- #36
Mercator
The name alone: INTELLIGENT design. Sounds a bit like an advertisement for a Russian car to me.deckart said:
Kansas votes to endorse ignorance
- News
- Thread starter rachmaninoff
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Ignorance
I was the only one who didn't laugh out loud. But as I was sitting there, I was thinking about how each of the shows that were being torn apart, were making a difference in some people's lives. People who might otherwise be living a life of crime, were instead being constructive. I think the best way to reach people who have beliefs that are not logical, is to show them the respect they deserve, and to use logic and reason to gently guide them to a better understanding. It's not easy, and I've failed more often than I've succeeded. But I am convinced that it's the only way.In summary, the state's school board voted for new teaching standards promoting Intelligent Design language, which supporters claim will
- #37
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,262
- 2
Part One
I agree, and that has been the basis of my objection. I will explain, hopefully better, in my answer to Russ below. It will take me two posts to answer.
I’ll make one more effort to communicate my point. Maybe it will help if I first state what I don’t want or believe, and what I accept.
I do not think intelligent design should be taught as science, especially if it means trying to make it fit Biblical accounts or religious dogma. In case you haven’t seen me say this before . . . I am not religious. So my objection has absolutely nothing to do with creationism or ID, it has to do with scientific objectivity and fair play.
I do accept the theory of common descent. It is supported reasonably well by the fossil record, extremely well by the genetic code, and somewhat by modern observations of speciation.
Mark Ridley sums up the major evidence concisely in his summary here http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution_Summary.asp" where he says:
• A number of lines of evidence suggest that species have evolved from a common ancestor, rather than being fixed in form and created separately.
• On a small scale, evolution can be seen taking place in nature, such as in the color patterns of moths, and in artificial selection experiments.
• Natural variation can cross the species border, for example in the ring species of gulls, and new species can be made artificially in the processes of hybridization and polyploidy.
• Homologous similarities between species suggest that the species descended from a common ancestor. Universal homologies - such as the genetic code - found in all living things suggest that all species are descended from a single common ancestor.
• The fossil record provides evidence for evolution in the origin of new species and the order of succession of major groups in the fossil record.
However, apart from common descent, another issue gets mixed in with evolutionary theory, and that is the ability of microevolutionary mechanisms to produce organs and organisms. When the two issues aren’t separated, then evolution is presented as though every bit of it is equally supported with evidence. I incessantly read in books, and hear on nature shows, that “natural selection decided …” (i.e., how some organ or metabolic function etc. would turn out).
The truth is, the issue of what caused the genetic changes which developed organs, organisms, and biology’s complex biochemistry is unknown. So when evolution is taught in such a way that it gives all the credit to mechanistic theory, that is where you find the biggest complaints coming from the religious side. In my case, I don’t believe mechanistic processes can be so creative as evolutionists are claiming, and since it isn’t proven yet that they can be, I don’t like mechanists acting like they’ve all but proved it.
My personal issues aside, you asked for a timeframe for my prediction. Well, obviously I don’t know. But what I sense is a growing awareness of this practice of using the certainty of macroevolution to surreptitiously sneak in the idea that it is almost as certain that microevolutionary mechanisms are the sole creator of life forms. It’s all over the internet in fact, with one creationist group after another talking about it (there is, of course, lots of the normal creationist nonsense too).
But not every Christian is a fundamentalist. There are liberal Christians too, and they, I predict, are going to expose the mechanists’ little trick. The liberal Christians are perfectly willing to accept common descent, and microevolution too as long as the teaching of it sticks to what has actually been observed (see below). But there are now scientists among the Christian liberals who are weighing in, and that is why I say science should back off from implying it can explain all the development of a life form. One such liberal group, “The Discovery Institute,” published this complaint here http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118":
The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution © Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101
When Charles Darwin published “The Origin of Species” in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding, which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named "macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9 of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).
(continued in the next post)
Ivan Seeking said:
I agree, and that has been the basis of my objection. I will explain, hopefully better, in my answer to Russ below. It will take me two posts to answer.
russ_watters said:
I’ll make one more effort to communicate my point. Maybe it will help if I first state what I don’t want or believe, and what I accept.
I do not think intelligent design should be taught as science, especially if it means trying to make it fit Biblical accounts or religious dogma. In case you haven’t seen me say this before . . . I am not religious. So my objection has absolutely nothing to do with creationism or ID, it has to do with scientific objectivity and fair play.
I do accept the theory of common descent. It is supported reasonably well by the fossil record, extremely well by the genetic code, and somewhat by modern observations of speciation.
Mark Ridley sums up the major evidence concisely in his summary here http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution_Summary.asp" where he says:
• A number of lines of evidence suggest that species have evolved from a common ancestor, rather than being fixed in form and created separately.
• On a small scale, evolution can be seen taking place in nature, such as in the color patterns of moths, and in artificial selection experiments.
• Natural variation can cross the species border, for example in the ring species of gulls, and new species can be made artificially in the processes of hybridization and polyploidy.
• Homologous similarities between species suggest that the species descended from a common ancestor. Universal homologies - such as the genetic code - found in all living things suggest that all species are descended from a single common ancestor.
• The fossil record provides evidence for evolution in the origin of new species and the order of succession of major groups in the fossil record.
However, apart from common descent, another issue gets mixed in with evolutionary theory, and that is the ability of microevolutionary mechanisms to produce organs and organisms. When the two issues aren’t separated, then evolution is presented as though every bit of it is equally supported with evidence. I incessantly read in books, and hear on nature shows, that “natural selection decided …” (i.e., how some organ or metabolic function etc. would turn out).
The truth is, the issue of what caused the genetic changes which developed organs, organisms, and biology’s complex biochemistry is unknown. So when evolution is taught in such a way that it gives all the credit to mechanistic theory, that is where you find the biggest complaints coming from the religious side. In my case, I don’t believe mechanistic processes can be so creative as evolutionists are claiming, and since it isn’t proven yet that they can be, I don’t like mechanists acting like they’ve all but proved it.
My personal issues aside, you asked for a timeframe for my prediction. Well, obviously I don’t know. But what I sense is a growing awareness of this practice of using the certainty of macroevolution to surreptitiously sneak in the idea that it is almost as certain that microevolutionary mechanisms are the sole creator of life forms. It’s all over the internet in fact, with one creationist group after another talking about it (there is, of course, lots of the normal creationist nonsense too).
But not every Christian is a fundamentalist. There are liberal Christians too, and they, I predict, are going to expose the mechanists’ little trick. The liberal Christians are perfectly willing to accept common descent, and microevolution too as long as the teaching of it sticks to what has actually been observed (see below). But there are now scientists among the Christian liberals who are weighing in, and that is why I say science should back off from implying it can explain all the development of a life form. One such liberal group, “The Discovery Institute,” published this complaint here http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118":
The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution © Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101
When Charles Darwin published “The Origin of Species” in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding, which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named "macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9 of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).
(continued in the next post)
Last edited by a moderator:
- #38
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,262
- 2
Part Two
(continued from the last post)
If I were to offer a policy suggestion for teaching evolution, I might rely on Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D., professor of biochemistry at the University of Colorado to help me make my point. In order to argue in favor of common descent, he (temporarily I am pretty sure) eliminated the controversial aspects of evolution, and in doing so came close to what I think would be an objective way to teach evolution. Under the heading “Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories,” Dr. Theobald sayse here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" :
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
And there you have what I think would satisfy reasonable people, and might even get a few zealot creationists to back off.
(continued from the last post)
If I were to offer a policy suggestion for teaching evolution, I might rely on Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D., professor of biochemistry at the University of Colorado to help me make my point. In order to argue in favor of common descent, he (temporarily I am pretty sure) eliminated the controversial aspects of evolution, and in doing so came close to what I think would be an objective way to teach evolution. Under the heading “Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories,” Dr. Theobald sayse here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" :
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
And there you have what I think would satisfy reasonable people, and might even get a few zealot creationists to back off.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #39
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,435
- 3,252
Why does evolution and ID need to be mutually exclusive?
- #40
faust9
- 692
- 2
dlgoff said:
Because ID is NOT science while evolution IS.
The scientific method (the thing that defines science) has the following steps:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
ID does 1 and 2.
Nature has been observed a hypothesis has been formulated.
ID cannot do 3 and 4.
You cannot test to see if there is a god. You cannot predict a future change by saying "It's all guided by an otherworldly hand"
ID is NOT science so cannot co-exist with real science on equal terms.
- #41
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,435
- 3,252
Well I didn't ask if ID was a science. If you want to talk theories, just look at some of the fourms here. Look at all the questions that can't be explained by science. That is, yet.
- #42
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,338
Les, the Discovery Institute is the group of crackpots that invented ID.Les Sleeth said:
You didn't know that? You don't believe this stuff do you?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #43
Smurf
- 443
- 3
They don't. It's only some silly fundamentalists that believe they are exclusive because they're idea of ID is a silly exerpt form the Bible. The Vatican, for example, doesn't deny evolution while (obviously) believing in Intelligent Design.dlgoff said:
- #44
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,338
Actually, they don't believe in the "Intelligent Design" that is being spread by the Discovery Institute, they believe in God, which is what they should believe in.Smurf said:
"This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html
Last edited by a moderator:
- #45
Mercator
Believing in God and Evolution theory are mutually exclusive. The part of the catholic church that does not believe in ID still thinks that evolution was put in motion by a God. It's like explaining the mind with an homunculus.Evo said:
- #46
faust9
- 692
- 2
Mercator said:
False. The Catholic view is that God created everything (the big bang); however, evolution is not controlled by God. ID says something is guiding evolution.
- #47
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,338
Actually you can believe in God and evolution. You can believe that God created evolution, that's his plan. A lot of people believe this. I don't see a problem with it. You can't deny evolution, the evidence is every where, but who's to say what started it?
What I don't understand is people so insecure in their "faith" that they see reality as a threat.
What I don't understand is people so insecure in their "faith" that they see reality as a threat.
- #48
Mercator
Well, the big bang was the start of it all, so essentially we are saying the same. God started it and then evolution got on.faust9 said:
Who created God then? It's a matrushka problem.
- #49
Smurf
- 443
- 3
Which is what I meant. Outside of the US (and I'd imagine several parts of the US too) the term Intelligent Design means that the Universe was created by some otherwordly entity, i.e. God.Evo said:
- #50
Mercator
It's impossible that God created evolution. Who created God then? God is an easy solution to answer a question we cannot answer (yet).Evo said:
- #51
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,338
You can't say it's impossible, it is highly improbable IMO. God is a matter of faith. I'm agnostic and it makes no sense to me, but if it makes sense to someone that believes in God, it's no skin off my nose, as long as they don't try to pretend it's something that it's not (such as science).Mercator said:
The majority of religious people have no problem with science.
- #52
rachmaninoff
Very little about the universe is understood. Practically nothing. You might as well give up now people, turn your backs on the whole thing and blame it all on spirits. Mysterious spirits. But very efficient ones. What's that, no one knows why the cosmic expansion is accelerating? Must be spirits. Or maybe goblins. Anyway, it's got to be in the active control of some agency, because no one, not even God, could create a Finch that can fly on its own wings, without it being lifted by some sort of angels. Nor a galaxy that spins on its own, like clockwork, without breaking down every few hours and needing to be wound up by... angels. Hey, if we don't get it, then God sure doesn't either. He sure as heck ain't creating anything We can't fit in a high school textbook, that would offend Us.
So we live in a broken, impotent world. Thank God for ghosts and santa's elves, gluing together all the cracks and picking up the pieces where God messes up. Yup that's how it works. And don't forget Helios, who stokes the great Coal Fire for our own enjoyment. Him and Neptune, and Diana... yup that about covers it. That explains all the known universe, yawn... back to the TV screen (thank God for cathode-tube sprites!).edit:
After all...
So we live in a broken, impotent world. Thank God for ghosts and santa's elves, gluing together all the cracks and picking up the pieces where God messes up. Yup that's how it works. And don't forget Helios, who stokes the great Coal Fire for our own enjoyment. Him and Neptune, and Diana... yup that about covers it. That explains all the known universe, yawn... back to the TV screen (thank God for cathode-tube sprites!).edit:
After all...
Yeah, why haven't we figured out the mechanisms of all proteins in existence yet? Must be something fishy going on. Hurry up you lazy biochemists!Kansas school bores said:
Last edited by a moderator:
- #53
mattmns
- 1,128
- 6
I think the typcial answer is that the question cannot be answered because, by definition, god has always existed.Mercator said:
- #54
Smurf
- 443
- 3
A slightly interesting article:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69512,00.html?tw=rss.TOP
Last edited by a moderator:
- #55
franznietzsche
- 1,504
- 6
Mercator said:
By that you mean the entire catholic church not guilty of heresy does not believe in ID.
faust9 said:
False. As of 1996, the catholic view is that Genesis is purely metaphor, and that Evolution has no conflict with it. Further, ID does not say something is guiding evolution. ID refutes the idea of evolution from one species into another altogether.
- #56
Smurf
- 443
- 3
what happened in 96?
- #57
TheStatutoryApe
- 296
- 4
No that would be creationism. ID is supposed to be an alternative concept of how evolution happened. ID is not the opponent of evolution it is the opponent of "natural selection".Franz said:
- #58
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,486
- 10,814
Popes set policy for the Catholic Church. They essentially tell Catholics what to believe in. In 1996, Pope John Paul made this speech:Smurf said:
http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm
- #59
franznietzsche
- 1,504
- 6
TheStatutoryApe said:
Splitting ID and creationism is like splitting General Relativity and gravity.
- #60
franznietzsche
- 1,504
- 6
russ_watters said:
The catholic church has become very wise about just staying out of the way of science in the past century or so. The general doctrine is "we have our sphere of relevance and they have theirs".
- #61
Polly
- 94
- 0
I'd love to believe that this would solve all problems, but to think, over 1/2 of the population of the technologically most advanced hyperpower believe in creationism, it is just unthinkable (yes I see Mercator's point of comparison with Russia and China now, sorry Mercruss_watters said:
). It's not like they have been living on an island excluded from modern popular scientific understanding. It does say something about the mental capacity IMO.- #62
Smurf
- 443
- 3
Where'd you get 1/2 from?
- #63
Norman
- 897
- 4
Yes. A lot of people believe in creationism. As discussed before, this is not incompatable with modern scientific notions. But it truly is surprising that some people do not believe in evolution- or rather choose to ignore- better way of saying it. I dated a women seriously for about a year in college and a major source of conflict between us was she didn't believe in evolution. This from a women who had a double major in one of the best state schools in the country. Her belief in god didn't allow her to believe in evolution- they were completely incompatable to her. I had a fellow graduate student- he was a Ph.D. in physics, who was a hardcore fundamental literal bible guy. He believed that the Earth was 6000 years old. He knew about evolution and understood it scientifically, but again his faith didn't allow him to believe in the theory. Did he go around telling us all that we were stupid for not believing what he believed? Nope. The problem is when people start pusing their BELIEFS on other people. Both of the people I mentioned understood that their faith was a belief and that beliefs were personal and many times un-scientific. By the way, neither of them wanted intellegent design taught as science.
- #64
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,486
- 10,814
As much as I try to keep politics out of relationships, on that issue, Norman, I'd have trouble beliving the girl was not an ignorant fool, and I tend not to date ignorant fools. Unless they are really hot, of course, then I date them for as long as I can tolerate them...
I really don't think it is enough to let them be if they aren't hurting anyone - eventually they are going to have kids and they are going to teach those kids that science is an illusion of a devious god.
I really don't think it is enough to let them be if they aren't hurting anyone - eventually they are going to have kids and they are going to teach those kids that science is an illusion of a devious god.
Last edited:
- #65
Mercator
How long is always? What was before always? You know, even in classic mathematics 2 parrallels intersect somewhere.mattmns said:
- #66
Mercator
EVO, I think I know what you mean. We have hypotheses about the beginning and these are not proven yet. So, why not describe this initial state, or what was before it, which we cannot scientifically describe at this moment, with the notion of God? At first sight it does no harm. But my problem with this, is that religion, the believe in God and creation, provides a dogmatic answer that frees people from looking any further for a scientific answer. I am not an agnostic, I'm an atheist. Just think about all these bright minds spending their braincells on studying a myth, be it the Christian, Jewish , Islamic or Taoist myth. What a waste...Evo said:
- #67
Norman
- 897
- 4
russ_watters said:As much as I try to keep politics out of relationships, on that issue, Norman, I'd have trouble beliving the girl was not an ignorant fool, and I tend not to date ignorant fools. Unless they are really hot, of course, then I date them for as long as I can tolerate them...
I really don't think it is enough to let them be if they aren't hurting anyone - eventually they are going to have kids and they are going to teach those kids that science is an illusion of a devious god.
The problem is you cannot force people to take your view. Kicking the snot out of a racist doesn't make him stop hating- it only makes him hate you too (which is fine in my view
). Changing someones beliefs is far too difficult to be done in a lifetime- let alone changing their religion. This is why, I believe, that the IDers are trying to change schooling. They hold a belief, their children challenge that belief or maybe even hold the opposite belief. Why- school must have done it. What to do? Well change the school- try to make everyone believe what I believe. If these courts would start upholding the separation of church and state (and people would stop demeaning it with frivolous lawsuits about using the pledge of allegiance in public schools) along with having people who actually care about the development of the children through school- not some local politician who got elected to the school board cause s/he could afford to run. Even though s/he never got a college degree and was a C student in High School her/himself. We may eventually start having kids who come out of High School with an education- not just a diploma.
What do think a (not neccesarily "the") solution is Russ?
- #68
Mercator
Hey, you're actually human!russ_watters said:As much as I try to keep politics out of relationships, on that issue, Norman, I'd have trouble beliving the girl was not an ignorant fool, and I tend not to date ignorant fools. Unless they are really hot, of course, then I date them for as long as I can tolerate them...
I really don't think it is enough to let them be if they aren't hurting anyone - eventually they are going to have kids and they are going to teach those kids that science is an illusion of a devious god.
- #69
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,486
- 10,814
No, but I can force their kids to learn my view, and that's what this is about.Norman said:
Agreed.
Well, aside from what I said about the scientific community needing to get more involved, I think things are going reasonably well, as far as keeping ID/creationism out of schools is concerned. Isolated, random school board lunacy never stands up to a court challenge.
National standards may help, but there is only so much that can be done, and I think students and teachers both already spend too much of their time jumping through hoops for the sake of meeting standards.
The press is another big culprit in the general subject of scientific illiteracy. Though the press is protected from regulation, it is not protected from humiliation, and the scientific community needs to start sticking it to the press when they fail in their ethical responsibilities when it comes to science. Bloggers took down a news media superstar and most of his higher level staff over bad reporting during the campaign. When the media abuses science for the sake of ratings, someone needs to beat them down (hmm...maybe I'll start that blog...).
That's somewhat of a general rant, but there is one specific way in which the media is failing on this issue:
Anyone see a problem with this headline? There is no debate in the scientific community between evolution and ID/creationism. The news media often (perhaps inadvertently) gives ID/creationism advocates credibility by implying they are on the same level as the science of evolution.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #70
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,830
- 5
Polly said:I'd love to believe that this would solve all problems, but to think, over 1/2 of the population of the technologically most advanced hyperpower believe in creationism, it is just unthinkable (yes I see Mercator's point of comparison with Russia and China now, sorry Merc
Have you ever been to some of these places? They aren't isolated from technology, but they are most certainly isolated from any reasonable semblance of a scientifically thinking culture. The way people are raised - indoctrinated from birth - certainly makes a difference. Why do you think you're so intent on finding evidence for Buddhism in quantum theory? It's the same reason that people look for evidence of the Great Flood in the geological record and come up with nonsense like hydroplate theory. And it isn't because of low IQ. I'd imagine you're a smart girl, and many of the people pushing creationism and ID are also incredibly intelligent.
With the actual high-profile advocates, I'd posit that the problem is stepping outside of one's sphere of expertise. All of the well-credentialed, intelligent people advocating ID and hydroplate theory seem to be engineers, chemists, and physicists, who really are not qualified to make an evaluation of evolutionary biology any more than a biologist is qualified to critique the Copenhagen interpretation. The problem is that evolution is like politics. For whatever reason, everybody thinks they're experts. People that have probably never seen the Hardy-Weinberg equation, who probably cannot even pronounce 'endosymbiosis,' think they're as qualified to critique evolutionary theory. We would never see someone with no knowledge of the geometry of nth-dimensional space of variable curvature come in and try to critique general relativity (of course, because special relativity started with simple thought experiments, everyone will try to critique that).
With the common people, it seems to be more a problem of indoctrination. All they're ever told about from the beginning are all of the 'holes' in evolutionary theory. It's not a matter of them being stupid; it's a matter of inadequate education. And let's face it: we're not going to solve this problem by forcing everyone to take a course in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary theory is a complex and difficult subject to grasp; it's no more fit to be a GE requirement than is a course in advanced physics. People simply accept the theories of advanced physics that they don't understand because those theories don't offend their culturally created sensibilities. 95% of the people in the world that do accept evolutionary theory do so simply based on the fact that they trust scientific authority; it's not that they actually understand the nuances of the theory and are qualified to make an informed judgement about it. These people are no smarter and no less ignorant than those who reject evolution but aren't in a proper position of expertise to evaluate it critically. It's simply a difference of culture, in which some people believe that materialist science is at odds with a faith that they must hold to be saved, and others do not.
This reminds me of a program I recently watched called The Journey of Man. A geneticist is going around the world tracing the journey of the original humans to leave Africa and figuring out where they branched off to and when. When he comes to Australia, he's speaking to a man of aboriginal descent, asking him if they have any narratives about coming into Australia from southeast Asia and how they might have done so. The man insists that they came from Australia and that the rest of the world was descended from Australians. The genetictist shows him the evidence that that is not the case. Archaeological findings of human activity in Africa are way older than those in Australia, and Australians carry genetic markers from Africa, but not the other way around, proving that transmission of genetic material could only have been one way - Australians are descended from Africans, but not vice versa. No matter what he said, the man would not accept it and continued to insist that all human are descended from Australians. He didn't do this because he was a low-IQ, ignorant fool, but because it conflicted with his long-established and deeply felt identity, something that no man is going to easily give up.