural or manmade. But they always try to.

In Southwest France, there's a cave, Pech Merle, with a beautiful, paleolithic mural of horses, carbon-dated to around 24,700 years bp. It's painted on a natural rock wall with an irregular edge that somewhat resembles a horse's head. One of the horses in the mural is drawn so its head fits into the rock "head"-- a visually satisfying juxtaposition. It isn't immediately apparent whether the rock "head"-- which is maybe one meter (metre? yard?) square-- is natural, or was carved deliberately to enhance to the mural.

And here's the thing-- archaeologists have spent many more hours trying to discover whether that one square yard of rock is natural or designed than the entire Intelligent Design movement has spent trying to understand the Designer who is supposed to be the central point of their entire theory.

And they want that "theory" taught to school kids as established science? How could a teacher even present it? "Well, some other people have a different theory than evolution. But they can't tell us what it's about. They don't know, and they don't want to find out. But they want you not to accept evolution, because there's this other theory. Only what it's about is a secret." Uh huh. THAT should go over well.

Allrighty then! Looks like Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory (Richard B. Hoppe, September 23, 2004) has been repaired, and is ready for action.

— Dave Thomas

“Well, some other people have a different theory than evolution. But they can’t tell us what it’s about. They don’t know, and they don’t want to find out. But they want you not to accept evolution, because there’s this other theory. Only what it’s about is a secret.”

— Hoary puccoon

It seems that MDID should be kept loaded, and ready, along with other questions, any time an IDer starts the "we don't inquire into the nature of the designer" knee-deep dance of dooky:

There could be multiple designers? (the Hindus will love this one)

The designer(s) could be malevolent?

The designers could have been mortal?

The designers themselves could have evolved (hat tip Bertrand Russel)

The designer(s) could have been themselves designed by some other designer(s)?

Or we could get even nastier, follow the lead of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife and ask them something like:

"How do you think class time under what you propose should be proportioned between the scenario that space aliens designed humans vs the alternative theory that Santa did so?"

Just think of the back and forth that might elicit. Santa can't be the designer because he isn't proved to exist? Reeeeeeeallly?