About nine days ago, shortly after Sarah Palin was announced as the VP candidate, I mentioned in passing what I termed Palin’s “ridiculous and embarrassing approach to creationism.” At the time, I had seen only left-wing attacks on her statement that both should be taught in public schools. Not surprisingly, I was immediately attacked in comments as being unfair to Palin.
While I consider Palin’s initial statement on the issue to be “ridiculous and embarrassing,” I admit that I was unfair to call that statement her “approach” to creationism for two reasons.
First, almost immediately after the debate, Palin backed off her initial statement, so the statement I had seen quoted by the anti-Palin folks did not represent her public views beyond the debate itself. In other words, she quickly reconsidered and changed her approach, so it was unfair of me to call it her approach.
Second, Palin promised not to push creationism into the schools or appoint people who would do so – and she apparently kept that promise as Governor. So her actual public policy approach to creationism is not to add it to the curriculum.
So what remains of her personal or policy views? Unlike McCain, who says he believes in evolution, Palin has never clearly addressed the truth or falsity of evolution.
In 2006, Palin did say that, if a student brings up creationism, it should be discussed in class. I guess I warily agree that discussion — ie, free inquiry — should not be prohibited, so long as creationism is presented as a religious belief that is not supported by prevailing science. I would certainly hope for a clearer statement of support for evolution from Palin (or any other national candidate who was asked for an opinion).
Further, both evolution and the Big Bang Theory refer to how worlds or organisms changed over time and do not necessarily tell us how these worlds came into being in the first place. For example, it would be contrary to prevailing views of modern science to believe that evolution did not occur; it would not be contrary to modern science to believe that God started the Big Bang, though that belief would not usually be thought of as based on science.
A sort of middle ground would be occupied by the large numbers of Americans who believe that evolution occurred, but that God guided it.
John McCain's comments supporting evolution were followed by this ambiguous statement hinting that he believed that either God started it all or that God guided the process:
At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution.
"But," he added, "I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."
In this AP story a few days ago, Palin’s expressed views on teaching evolution in the schools were explored:
Palin has not pushed creation science as governor.
As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.
As for her personal views on evolution, Palin has said, "I believe we have a creator." But she has not made clear whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying. . . .
When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.
"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion." . . .
Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. . . .
Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.
Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.
"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.
I note your phrase saying McCain "says he believes in evolution"- this is a standard way to describe this idea, but linguistically interesting.
Well, not only did you jump to conclusions, but -- unless you're hiding a biochemistry PhD somewhere -- you're utterly unqualified to issue a judgment on the question. Most likely, like many others, you're just accepting an argument from authority, that "scientists" somewhere have suggested that there's no big mystery, except possibly a few details, about the evolution of life from nonlife.
Not only is that wrong -- the origin of life, as opposed to the differentiation of species, is still an enormous puzzle that is nowhere near solved -- but it is hardly what I'd call a skeptical, empirical viewpoint. It certainly doesn't entitle one to beat someone else over the head with your more "scientific" point of view.
That is to say, you're entitled to blindly accept arguments from authority, just as much as J. Random Creationist is to reject them. But both are responses to social cues and fads. Neither can pretend to be an empirical viewpoint. The only empirically sound viewpoint for someone who is grossly ignorant of the data is agnosticism and tolerance of the different conclusions of others.
And I say that as someone who is intimately familiar with the biochemistry, who does have a PhD in the relevant areas, and who does think that life arose from nonlife through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
Frankly, I'm a little nauseated by the fanaticism and arrogant contempt with which folks from both sides of the "creationism/evolution" debate who have approximately zero actual understanding of the known facts hurl accusation and argument at each other. Would y'all exhibit the same utter confidence in your point of view if you were arguing for or against the various theories of dark matter, or whether Sag A* is a black hole, or whether the LHC will find the Higgs boson? I think not. A sense of the limitations of your personal expertise would lend your words caution and suggest a modest respect for differing points of view. And yet, your ignorance on the issues surrounding the origin of life is hardly less than on the subject of quantum chromodynamics. Feh. A pox on both your houses.
Wow, good thing you're not a professor or something. Oh wait...
Similary I was smartass enough in one college class to contradict an instructor who made the casual remark: You might as well not believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I promptly said that given a choice of Darwin's Theory and Creationism I would be forced to choose Creationism an unrefuted - and unrefutable - notion whereas Darwin's had been refuted. - and Social Darwinism just as much or more so - Of course in context that simply means refined and extended but it is still true that Darwin is refutable - as all true science is - and refuted. Mendel cooked his data and Ben Franklin lied in his lab reports too. That said to repeat myself it ranks right up there with saying all of David Hilbert's conjectures were true just as all his proofs needed to be refined and extended. Minor subsequent issues don't take away the genius of the concept. What folks mean by evolution when they say they believe in evolution in any detail is frequently falsifiable and also false.
By the way, there is an entire site that debunks most of the smears against her:
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
Flim Flam Sam
I admire your open-mindedness, and your confidence in the marketplace of ideas. But what concerns me about teaching ID is that it simply is not science. It might be a correct description of how things work in the natural world. But it is not a scientific theory.
There doesn't seem to be any good parallel. But I imagine someone telling my high school Latin teachers that Proust is just as valid as Horace, and we must read him. The question isn't whether Proust is as good as Roman Lyric. Perhaps it is, and there's no way to settle that one. But one thing Proust certainly isn't is Latin.
[Write. Send. Proofread.] What's wrong with my formula?
Science has limitations and most of it rests on some unprovable assumptions. For instance, science assumes causality and also assumes that under identical conditions, the same results will occur (these are really the same thing if carefully considered). But how do we know the world works that way? How do we know that gravity isn't an r^2 force only under observation but is an r^3 force under all other circumstances?
There are deep and interesting debates that can be had regarding creationism, evolution, scientific philosphy, falsification, etc. I think it is a shame that the scientific and liberal establishment views this discussion as "dangerous knowledge."
I don't agree with the right wing's view that we should teach only abstinence in sex ed, but at least I understand the religious motivation behind it. I really don't understand the scientific and liberal objection to a teach-the-controversy approach, but I have a deep suspicion it's motivated by hostility towards religion more than anything else.
My own understanding of the matter is quite simple: God, being God, is considerably smarter than his critics. He is perfectly capable of taking thought, and having thought, of devising a system of quarks (or whatever the latest theory requires), packing a great deal of mass-energy into a very small space, and letting go, knowing in advance everything physical that would happen as a consequence.
All that was required from that point forward was to sit quietly for a few billion years, until animals capable of seeing Him in His works appeared, and for the two major groups of fools to appear among them: those who think they comprehend Him, and those who think they don't need Him.
Just be thankful He is the forgiving sort.
The problem is creationism's rejection of the scientific method. Creationists reject evolution for lack of proof, and substitute something with even less proof behind it. There is evidence for evolution, and there could possibly be facts that disprove it*--that is science. There is neither evidence for or against creationism, nor could there be.
It's that rejection, and uncomprehension of the value of experimental evidence, that is so dangerous and wrong.
*Evolution here means natural selection leading to speciation. We know natural selection works, within a species--it's another step to say that it can lead to more dramatic changes.
Pallin lacks both intelligence and knowledge. She represents the worst "redneck" elements of society. Even if she doesn't want to "force" creationism on pupils, the fact that she even considers it worthy of discussion reveals that she is simply too stupid to lead. We cannot expect such a person to make wise public policy - or trust them with nuclear weapons. This creationism thing is just one aspect of her utter stupidity.
Some ID advocates accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. They can accept that natural selection along with random mutations will modify existing life, but they reject this mechanism an an explanation for how new species come into being. They also believe that if God guided evolution it would not be random. In other words, the idea of random mutations as the driving force is incompatible with the notion of a guidance by a supreme being.
In any case I don't see why this is a federal issue. The federal government should stay out of education and let the states run it as they see fit. There is no reason I can see for having Washington involved in our school systems.
But "intelligent design" is not "creationism," if one understands "creationism" to mean taking the Biblical creation story literally - seven days and all that.
So one would ask, what was Sarah Palin talking about back in 2006 when the term "creationism" was being bandied about?
I'm not sure that creationism as a whole can be said to reject the scientific method. If you're dealing with the branch of creationism that, no matter what the evidence, ALWAYS says "Well yeah, but God is still behind it," then you are indeed dealing with a non-scientific idea.
But if you are dealing with intelligent design, which says that certain adaptations could not have arisen without some sort of outside intervention, then you are dealing with a falsifiable idea. Show me macroevolution in a laboratory occurring at a sufficient rate without outside help and you will have falsified intelligent design.
Selective breeders have been proving that intelligent design guides evolution for millennia. ;^)
"The problem is creationism's rejection of the scientific method. Creationists reject evolution for lack of proof, and substitute something with even less proof behind it. There is evidence for evolution, and there could possibly be facts that disprove it*--that is science. There is neither evidence for or against creationism, nor could there be.
It's that rejection, and uncomprehension of the value of experimental evidence, that is so dangerous and wrong."
That's compelling - never heard it put that way. Dealing with such a difficult question, evolution then is barely a theory, but its all we have that can claim to be scientific. I'd think that approach would be much appealing than the current dogma handed down from on high and not to be questioned.
Palin seems to have taken an "above my pay grade" approach to evolution, which, while true (pace Popper, its above all our pay grades), dodges the question as much as Obama did on abortion. Here, actions, or the lack thereof, speak louder than words.
I like that, consider it stolen.
How is that? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you; I genuinely curious. I trust probability more than Darwin's theory.
Well it's a good thing you don't require proper spelling!
As someone who understands all the things you have mentioned, I really don't think they have a whole lot to do with being a good political leader, expect perhaps the business about economics.
JimT: good post.
FlimFlamSam: I understand that children do not begin to develop the ability to reason until they are in their teens, as their brains grow and develop. Do you have an opinion on how controversy can be used as a teaching tool for younger students, or did you have older students in mind when you wrote your remarks?
1. Every disagreement is at least theoretically a controversy. Flat-earth, young-earth, second-gunman, anything. By what criteria is creationism worth the time of students and students who are otherwise uninterested?
2. Creationism isn't much of a controversy. It posits that life is the result of the actions of an omnipotent and incomprehensible deity. If you believe that, what fact or logic could possibly dissuade you (or even reinforce your belief)? If you don't believe it, what useful thing might you learn from a course about it?
Via Yahoo News.
The theory goes that the mechanism by which evolution is proposed to occur, genetic mutation, does not result in successful mutations at a quick enough rate to have made human beings out of amino acids in 3-5 billion years. I don't know enough about the experimental data to know whether it is a supportable criticism or not, but I will say this. The evolutionary record contains "explosions" and time of relative lull. If evolution is a purely probabalistic process, i.e. an "unguided" process, then explosions and lulls would seem very unlikely, unless the rate of genetic mutation changed for a (natural) reason we don't really understand.
Evolution, like all scientific theories, is a way to compress the infinitely complicated web of causality into a (relatively) small set of expressible laws. Of course there are imperfections and our understanding will asymptotically improve.
What is foolish, and what some people seem to be proposing, is to throw up our hands and exclaim, "Ack, it's too complicated. It must be some powerful invisible intelligence that doesn't want us to know!"
Matters of public concern would seem to be worth the time. Most Americans believe that God created everything, and the controversy relating to intelligent design certainly seem to be a matter of public concern. The same can't be said for flat earth theories or "it's turtles all the way down" type of arguments.
If it's as simple as you say, then it's not going to take a lot of time to address in science class, now is it? But as I described above, intelligent design is a species of creationism that is falsifiable; if evolution could be experimentally demonstrated in a feasible way (and maybe it can), then intelligent design will have been falsified, at least in the sense that it is an Arthur-Conan-Doyle-"Whatever remains must be the truth" kind of way.
And you lack the latter, at the very least.
You asked:
My experience together with my gut tells me that the best time to teach evolution and the creationism/evolution controversy is ninth grade or so. You pretty much have to know where babies come from and have a rudimentary understanding of genetics to get much out of a class discussion of evolution anyway.
One of the tenets we find explained about God's creation of man was the right to chose. Now, most interpret that as a choice between good and evil, i.e. the Adam/Eve/apple story. But, it is far greater than that. It means the right to chose our path, some choices leading to failure, some to success. It also means choosing our mate for reproduction, i.e., natural selection, the survival of the fittest.
A reading of the Genesis story could be interpreted to mean God took from the dust/the primordial ooze of chemicals, injected those proteins and amino acids with what, his power, a jolt of atomic power, lightening, whatever, then left the result to go forth and multiply using the one criteria, choice. Low and behold evolution results.
At some point, the evolutionists need to explain why the evolutionary process needed to develop what we call conscience, because unless we are sociopaths, we all have a conscience.
Since I believe that Genesis actually contains the story of creation and re-creation, two distinct stories, I'm left to wonder if it wasn't the re-creation where God breathed into man His Spirit, or could that be conscience? Questions, always questions.
Now, I don't believe science should be so limited, and I don't object to astrophysicists thinking about the Big Bang or evolutionary biologists thinking about evolution. But it is critically important to understand that evolution can only be PROVED possible. Science can never PROVE--in the experimental sense--that evolution is what caused the life that is here now to be here. That is, the statement "All life now is a result of evolution" is not falsifiable until and unless time travel is possible.
And Pal, there is plenty of explanation for why the evolutionary process developed the conscience, it's generally called altruism in the research if you want to google for it. But you otherwise have nicely explained the plausible combination of creation and evolution.
I don't think this has to be taught in a science class. I would however like to see older high school students and college students provided with more information as to where the controversies are, and where the problem areas are. I am not so sure this belongs in intro courses.
When I was in college I took a class titled "Science and Society" that explored the issue of scientific ethics and controversies as they related to society and beliefs. I think a course like this might be the perfect kind of course to explore the controversy of evolution/creationism/intelligent design. This course could easily be an advanced high school course.
In the end I do not think Palin's positions are unreasonable, and I think demanding somehow that politicians can't believe in a creator or a God designed and God guided creation is wrong.
One of the things that bothers me about this whole debate is that many on the evolution side seem just as determined if not more so to silence those who believe God was involved. I am not sure silencing either side or excluding either side from topics of discussion is a good idea.
I don't teach science, but I once had to break the news to a 10-year-old in 6th-grade Geography (she'd skipped a grade) that Ireland never had any snakes for St. Patrick to kick out.
No it doesn't. Further the language by rights ought to be a theory not the theory.
Having observed what I call the evolutionary record, I will in the best Bayesian fashion assign probabilities with after the fact knowledge. Folks who believe in sampling theory as a philosophical underpinning of probability should of course be cast into the outer darkness in favor of Bayesians. (smiley)
To the best of my knowledge and belief Darwin neither predicts nor accounts for the Siabon (granted such crosses mostly mule out) - almost certainly a new species as compared to either parent given inter alia the different numbers of chromosome pairs.
So this is really more of a symbolic / cultural issue. The idea, among her detractors, is: If this hick gives any credence to creationism, then I don't want her anywhere near the White House (even though, practically speaking, her view would have zero effect on local curricula.)
Maybe there needs to be an entire site devoted to debunking the nonsense on the site you cited. I wonder if you noticed this:
Today is 9/7. Let us know if you can find any sign that she did "three media interviews" yesterday. Or today. Or any number other than zero. As metro pointed out above, she's not expected to do her first interview until later this week.
And then there's this distortion:
What Monegan actually said is this:
In other words, he feels he was pressured to fire Wooten, although Palin never "said" this directly. So "no one … tried to make him fire" is not an honest paraphrase of what Monegan actually said.
The Taser incident happened in 2003. No one complained about this until 2005, when a messy divorce was happening. That's when the Palins finally decided to report this event to the police. A police investigator asked Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol why they were finally reporting it two years later, after being silent for so long. She said "because of the divorce." Kids say the darndest things!
There was no finding that he was drunk. And the only witnesses did not exactly claim they saw him drinking while driving. They only claimed they saw him carry an open beer into the patrol car. What is never mentioned is that these two witnesses have a long, close relationship with Sarah Palin's father.
As far as I know, Mike Wooten has never been arrested for drunk driving. Unlike Todd Palin, George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Sarah admitted years ago that this alleged threat ("bring Sarah Palin down"), supported only via hearsay from Molly, was a political threat, rather than a physical threat. In a police interview in 2005, Sarah said Molly had explained the alleged threat as follows (pdf):
This is also documented elsewhere (pdf):
Molly and Sarah both understood that "bring down" was a political threat, not a threat of violence. They both admitted that to police. But now Sarah is hoping no one will remember that, because she is very interested in selling the notion that she had to warn people that Wooten was a physical threat to her and her family. Even though he wasn't.
The Palins never alleged that there was a death threat against the sister. They alleged that there was a death threat against the father. No one outside the family heard this threat. Sarah didn't report this to the father until a month later, and it wasn't reported to the police until two months later. If the threat was considered serious, why wasn't it reported sooner? Sarah was asked that question. She said it was because "Wooten had no reason to shoot her father." In other words, she admitted she never took the threat seriously.
A DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order) was issued because of certain allegations Molly made. A judge quickly dissolved the order because he found the allegations to be unsubstantiated.
On 5/9/05, a court hearing was held regarding the DVPO. "As a result of the hearing the DVPO was quashed. … McCann's counsel was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence." This is confirmed in another document (pdf): "during the DVPO hearing, the judge found that there was no basis for issuance of a long-term DVPO."
Despite this, Palin and her defenders are using the existence of the DVPO as proof that Wooten was abusive. Trouble is, the DVPO only proved that Molly was willing to make allegations she couldn't substantiate.
By the way, the site you cited says nothing to address the central issue of Troopergate: Palin lied.
The stellar character reference that Sarah Palin wrote for Mike Wooten is here (pdf). Notice that it was unethical for her to fail to mention that Wooten was her sister's boyfriend (at the time Palin wrote the letter).
Back to your regularly scheduled science programming.
"
Usually, but not when the state educational policies violate the establishment clause of the first amendment as incorporated through the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution--there I see plenty of a role for federal courts if the plaintiff chooses to sue in that forum.
and-
so, there are circumstances where it should be prohibited... ya know, you skate some thinnnnnnnnn ice at times.
So, are you advocating that creationism/ID be taught specifically as an example of non-science in a Philosophy of Science class to teach the students about falsifiability? That's obviously a valid idea, but it's not what ID proponents are after. Rather, they're after the teaching of ID in Biology class as a valid scientific concept - which it isn't. Meantimes, I'm not sure I'd trust the average high school to get a Philosophy of Science class right - I certainly wouldn't trust MY high school to do so, since it's batting about .300 on good science teachers as is.
The way you've phrased your definition of intelligent design, even observed macroevolution would not falsify it. You've failed to even categorize the types of adaptation that are supposed to be impossible. As written, you're asking evolution to prove the negative - to show that NO adaptation "could not have arisen without...outside intervention" - in order to falsify ID. Such a definition is not only unscientific (as proving the negative is impossible), but also meaningless, as the definition relegates ID to "all the remaining holes in evolution." This definition of ID is more a God of the Gaps argument than a positive contribution to science.
FlimFlamSam, the mutation spikes are considered a solved problem, IIRC. They coincide almost exactly with our solar system's cycles above and below the plane of the Milky Way, upon which Earth gets pummeled with a high dose of cosmic rays.
Jim - science does have a problem with God starting the big bang - I forget the math, but time loops back on itself as it approaches zero, so there was no 'before the big bang'. See 'A Brief History of Time' by Hawking, he covers it approachably.
The Simulation Argument does provide some interesting science-based reasoning for a creator, though.
That quote has a familiar ring to it.
honestly, you don't need an advanced degree to have a reasoned belief in evolution by natural selection, just a good grasp of basic logical principles and the scientific method. i personally don't care if you say "god did it" or not; but wherever you stand on that, it's not an idea that can be tested, so it can never be a scientific thesis. (take a look at the chromosomes of the african apes -- if god actually did create us out of whole cloth, that cloth was an old world primate.)
c'mon, folks! it's time to join the rest of the Real World on this one. our country gets far too much undeserved flack from abroad on legitimate disagreements. but here we really are backwards! you might as well believe hurricanes are sent to punish us for gay people (and if you do believe that, you're patently unreasonable and we have nothing to talk about).
Would Hawking consider it possible that a previous universe (or a previous instantiation of this one) created this universe, and that perhaps intelligent life in this universe would manage to create the next one (thus avoiding heat death)?
Such a scenario would be consistent with some sort of Intelligent Design, although there is a huge leap to be made from that to any sort of God. As I recall the original proposed research project of Demski was to statistically analyze genetic mutation data for signs of intelligence, similar to the work SETI does, but his Center was shut down by Baylor faculty already embarrassed to be working for the "Baptist Notre Dame". I happened to be in Waco at this time.
And no, I was three years too late for Janet's welcoming party.
Where none of them belongs until some sort of non-moonbat research program presents some reproducible, refutable evidence that any of the proposals of those ideas has any empirical underpinning.
I know that experiment, I did it for my AP Bio class in sophomore year. It shows genetic inheritance according to expected algorithms, not evolution. The experiment that shows evidence for evolution is the traditional "bacteria-in-a-dish" experiment with antibiotics and plasmids with the resistance to the antibiotics. And it still only shows evidence for the differential survival of variations once developed, not the initial development of variation. So it's not quite as simple as "this experiment demonstrates evolution."
FlimFlamSam again:
And a good case can be made that the word "proof" has no place in science, as no experiment can be repeated an infinite number of times to confirm that yes, you WILL get the same result from the same experiment under the same conditions. You can DISPROVE a hypothesis in science, but never PROVE it. Science is deductive, not inductive; we work with theories, not theorems. One rules out the impossible and takes the best of what's left - and scientists can never be absolutely sure of what's true, because there's no way to narrow down to only one explanation. And that's why creationism, and ID, are deemed unscientific under this definition - there's no way to rule them out, to eliminate them from the list of possibilities.
So I accept your premise that large-scale evolution cannot be demonstrated via observation, but question the relevance pf the remark when we have other ways to look back through time, such as by studying endogenous retroviral DNA and the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record.
I don't understand your rewording. It's not possible to "prove" evolution through observation, therefore it's not possible to falsify evolution? Much of evolutionary theory would be falsified by the discovery of fossilized bunnies from the Precambrian.
Glenn Bowen:
You parsed his sentence incorrectly. Dr. Lindgren "warily agrees" that "free discussion" should not be prohibited. He's not only saying that this particular free discussion should not be prohibited.
As her own father was a science teacher and constructivism is now regnant in Ed Schools (with some recent modifications to integrate it with some rigorous practice with the constructed concepts) and goes back to Dewey, it is not unlikely that the "more info is good" and "let them discuss it" frame is her natural one for education issues.
That she was less familiar with the philosophy of science implications is not surprising and hardly disqualifying.
Link? I've been Googling around and can't get a thing, and I want to see this as it sounds interesting. I HAVE found an article that links the frequency of cancer to the frequency of cosmic waves hitting the earth, but the site's down at the moment:
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-72-cosmic-rays/
What if a teacher were really to go through all the various data in biology, from the genetic code being universal from even bacteria and primates, to the concordance of physiological phylogenies to genetic phylogenies, to the fossil record, to the experimental results on in-lab microevolution, and just stop there? He could end by saying "Well, that's all we know for sure....it's a lot to remember, this jumble of facts, does anyone think of a way we can make sense of all this?"
I would honestly be interested in i) whether high school students could be drawn into a legitmate and honest conversation on the topic, and ii) if so, what they would say. Too often the ID vs. evolution debate devolves into arguing what we should make kids think. But high school kids aren't too dumb--they can think for themselves about a lot of complex topics already.
BTW, the blog I mentioned in the other thread has, somewhat unusually, a post about evolution and intelligent design today that I found highly interesting.
You don't think it does already? Is the chilling effect the best policy? Perhaps it is, but that is non-obvious.
If anything, it would likely be a bad thing for Creationism (as opposed to ID) if it did and the teacher was prepared for it.
If you want to argue about whether there is enough time for the breadth of successful mutations we see through the fossil record, you need some way to know what the liklihood of a given mutation being adaptive in some environment. As yet, we haven't a clue how to do so, especially for life forms and environments we only understand partially. Fossils tell us something about the structure of ancient life forms, but very little about their biochemistry, and, so far, nothing about their immunology. Thus, those sorts of arguments, from either side, must be dismissed as incomplete at best.
2) The big bang represents (at least for classical gravity) a true singularity--physics cannot go past it, at least without a (so far lacking) theory of quantum gravity. Speculations, such as Hawking's, about whether certain initial conditions were required remain speculative; as does the claim God initiated the big bang.
3) As a practicing scientist, I am not sure I'd trust a bunch of philosphers of science to get it right. Nor would I trust a bunch of practicing scientists. Nevermind a bunch of school kids being taught by an education major.
4) One ought to take care to distinguish, in talking about 'controversies' regarding evoulution, between controversies among scientists, which tend to revolve around technical details within the framework of evolution, and controversies betwen scientists and those who reject the conclusions of science in favor of what they believe to be Divine Revelation. Much of the politics seems to use the existence of the former as an argument for including the latter in the science classroom.
"The statement "X happened in the past" is not technically provable through hypothesis, experimentation, adaptation of the original hypothesis, etc."
I'm just not sure that this is correct, again keeping in mind that we are using "provable" in the sense meant by scientists. Not by Derrida.
Prior to the discovery of the Silurian rock layer, advocates of evolutionary theory made some predictions about what life would have been like *prior to* the life forms found in the oldest geological era then known. When miners in Wales hit upon that next layer, the predictions about what they'd find and where it would be were proved accurate.
Natural history can be explained only by evolution, most likely through natural selection. Biblical creatinism lacks an explanation of natural history. It can't be taught as a science for that reason alone, since it presents a "theory" that cannot explain most of the important, empirically-verifiable information.
Hoos the Magnificent has Spoken!
"So, are you advocating that creationism/ID be taught specifically as an example of non-science in a Philosophy of Science class to teach the students about falsifiability? That's obviously a valid idea, but it's not what ID proponents are after. "
That's actually similar to how I would oike to use it. Though what concerns me most is that so many people don't understand that "theory" in science is not the same as "theory" among the rest of us. ID is not a scientific theory. But it is a theory. So ID advocates use this ignorance of terminology to make an appeal to Americans' sense of fair play: ID is a theory. But so is natural selection. So why not teach both? Isn't that fair?
Teach high school kids WHY this argument is not valid, and you have done a great thing for our ed system. And our kids.
Didn't we have an opinion by a federal judge in Pennsylvania which went into painstaking detail in coming to the conclusion that creationism wasn't science because none of it was verifiable through the scientific method.
Best,
Ben
By definition, only controversies involving application of the scientific method should be taught in science class. I'm pretty much a Libertarian, and open to the free exchange of ideas, but I don't think Spanish should be taught in English class.
Don't even joke about that, you scared the h*ck out of me. (feel free to read "heck," "hick" or "Huck," but no pun was intended.) Even as a small-a atheist that scared me.
Macroevolution can be tested using a variety of methods:
1. If you claim humans evolved from apes but not from lizards, then you should be able to show, through genetic analysis, that genetic overlap is greater for humans and apes than for humans and lizards.
2. If you claim that birds evolved from lizards, you should be able to show, through radiocarbon dating, that lizard fossils are older than bird fossils.
3. If you claim that humans were made by an all-powerful deity, then you should be able to show that humans were made by an all-powerful deity.
One of the above is not a scientific claim; the others are, and provide clues about how humans (and other animals) evolved.
Note: I’m Catholic and have never felt theologically uncomfortable with evolution. Although the laity hold diverse views on the subject, the Holy See has been supportive:
“Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” -- John Paul II
The case you refer to is probably Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist. (M.D. Pa.). Interesting case, too!
I think it's fair to conclude that her "initial statement" is the more authentic expression of her personal beliefs.
I find small comfort in the fact that she has not yet imposed her beliefs on the Alaska schools. She's new. Rome wasn't built in a day. Likewise for Jesusland.
Maybe nobody but Palin. "Teach creationism in a science class" seems to be the plain meaning of her initial statement:
I'm not 100% certain I catch your intent, though I suspect (and trust) I do. Otoh it wasn't merely a "joke" since there are some unexplored themes that inhere to the broader set of discussions (e.g., the difference between a philosophical/metaphysical materialism vs. more simply a methodological materialism as applied in the lab) - though in that sense it certainly was wholly intended ironically.
Maybe nobody but Palin.
jukeboxgrad, as you well know, I was referring to the people posting on this site. I would be concerned about Palin’s views on Creationism if she was being considered for Secretary of Education. However, she is running for VP. If we could survive Gore as VP, I guess we don ‘t have to worry about lack of scientific knowledge in a VP.
I was merely expressing the hope that your statement (that no theists should play a role in social/political discourse) was not intended literally. "Joke" fails to capture the more serious (but not literal) possibilities like irony/sarcasm, so my bad there.
jukeboxgrad, one would assume that the Romans at least made a step or two of progress in building Rome over 2 years. Palin's had at least that much time to advocate creationism (and possibly another decade as mayor, but I don't know how much control the mayor has over education policy), and she hasn't except for that one statement. One would conclude that even if she wishes in her heart of hearts that creationism were taught alongside evolution, that she has enough sense to keep it out of her political life.
oneywarming hypothesis. But AGW/global warming is taught in the classrooms of government schools nationwide. What's sauce for the goose, etc.I wish I could now remember how my own high school biology text dealt with this. I do remember its account of the experiments whereby fairly simple organic molecules were built by passing massive electrical currents through a slurry of more primitive compounds. The idea we were left with was that some sludge, boiled off from the primordial soup, washed up on the shore of an oceanic volcano, where lightning happened to strike it, and . . .
The text must certainly have begun with "We have no idea how life originated," and then proceeded with the above as the most promising scientific speculation. But what I retained was the zapped-sludge hypothesis, not the surely more important point that we didn't know (and still don't, so far as I know) how there came to be self-replicating organisms for natural selection to select among.
Questions to the bioscientists here: Are we any further along on this question? Are experiments at making, say, component molecules of RNA from inorganic molecules by means of heat, voltage, and the like really "science" in Popper's sense (I mean, is there a hypothesis that can be falsified this way)? And what would you say to the kid who wants "science's answer" to the question of how life originated?
So -- does she really believe in Creationism? Personally, I would like a prez or vp who is a bit better educated than that.
But that's just me.
there is a particularly helpful page on abiogenesis at the Talk.Origins archive, entitled Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. the rest of the site makes great browsing for anyone curious about evolutionary biology.
We now know that Sarah isn't really just about abstinence, but is in favor of contraception as well.
She isn't really against gays, since she has gay friends.
And this is what energizes the religious wingnut base? Seems to me that they would be distancing themselves from her, yet they flock to her. Why, if she isn't going to push any of their pet issues?
To judge from her clarification the next day, it may well have been "What should a science teacher say if a student asks about creationism?" In which case we're back to my question of 7:05pm: do you prefer that a teacher politely and carefully discuss the differences between creationism and evolutionary theory, or just tell the student to shut up and listen to what he has to say about evolution?
Too many evolutionists seem to think that Darwin proved the truth of Lucretianism, i.e. atheistic hedonist materialism. He did nothing of the sort. The Pope has no trouble reconciling theism with evolution and natural selection, and science teachers ought to be able to admit the limits of evolutionary theory, pointing out that it contradicts young-earth creationism but tells us nothing one way or the other about e.g. the existence of God, the origins of life, or the possibility of life after death.
Whatever you may think of AGW, it's scientific. ID isn't scientific, so doesn't deserve the label of "hypothesis."
Michelle Dulak Thomson:
The experiment you're thinking of is the Miller-Urey experiment, which spontaneously produced certain amino acids (as well as lots of other unimportant compounds) from conditions like those postulated to have existed on early Earth.
I don't know what the latest is in abiogenesis, but it couldn't hurt to do some Google Scholar searches for "ribozyme", "abiogenesis", "spontaneously forming", and follow links. Wikipedia is a good place to find search keywords on the subject, but the subject is controversial enough that I wouldn't trust it to be fully objective.
And...falsifiable? Well, not really; all we can really do with abiogenesis is determine if it is possible for life to spontaneously form over REALLY long periods of time, not if that's what actually happened. Unlike with evolutionary theory, there's very little in the way of historical data for abiogenetecists (?) to work with; the best researchers can do is plug in known factors about early-Earth conditions and go from there. So abiogenesis isn't really scientific, just like most other origin-of-life stories.
Except global warming has more to support it than a mere argument from authority. Students can actually examine data and learn how to assess its significance.
Also, global warming doesn't raise any Establishment Clause issues.
I specifically referred to Al Gore's AGW/global
oneywarming hypothesis, which is completely unfalsifiable [and even if it weren't, keep in mind that Gore first stated that the planet would face "climate catastrophe within ten years" in 1994]. We're still waiting.Reading comprehension: -1.
And I laugh at how adamant some on this board are about the insistence of teaching evolution as the only way, with no room for the "evolution" of science itself.
When I was in 7th grade, my science teacher told us that going to the moon was impossible because there wasn't a plane big enough to carry the food and fuel necessary for such a trip and no human could live long enough anyway. That was still in the days of propeller flight as the norm. He also told us that no colonization of space was possible because girls couldn't travel while on their menstrual periods. My science teach had advanced degrees in science and chemistry and taught the prevailing thinking of the day.
Who predicted a decade or two ago that mapping the human genome and tracking DNA around the world would lead to the single ancestor theory, the Adam and Eve? How'd those guys so many thousands of years ago get that one right? I find the entire subject fascinating from a Biblical point of view. The Mormons have a saying over the Temple that says, "The Glory of God is Intelligence." They and many others believe that God reveals as we are ready to accept the revelations, whether they be spiritual, scientific, or physical, etc. I know that I don't know if or what God is, but I do know that if there is a God, He is capable of ordering the universe and life any damn way He wants.
To expand on my last e-mail about the politics, I would bet that there are more Evolutionists for McCain than Creationists for Obama. I'm thinking the creationists probably tend to vote as a block, but I could be wrong.
As to raw numbers, you are probaly right. But voting as a block? I can assure that this is not true. Obama has roughly 90% of the black vote. A significant number of African Americans belong to denominations that take a literalist approach to the Bible.
The statement "X happened in the past" is not technically falsifiable.
Thanks for the link. I wasn't looking for arguments against arguments against abiogenesis, exactly, so much as arguments for it. (And some of the assumptions seem generous — if amino acids are to be generated the Miller-Urey way, which requires a hell of a lot of energy, I don't see how the entire volume of water constituting the oceans is supposed to contain them at those concentrations. "A dilute soap solution" sounds easy, but a planet-girdling ocean's worth of it? Never mind.)
If wanting something to be true and then rooting around for supporting evidence is poor science, then I think abiogenesis and ID are in the same boat. The trouble is that it's hard to introduce a class of high schoolers to evolutionary theory without "but how did life start?" coming up at least occasionally. So what do you say? The honest answer is "We don't know," but I suspect that leaves too wide a crack for the theological to slip in for some people's taste.
I should add that, as the child of two biochemists, I've always taken abiogenesis on authority. Or faith, if you prefer.
If our next VP believed in astrology, or tarot cards, I think that would be of interest to the voters. Her belief in creationism is along those lines. We should consider whether she is the type of person we want as a nation based on the sum total of her as a person, which includes her experience and beliefs.
So -- does she really believe in Creationism? Personally, I would like a prez or vp who is a bit better educated than that. "
Randy--What is Obama's take on creationism? Does he say that evolution through natural slection is the way that our current species came to be? When has he said what his position on this is?
That depends on "X". Example:
X="A plague that killed all canines"
The statement "X happened in the past" is not falsifiable by experimentation, which is what I meant. I apologize for not being more specific.
Great post!
I didn't know. I was reading you literally. But I'm happy to be corrected. My mistake.
I would be very much more inclined to agree with you if McCain wasn't 72.
And it's not just "lack of scientific knowledge." I see it as something more fundamental: fundamentalism. In other words, I think her remark ("teach both") tells me something about her attitude toward the very idea of science.
I see your point. I agree that Palin is sensitive to how far she can go, at any particular moment. When she fired the librarian (after the librarian took a position against book-banning), Palin backtracked in response to the public uproar. I think something similar happened when she quickly backpedaled from her original creationist remark. But I take little comfort in this. I see her having a strong personal agenda, and I see her as someone who will be relentless in enacting that agenda. Sooner or later, one way or another. They don't call her Barracuda for nothing.
I agree with you that it would nice to know the exact question. I wish I could find it, but I can't. However, at the bottom of the article I already cited, they provided a more complete version of the statement she made:
(Emphasis added.) I think that's sufficiently unambiguous.
I think it's very hard to read her entire answer and imagine that it's an answer to the question you're imagining. It seems to me that the question was something like this: 'should public schools teach creationism, or only teach evolution?'
Your dilemma incorrectly assumes that evolution tries to explain (or is presented as an explanation of) how life started. Stated roughly, evolution is concerned with life forms, not the the origin of life itself.
I think it is a little uncharitable to suggest that evolution is ONLY concerned with how Life Form A becomes Life Form B and is unconcerned with how the first life form(s) came to be. I think most scientists and lay people would say that the term "evolution" broadly encompasses both fields of inquiry.
Natural history is not ontology. That isn't a /weakness/ in natural history.
"I wasn't looking for arguments against arguments against abiogenesis, exactly, so much as arguments for it."
not sure what this statement means.
"rooting around"? despite what someone else mentioned previously, science is inductive, not deductive (that's logic/math), in the same way that a forensic investigation of crime is inductive; that is, you have an overarching hypothesis (X did Y at Z), take a look at the myriad pieces of evidence and what they tell you about XYZ, and if what the body of evidence suggests isn't explained by your thesis, you toss the old one out and keep looking till you get a best-fit. "science" -- no? ID is not science because it doesn't generate more, testable hypotheses; it's re-hashed creationism, where we say "I can't think of any way this could have come about by natural selection, therefore it was Intelligently Designed."
i just don't see abiogenesis being as problematic as you think, seeing as how even today we have (strictly speaking) no-living particles that pass heritable characteristics, i.e., viruses, viroids, and prions; no, there's not the huge body evidence that we have for evolution, but still....
anyway, i won't go out on a limb on the issue -- i know biology, but i'm no biochemist. regardless: here's a more general page, with links to all articles on abiogenesis on the site.
ta