http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...logy_textbooks
"AUSTIN, Texas - Scientists, teachers and religious leaders are clashing over how the origin of humanity should be taught to Texas school children in biology textbooks.
On one side, the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, is leading a campaign to change the language of biology books to include weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
Scientists and public watchdog groups testified that the theory of evolution remains widely accepted in scientific communities and is a cornerstone of modern scientific research and technology. Many maintain that attempts to discredit Darwinian theory in textbooks is a scheme to later persuade publishers to include religious-based explanations for the origins of life.
The Discovery Institute has been linked to a theory known as "intelligent design" — a belief that species did not evolve by natural selection but instead progressed according to a plan or design. Institute officials, however, say they have no intentions of lobbying the state to include intelligent design."
Well, this should start a fun flamewar! For the record, I'm all for science and reason. It's all about the evidence and the evidence for evolution is very strong.
Whew! That's a relief. I totally thought you were going to be a stalwart creationist.Originally Posted by Midnight Son
The Discovery institute sure has some strong popular support for their point of view. I wonder what would happen to that poll if they asked what they really meant rather than vague, leading questions.
That said, I'll take intelligent designers over literal creationists any day. And both are probably less obnoxious than Richard Dawkins, no matter how right he is.
Ah, the esteemed opposition has arrived!
I ax you: Who is the designer and where is the evidence for him/her/it? Sorry, faith is not evidence.
If you have to call yourself a "think tank" you probably aren't.Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs.
Here's the poll itself:
Texas law requires students to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information. Should the state board of education apply this standard to how evolution is presented in textbooks?
a). They're REALLY stretching the meaning of the poll to fit their needs
b). As if even one in five of those who responded actually understood the implications
Are you talking to me? Do you even read what I write before going off on it?
And Jakub, I know. It's like a Stat 101 case study in bad polling.
Ok, LK, you'll take intelligent designers over creationists anyday. But what is your belief in this matter? (Without hemming and hawing and pedantism, por favor.)
I don't see how talking about weaknesses in one theory immediately leads to the uplifting and pushing forward of an alternative explanation. It looks like the proposal was to include weaknesses in evolution (of which there are a couple significant ones), and not that it was going to include anything about creation.
I hate to rain on your parade, but are you saying it is OK to not discuss or even mention current flaws in evolutionary theory? I think most scientists would disagree pretty heartily with that sentiment. On the other hand if you were just taking the opportunity to get a few quips in about the "other side" then at least admit it.
The problem is that all of the "weaknesses" are consistently horseshit warmed-over ID.
See, the point is that evolution has more than enough evidence to support it. Scientists - REAL scientists- argue about some of the details, they don't argue that it's not real.
I didn't realize that's what you were digging for. Me, I'm a practical atheist. Not hostile to religion per se, but it has no place in my life. I think there are far more reasons to go along with evolutionary theory as it stands now than with any other approach. I think the problems most people have with evolutionary theory stem from misunderstandings. Finally, I think people like Richard Dawkins do as much to harm the "cause" as to help it, because there is only so far you can get as a persuasive, rational scientist if you treat your every statement as indisputable fact.
Asking me to hold back on hemming and hawing I can see, since I gather you assume I would be evasive on this topic (Why, I don't know). But pedantry...come on, man, I'm just a victim of a liberal arts education. I'm practically disabled. Where's my parking space?
I don't know what "ID" is. But I have read quite a bit about evolutionary theory and the scientists working on it don't seem to believe it's as solid and finalized as many lay people. It wasn't but within the last 30 years or so that old school Darwinian "slow creeping" evolution was thrown out (by your hero SJ Gould, no less) for punctuated equilibrium.
There are plenty of gaps left to fill in, duder, and things to explain. Make no mistake you don't have to be religious to be wary about evolution. There may be a big kum-ba-yah fest about the theory but the mechanisms behind it and inside it are very poorly understood if at all. And those people working in the field agree.
So again, it's either that someone believes there is nothing left to do in evolutionary theory or it's using this as a platform for attacks against the "other side". At least nay-sayers quoted in the article had to admit to being kinda conspiracy theory about it, predicting that it will eventually lead to pressure to insert creationist dogma.
So how does that not fit in with pointing out current flaws in the theory? There must be some, else real scientists wouldn't be arguing.
Alright, LK, here's the parking sticker for your SUV! :D
It seems we do agree on some things. I *might* even buy you a good german beer sometime.
(Of course, I didn't mention Dawkins but can usually set people off by mentioning Stephen Jay Gould.)
And Voltaic, I didn't mention SJG til just now!
ID is "intelligent design". Its creationism warmed over and with a new neon flashy exterior designed to confuse people with pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.
Oh, I wasn't correcting you or anything. Just kinda generally poking fun at the poll.
We need polling laws.
Like, if a poll is quoted "85% of Americans support George W. Bush" then they should include the actual text of the poll with the quote.
voltaic, what I and others are saying is that the ID, warmed over creationism people, are trying to push their pet theory instead of legitimate scientific disagreement about the details of evolution.
I see that's what you guys are saying, but I don't see evidence of that in the article. Thus my allusion to kind of conspiracy theorizing about "the other side".
Not everything is a conspiracy, right? Right? hmmmm? :)
That's definitely the most vocal aspect of it. And then there are the "intelligent design" people that simply need a why for the how. They understand evolution, and agree with it, and in fact many are scientists; but it doesn't make sense to them without some sort of higher power. Something to make that big bang happen, so to speak.
Jakub: I know, I was agreeing with you. Personally, I think far more useful than laws in that field would be prompting people to question polls up front, no matter how much they like the numbers. But I think your proposal is one "truth in advertising" law I could live with, and more realistic to boot.
I don't see this as overthrowing anything. More like a change in emphasis. Even in the punctuated parts, things change slowly (no great leaps out into the genotypic unknown). It's just that there tend to be long periods where it doesn't even change that fast. I don't think Darwin ever said that a period of stasis could not occur.
Meant "Intelligent Design". I'm not arguing that there's no dissension in the scientific community over the mechanics of evolution; I'm arguing there's no dissension that it *happens*. All these "alternative viewpoint" suggestions for biology education having nothing to do with sincere interest of the proponents in the scientific method and discussion. They're there because they want a stalking horse to teach kids that scientists are wrong about evolution. Why they're so convinced evolution will destroy their precious religion, I have no idea, but that's what's going on.I don't know what "ID" is. But I have read quite a bit about evolutionary theory and the scientists working on it don't seem to believe it's as solid and finalized as many lay people. It wasn't but within the last 30 years or so that old school Darwinian "slow creeping" evolution was thrown out (by your hero SJ Gould, no less) for punctuated equilibrium.
I'm convinced of this because it's *exactly* what happened where I grew up and went to school (North Texas). What, do you see a big campaign to teach kids the disagreements in physics around string theory, and how that might lead to some big changes in the fundamental assumptions that kids get taught about physics?
The crackpot community has gotten really good at PR on this, dressing it all up as the big bad scientists who are engaging in a conspiracy to keep out alternative viewpoints.
Bravo, Jason. You have put it quite eloquently.
Agreeing with Herr McCullough... at the moment, I must sadly admit it's the lesser of two evils :)
Shit, I agree with McCullough too. Where's my cyanide tab? Ah well, I'll just settle for good old Kool-Aid and strychnine.
Yes, I have heard that nearly all anti-evolution dissenters are based on bringing religious dogma into the textbooks, usually as creationism.
No but you don't see any string theory being taught to kids. There's the Jason "grab the farthest away thing as if it is normal" bit rearing its ugly head again. Point of fact, you don't see any physics taught pre-college which doesn't date back over 200 years.I'm convinced of this because it's *exactly* what happened where I grew up and went to school (North Texas). What, do you see a big campaign to teach kids the disagreements in physics around string theory, and how that might lead to some big changes in the fundamental assumptions that kids get taught about physics?
In fact kids are taught many dissenting things in biology. I don't see how teaching problems in evolution are any different from teaching problems in classification, defining if a fungus is more plant or animal, etc. up to the point where religion is brought in. However again I don't see that as the particular issue in this instance.
Agree again. Can you point it out in the above linked article?The crackpot community has gotten really good at PR on this, dressing it all up as the big bad scientists who are engaging in a conspiracy to keep out alternative viewpoints.
Just for the record that's like 3 times I agreed with you. I just don't see this atricle (or the people quoted in it) going the religion route. All I ask is for a little truth in advertising here: people using this as a platform of convenience to rail against religion which was not mentioned.
The point to which I was replying was the generalization that 'The problem is that all of the "weaknesses" are consistently horseshit warmed-over ID.' This is definitely not the case. Some weaknesses (such as the discoveries leading to the move from steady evolution to punk-eek) are things yet to be figured out or discovered or whatever name you want to give it. Yes?
My point was that disagreements in the evolutionary community about how it occurs is the equivalent of disagreements in the physicist community about how the fundamental laws arise (string theory, whatever). It's a "under the hood" subject for graduate students, not high schoolers.
It'd be like......talking about quark theory to high school students in physics class. Mysterious that we don't see angry petitions about teaching 'em alternatives/disagreements in physics - after all, quark theory turned out to be right! They're just using reasonable sounding description to get policy changes that are abusable. On its face, hey, there's nothing wrong with it, but what they say they want to do in more pleasant moments isn't what will happen.
There's a reasonable case to be made, actually, for teaching kids Kuhn-style meta-issues on science, but that's certainly not what they're calling for.
Err, like what?In fact kids are taught many dissenting things in biology.
Like the very next sentence in that post.
Ah, ok. Classification strikes me as the sort of intro thing you would teach high school students, and internal arguments like the ID people drag out don't.
Still, it's clearly a stalking horse. If they want a Kuhn-style curriculum, great, but that's not what's happening.
Edit: whoops, meant high school brad.
Did they tell you mushrooms were a plant right before peer advancing you at your school, Jason? Classification is a pretty fundemental part of biology that at the latest is brought up in middleschool.
Going over the article:
What's your initial impression of what he's saying? That evolution happened through random genetic change and natural selection, but there's disagreements about the specifics beyond that - which is entirely true - or that there's actually not much evidence that evolution through genetic change and natural selection happened?
On one side, the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, is leading a campaign to change the language of biology books to include weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
"There is considerable debate in scientific circles about the mechanism of evolution, namely how it happened," said William Dembski, a Baylor research professor who agrees with the Discovery Institute.
"All the textbooks under consideration grossly exaggerate the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, pretending that its mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic change is a slam dunk. Not so."
It's PR speak like presidential press secretaries use - see how misleading you can be without having a sentence that's a clear lie.
Surprise surprise, William Dembski is an ID proponent:
[url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/014/18.20.html]William Dembski fired from Baylor's Intelligent Design center.[/quote]
He also has no training in biology, according to google; he's math/divinity.Dembski's own work, published by Cambridge University Press in The Design Inference, employs careful statistical testing of the natural world to see if it shows evidence of intelligent design. Like a code-breaker of secret messages, the Intelligent Design analyst asks whether the signals of the natural world are simply random or point to an intelligent creative force. Dembski, an Orthodox Christian, says Intelligent Design research is like looking for the difference between a jumble of clouds and skywriting that broadcasts a message.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote