I can't help it - I still get aggravated about these anti-evolutionists because they still try to discredit Darwin at every possible turn!! It is never ending! It feels like you knock one down and two more spring out of nowhere.
Well, not exactly nowhere. The latest ones came out of a Discovery Institute-sponsored (big surprise) petition that boasts signatures by 514 scientists and engineers. Uuugh.
The major American newspapers are doing a good job at keeping us informed of these ridiculous undertakings by the Discovery Institute and its supporters. I read the articles with a mixture of disbelief and sheer anger, not to mention relief at the fact that I have no children in any school system which could be targeted by these idiots. Yet.
A recent New York Times article lists a few of the most prominent signers - Prof. James Tour (chemistry), Rice University; Rosalind Picard, affective computing research group at MIT; and Philip Skell, a chemistry professor who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Obviously, many fo the signers come from evangelical Christian backgrounds and take their religion very seriously. So not only they see fault with evolution from a scientific standpoint, but for them evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs. One of them, a professor at Clarkson University, even said that the concept of intelligent design is very interesting and promising.
But the following is by far the best statement: "the world is broken and we humans and our science can't fix it." Oh well, I guess we'll just wait for the heavens to take an interest in our humble and earnest daily fight for survival to help us mend the world. Who knows, maybe angels will come down and show us the cure for cancer too at the same time.
And I wonder: where is Horowitz when you need him? But wait: he would never blacklist the good Christian conservatives... Well, maybe in 20 years, when he goes back to being a liberal (and money money money).
February 21, 2006
514 SIGNED
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Could you please reference the New York Times article you refer to? Thank you.
Sure - the article can be found at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A1FFA3A5A0C728EDDAB0894DE404482, and it is was written by Kenneth Chang, published on Feb. 21, 2006. The title is: "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition"
Thank you for providing the link. I've also located a free copy of the article at this location, in case anyone else is interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?ei=5088&en=de5bd718715864a0&ex=1298178000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1140525926-MipGMvjXJBSRVayGwI1KqA
I've just noticed that the article ends quoting Dr. Salthe, who says evolutionary biologists are "unfairly suppressing any competing ideas." He says he is an atheist. How does this fit with your August 22, 2005, statement that "The theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community, and therefore there is no controversy here," and that "evolution is under attack by a highly organized – and very well paid for - campaign to reshape American culture by influencing public policy to reflect conservative Christian values"? Would you say that Dr. Salthe, an atheist, is supporting conservative Christian political influence? Or is it possible that critical analysis would weaken the apparent "rock solid basis" of evolutionary theory?
Well - I don't really think that Dr. Salthe is the norm among those who support intelligent design, harekrishna, meaning - most of those who are against evolutionary theory come from a religious perspective. Some more so than others, but usually that is the case.
So even if Dr. Salthe is an atheist (and I am not disputing that either), he is aligning himself with a group that has very defined religious motivations. In reply to your question, I don't see where the conflict lies here.
As far as critical analysis, what do you mean by that? Sure, there are some points in the evolutionary theory which have not been fully explained - yet. After all, so many things in science were imagined, or conceptualized, even before they could be proven. But that does not mean the theory as a whole is bogus. Plus, I never fancied myself a scientist - quite the contrary. And more than that - anti-evolutionists so far have not really been able to present a positive argument, i.e., they seem to concentrate relentlessly on what evolution does not explain instead of providing credible, scientific proof that there is such a thing as an intelligent designer.
My whole argument here is of a social nature. If you read my other entries on the intelligent design debate, then you have seen that I believe any mention of a "designer" is equal to that of a "creator". That in itself is religious - and therefore exclusive by nature. I say that because I have my own religion, and mine - Judaism - can be highly exclusive as well.
I also happen to believe that religion is private, and religious ideas have no place in the public school system. It is a parental responsibility and privilege to educate (or not) children in religion. To that end, parents can send their children to religious schools, Sunday schools and so forth.
Last but not least, you used of selection when you quoted Dr. Salthe. Here is the full thing:
"Discovery officials did point to two scientists, David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician and a senior fellow at the institute, and Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but do not hold conservative religious beliefs.
Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, ''I signed it in irritation.''
He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. ''They deserve to be prodded, as it were,'' Dr. Salthe said. ''It was my way of thumbing my nose at them.''
Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. ''From my point of view,'' he said, ''it's a plague on both your houses.''
Now, I am not a biographer of Dr. Salthe's and I will not even begin to research him. I will also not assume that I fully understand his motives for signing this petition, even though he himself does provide some explanation (a slightly silly one, byt hey - he is in his right). But just take a look around - these are two seemingly atheist scientists (Salthe and Berlinski) out of 514 who are theists, and it seems that neither dwells in evolutionary theory at all.
Not to mention that to sign a petition like that without proper knowledge of the organization behind it (the Discovery Institute in this case) is, in my opinion, irresponsible. This is a political and social statement, not only a scientific one. Would you sign any sort of socio-political petition without knowing what organization is sponsoring it?
Now that was a selective argument you made, my friend...
Oh by the way - most people on this blog (the few visitors I have) are on a first name basis with me. Would you care to introduce yourself, even if with a fake name? Harekrishna is a little too generic, no?
I am not advocating that intelligent design be taught in public school science classes. I am advocating that evolution NOT be taught AS TRUTH, since it is speculative. When science teachers do not acknowledge that, instead presenting evolution as certain knowledge, they are being intellectually dishonest and committing intellectual abuse of their students.
Hi Gordon - nice to make your acquaintance. And I see that you made yourself right at home by typing specific words in caps... You are probably aware that caps, in this environment, are sometimes perceived as the equivalent to yelling in live debate. I hope that is not the case, of course.
Now let's examine your argument. It seems to me that you support that idiotic proposition, "Teach the Controversy". "Teach the Controversy" is nothing more than a portal for intelligent design advocates to introduce religious ideas in the classroom. In the science classroom, that is. I have already touched on "Teach the Controversy" previously on the blog, but let me know if you are not able to get to it for any reason.
If indeed you want to expose students to the fact that there is a controversy, sure - philosophy class; current events class; social studies class; the family home; your church. Sure.
I assure you though that if anything, evolution is way less speculative than ID or creationism. For instance - why don't you present me with some of what you perceive to be a verifiable fact which contributes to the theory of intelligent design and/or creationism? Just one, please. I mean, one that you and I can see and everybody else too, without resorting to some biblical account or to some inconclusive aspect of evolution.
Because I assure you that you will not be able to come up with any.
ID and creationism are a form of denial.
Also, evolution is hardly "certain knowledge". Do you read the science section of major newspapers? Because everyday there is an article or two that are directly related to evolution in some capacity. The NY Times today had an article appropriately titled "Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story". The evidence for evolution is so large that it is all the more wasteful to spend time fighting it.
Now, do you even know what the evidence supporting evolution is? Or are you just content in calling it "certain knowledge"? You know, in my humble opinion, the best way to refute an argument or to even engage in debate is to know very well what the other side is claiming.
I suggest you do that - research (and try to use varied sources, please; the Discovery Institute publications and the bible would probably be a little biased). I mean, you don't seem to know much about either side, frankly speaking.
The funny thing about all this is what I perceive as a sense of urgency from the anti-evolutionists side. It seems to me that as whole they cannot understand that maybe, just maybe, the world was not created within a week. Since they are so tarnished by the Genesis account of creation, then how could they ever begin to comprehend the fact that those aspects of evolution which are not yet fully understandable will be so in a few years? At the speed science is moving, it is only a matter of time until all is clear and figured out.
Evolution is not taught as truth - it is taught as a theory that explains what/who/where/how. It is the only theory so far that has managed to come up with enough evidence in order to be embraced by the mainstream society.
I cannot help but think of Holocaust denial, by the way. I mean, that is what these people propose as well, a "different" version of history. I say that is a little hard to do, considering that 6 million Jews are unacconted for... No? It is what I call enough hard evidence.
First let me assure you that I was not yelling. Thank you for informing me of how caps are perceived. I was only emphasizing words, and that perhaps unnecessarily.
Regarding your response, you do a splendid job of communicating your intent to be offensive and insulting. You write, “It seems to me that you support that idiotic proposition, ‘Teach the Controversy’.” With this statement you are associating me with a position I did not advocate, and by saying I support an “idiotic proposition”, well, wouldn’t it take an idiot to do that? So, plainly stated, you are calling me an idiot. Excellent job of being offensive and insulting! Perhaps you are harking back to fond memories of your seventh grade year.
You then go on to further misrepresent my statements. Perhaps the schools you went to taught that evolution is a speculative theory which proposes to explain how the different forms of life came to be, but that it is not certain that the evolutionary perspective is correct. If so, you were very fortunate. The public schools that I attended taught that all species of life evolved from more primitive life forms, and the schools failed to make it clear that this may not really be the case, that the actual truth is unknown to science, and that no specific case of one species evolving into another is known.
You continue to misrepresent my statements by talking about my wanting “to expose students to the fact that there is a controversy.” I said nothing about that. The fact is, evolution is speculative. It is not certain knowledge. But the schools teach it as being true, and not as speculative. That is the shortcoming that I am pointing out. It is dishonest to present it as what really happened, rather than as a proposal of what possibly happened.
Again you bring up intelligent design and creationism. You must have missed seeing my first sentence, which states: “I am not advocating that intelligent design be taught in public school science classes.” Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had emphasized the not.
Regarding your assurance that “if anything, evolution is way less speculative than ID or creationism,” well, I have a brain, and I have evaluated the situation for myself and find your assurance unconvincing. Evolution is speculative to a very high degree.
Your request for verifiable facts contributing to ID or creationism again avoids addressing my point that evolution is being falsely taught as truth rather than honestly taught as speculation.
You appear to acknowledge that evolution is not “certain knowledge.” However, you support this by referencing an article in the NY Times titled "Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story". Well, that hardly acknowledges evolution as speculative. In fact, it implies acceptance of the speculated processes of evolution. When I say it is false to teach evolution as certain knowledge, I’m refering to the speculative nature of the underlying theory, that all species of life have descended from other species, going back to some original single-cell life form.
To say that “the evidence for evolution is so large that it is all the more wasteful to spend time fighting it” is not only a cynical position, it is actually frightening and dangerous. Of course, they do say “you can’t fight City Hall.” Still, to argue that thinking for yourself is a waste of time, especially when evolution advocates gloss over obvious problems with support for the theory, such as the lack of intermediate forms, is tantamount to advocating renouncing an important and basic aspect of being human: using one’s intelligence.
Congratulations! You now win another Excellence Award in being offensive and insulting. You write: “you don't seem to know much about either side, frankly speaking.” It is a mystery how you determined that.
After some digressions you make the curious assertion that “at the speed science is moving, it is only a matter of time until all is clear and figured out.” I call this curious because it is predictive of a future that you have no possible way of knowing will actually occur, so how can that legitimately be used as an argument? But, then, I guess it can be chalked up to youthful optimism.
You go on to say “evolution is not taught as truth - it is taught as a theory that explains what/who/where/how.” I must disagree with you on that. At least when I was taught evolution, I was taught that today’s life forms are descended from other life forms through a process of natural selection and genetic mutation. There were even diagrams of purported ape-like ancestors of human beings, followed by Homo erectus, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, etc., showing how purportedly one species evolved from another. They did not teach that this was speculative and may not be actually the way the different forms of life came to exist. They taught that this was how species evolved. In other words, they taught that evolution is true.
The question of why evolution has been “embraced by the mainstream society” is an interesting one, but a side issue regarding my point that the theory that one species evolves from another is not being honestly taught as speculative and possibly false.
Finally, I sympathize with you regarding the Holocaust.
Gordon -
With regards to being offensive and insulting, it was not my intention, so of course I apologize. Again, if you are familiar with my blog, you must know by now that I tend to be sarcastic and harsh about the things and ideas I deem stupid. That's the beauty of having my own space, see? It is my call.
Now: "Teach the Controversy" is indeed a stupid proposition. But if you don't associate yourself with it in any manner, how is that offensive and insulting to you? Sorry, you lost me there. Yes, I can see how you came to the conclusion that only an idiot would support an idiotic proposition, but hey - I would say that someone who is misinformed or have an intense religious worldview is not necessarily an idiot. So no, I disagree with your rationale.
You wrote: "You must have missed seeing my first sentence, which states: “I am not advocating that intelligent design be taught in public school science classes.”"
No, Gordon, I did not. That is exactly why I brought up "Teach the Controversy", with its strategy centered around attempts at the local and state level to undermine or remove altogether evolutionary theory from the public school science classroom by portraying it as "controversial" and "in crisis". See, they don't really advocate creationism/ID... I daresay you fit that description, Gordon.
About everything else you wrote, Gordon - I did address the fact that evolution is being taught as truth - I said: "Evolution is not taught as truth - it is taught as a theory that explains what/who/where/how. It is the only theory so far that has managed to come up with enough evidence in order to be embraced by the mainstream society."
Also, you are the one misrepresenting my words. I said to you that evolution is far more than speculative, that various aspects of evolution - most of them - have already been verified one way or another. My mention of the NY Times article was to give you an example of the way that evolution affects everything in science nowadays as a frame for research. You absolutely read it backwards.
You are the one who referred to evolution as "certain knowledge", Gordon, not me.
But sure, Gordon, think for yourself. I think we shoukld all think for ourselves. But if you, for instance, are a teacher and my children end up in your classroom, I will be scared. Because it seems to me your thought process is not entirely yours in this case, but tainted by some sort of religious view.
You wrote: "You write: “you don't seem to know much about either side, frankly speaking.” It is a mystery how you determined that."
You are right, maybe you do know a lot about all this and I don't. That's fine, although your use of language is not convincing to that extent. It reeks of propaganda, Gordon. Sorry again if I insulted you and continue to do so, but hey - that is what I think.
Now how did I come up with the notion that you don't seem to know much about any of this? Well, first there is an element of disbelief in me. Say you are indeed a research biologist but decided to take on the anti-evolution cause. Now that is too sad even for me to digest.
Second, if you are indeed well-versed in the matter, why are you spending your time with me, on my blog?
No, I don't think so. I think you might be a teacher, yes. But not a researcher.
I don't know who you are, or what you do for a living, or your background (although I believe you are somewhere in Oklahoma, no?). I also don't know why you came to my blog - I have no idea.
But unless you are a scientist who devotes his time to studying evolution either to support it or to disprove it, then your guess might be as good as mine. The difference between you and me, again, might be the fact that I have no trouble waiting for those aspects of evolution which are not yet fully explained to be so in the future. You, for some reason, are in a hurry here.
My prediction that things will be figured out, by the way, is based on logic and observation of past history... See, the advance of science permitted many theories to be proven. Radiocarbon dating, for example, allowed for evolution to be gradually accepted as a framework for the origin of life; but the technique was discovered/developed only in 1949 - many years after Darwin first made his first observations on evolution and natural selection in 1859. This is what I meant when I said that eventually these gaps in evolutionary theory will be resolved, because the theory as a whole is very strong and hardly speculative. You seem to not be able to see the bigger picture, but then again this is something I have already encountered in the past...
Oh and on radiocarbon dating - I understand that creationists and anti-evolutionists in general reject the method and its results (again, as if there were anything to dispute), so I will not be surprised if you pretend not to have read that bit in my reply.
So Gordon, I do not believe evolution should not be taught in schools just because you and others do not have all the answers they need in order to stamp it "truth". I believe (and thankfully many others too) that the evidence currently available for evolution is overwhelming and therefore satisfactory enough. And one of the main reasons for that is the fact that it is non-religious.
Now, at the risk of offending and insulting you a bit more - I would not mind if teachers were allowed to mention creationism and ID in a very sarcastic tone. I would not mind that at all. But that would not be fair either...
Gordon, why don't you tell me how you became such a staunch proponent of the "other side"? What happened that made you question what you were taught? Where did you see a sign or two that evolution is not in fact true?
Oh and about the Holocaust - thanks. What did you mean though, that you sympathize with me? In what sense? That you sympathize with me regarding Holocaust denial? Because I made an analogy between Holocaust denial and anti-evolutionism. Any other sympathizing from you would not mean much.
There is no credible evidence that 103 scientists and academics who signed an untitled 32-word petition that circulated in academia in 2001 are anti-evolution, dissenters from Darwin, or proponents of Intelligent Design.
Indeed, two of them named in the NY Times article (Salthe and Tour) said as much in the article itself. Tour later wrote a lengthy essay on his personal web page to say so more elaborately.
Another scientist named in the Times story (Philip Skell) wrote a journal article to articulate his views.
One signer, not named in the Times story (Robert Davidson) also dismissed the DI's interpretation as ridiculous.
David Berlinski's views can be found in an hour long video where he states his unequivocal acceptance of descent with modification as proposed by Darwin, while complaining that it needs a lot more work to provide a stochastic model to make useful quantitative predictions.
Berlinski also complains that a lot of the evidence trotted out to prove Darwin's model isn't probative. This is analogous to critiquing a proof of a mathematical theorem, because (while the theorem is true), the submitted proof includes extraneous material that has no bearing on the theorem to be proved.
The untitled 32-word statement signed by 103 scientists and academics in 2001 called for more rigorous adherence to the protocols of the scientific method when examining the evidence in support of scientific theories. It's not about whether evolution is true, but how scientists go about the process of reasoning from the evidence.
Another issue is the distinction between evolution (the appearance of new species from existing ones) and the separate question of how DNA-based life got started in the first place. Darwin's model doesn't address that question at all. Darwin himself said he had no idea how life got started in the first place. That puzzle is made all the more difficult to solve, given the complexity of the DNA code and associated machinery of reproduction.
Post a Comment