Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Mini D]

BTW... you're going agenda on me mcgroin. Is it only creationists that were frauds? Or is that what you'd like people to believe.

I bet if you looked, just a little bit, you'd find there were even bigger frauds in science. People that made claims that were falsified, received a nobel prize, and were later revealed to be frauds whos motive was to make money off of the components they said were necessary for the experiments. Look just a little bit. Look and see how well peer review caught that.

[Holden McGroin]

Did you read my post about the Piltdown fraud?

How were the frauds of Piltdown and those of which you surmise later revealed?

By the practice of good science.

[Mini D]

Doh... misread the first part.

Science managed to catch up with the fraud, eventually. It was ran by peers and passed. It was accepted as true because that's what people wanted to believe at the time.

Science did not reveal it to be false. A scientist did. If that scientist had not, the rest would have been fine with it. Science is not an absolute. It is not exact. It is a tool of people wishing to accomplish something. The only thing that makes it helpfull is that generally, humans are petty and vindictive. The desire to prove someone wrong in hopes of self promotion is a primary goal. Science is not the key... it is the tool for this. You are relying on the human interface to make it happen.

Of course, it's also a situation where someone was actally able to double check. That is not, even remotely, always the case. There are examples of fraud were science was unable to catch it, but rather criminal investigation succeded. If you look, you'll find it.

You are taking, on faith, that both intentions and dilligence were excercised with 90% of what you believe science has explained. This is not an absolute truth. It is a belief in both men and the unkown. If you can explain to me how this is not some cultist religion I'd be very interested in hearing it. Afterall, we are talking about creationism and evolution in this thread.

[myelo]

Originally posted by Mini D
I understand that the simultaneous evolution of litterally billions of species over billions of years should mean that we are still seeing it happen. Given the rate at which positive mutation occurs.  

Bacteria resistant to various antibiotics, insects resistant to pesticides, corn with increased sugar content, new dog breeds on a yearly basis….if anyone (not you specifically mini) doesn’t see evolution occurring either they aren’t looking or they don’t understand what evolution is  -- any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Now before you say those don’t count (they do) because these aren’t resulting in new species, speciation has also been documented in a number of cases, with just one example being formation of several new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago (Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348)

Of course what you don’t see occurring is one species immediately changing into a substantially different species, say a reptile turning into a bird. But evolution doesn't predict anything even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever saw a reptile turn into a bird, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

As for the charge that I’m attacking religion, I’m not. Evolution is consistent with many religious views, although certainly not a literal interpretation of Genesis or certain other sacred texts. As for the Bible literalists, I would only ask that they be honest and criticize evolution on a religious basis (as Seagoon has), not try to push pseudoscience  as a scientific criticism of evolution as the ID proponents try to do.

[Simaril]

People who believe in creationism will love any credibility gained through ID. Anti- creationists will hate ID. But those arent the questions.



Question is, can natural selection (which is what you're actually describing, myelo --   the PROCESS by which evolution is believed to occur, not evolution itself) alone be sufficient to explain ALL the things we observe in nature. The scientific method, as strictly described by others here, is about confirming or disproving hypotheses that can be observed NOW. We can describe what's in the dirt, and we can contruct theories to explain our findings ---


---BUT----

we cannot perform experiments to confirm the theories because we cannot recreate one time events, and an incredible number of environmental variables are simply unknown.  Theories of orgins are tested by the accumulation of new information, not by experimentation, so in that sense those theories are closer to historical interpretations than, say,  the directly testable Theory of Relativity.



What started this thread was the Smithsonian's expulsion of an apparently non-creationist scientist (quote from Washington Post: "Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider.""who allowed a paper to be published that suggested that the accumulated evidence could not be explained by randomness and natural selection. His academic freedom of thought was suppressed because as editor HE JUST ALLOWED THE PUBLICATION OF A PAPER with nontraditional ideas that were unacdeptable to the majority.

When that fraudulent native american professor was exposed, his academic compatriots rose up in his defense by saying that his academic freedom was being compromised. That guy lied on his resume, and in most jobs you'd be out on your ear for that alone.

Oddly enough, there seems to be little such academic loyalty for the Snithsonian scientist...

[Sparks]

Seagoon,  I still maintain ID is laziness.  Absolutely true that investigation would continue, that reasearch using our knowledge to date would move forward, but the really big things would be abandoned.

Reading the passages that Hang put up from Einstein you realise that there was a man who understood the part his life could play in existance. That the complexity of the universe and life is too great for any one man to understand and that his spirituality came from wondering at this complexity - yet he did not ascribe any answer to it's existance or formation he just accepted it was there and drew pleasure from it. His joy came from trying to understand any small piece of it.

These pieces are what pass from generation to generation.

Reading this thread all sides of the arguement seem to want to declare the answer to "Life the Unviverse and Everything" here and now in our life times ( I know , 42! ) . Whether it be Creationist, ID or Darwinian we are locked in to this modern day view of gratification NOW. We have the answer NOW! Why can't we accept the answer may take thousands or tens of thousands of years, or we may kill ourselves first, and that in the interest of future generations it is our responsibility NOT to cast judgement on what is truth now but to continue to find small pieces as Einstein did.

ID may not be lazy for us today in that sceintists will not go to work tomorrow but watch TV instead, but it is taking the easy route in the quest for knowledge as a race.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Mini D
Science did not reveal it to be false. A scientist did.

And the scientist used what to prove it false...voodoo?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Holden,



I was getting confused as to why you keep bringing up this strawman argument, I mean even on the most basic level its falsity should be apparent. The very discovery of light refraction that you believe ID would have prevented was made in the 17th century by a believer in intelligent design, Francesco Grimaldi who was of all things a Jesuit Priest. His work was further refined by the discoveries of men like Johannes Keppler, a protestant believer who started his educational career with Theology at Tubingen. So I'm failing to see how, when most of the scientific discoveries made prior to the 20th century were made by theists not atheists, why you believe further inquiry into ID would actually end all scientific inquiry and effectively spell the death knell to science.

Then it occurred to me that you might actually believe that for theists "God" is merely a superstitious creation to explain away all natural phenomena. In other words, a theist's "science class" would consist of a bunch of half-naked savages squatting around a fire and would go something like this. "Why when rain come, sky go boom and lights flash?" "God angry, he shout, make sky rumble and fire flashes from his eye! next question." etc.

The whole idea not only dismisses all of the history of science, it even overlooks almost every theistic theological system which posits that God primarily works through secondary means not directly. So faced with the question about a blue sky the believer in ID explains to his child about refraction, light waves, dust particles, and so on. The only real difference is that for the theist, the ultimate source of all these laws, principles, phenomena and so on is God rather than the materialists answer of something along the lines of "Chance & Time."




In any event, guys, this will probably be my last post on this subject until Monday as tomorrow is my busiest day of the week.

One final thought, although he doesn't believe in creationism or intelligent design and has been a leading evolutionary scientist for many years, Michael Ruse is currently creating quite a stir with his admission that atheistic evolutionism has unfortunately become essentially a religious faith which will brook no rivals and that this is having a negative effect on science generally. Salon recently published an interview with Ruse where he talks frankly about this. While I don't agree with Ruse on much, its definitely food for thought and indicates that there is a real problem.

Here's a teaser from the article:

"Ruse has devoted much of his career, first at the University of Guelph in Ontario and more recently at Florida State, to battling the creationist agenda in science and philosophy, in the classroom and the political arena. At the same time, he has become increasingly fascinated with the indistinct borderlands between science and religion. He has leapt to the defense of scientists who profess religious faith, in the face of derision from prominent atheistic Darwinians like Richard Dawkins. He has supported Christians and other believers who argue that religious faith and evolutionary science do not necessarily contradict one another, and who have resisted the rising tide of fundamentalism.
   
In Ruse's 2000 book "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?" he answered the question forcefully in the affirmative, while making clear he wasn't personally a believer. On the other hand, in his 2003 book "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?" Ruse answered that question more or less in the negative, politely describing creationism and intelligent design (often simply called I.D.) as intellectual dead ends -- while reasserting that he thought evolutionary thinking could be compatible with theistic religion.

Yet, even in the context of these moderate and nuanced positions and this steadfast rejection of absolutism, Ruse's new book, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," comes as something of a surprise. On one level, the book is a fairly standard intellectual history of how the 18th century Enlightenment led to a crisis of faith in the Western world, which led in turn to two responses: a turn toward fundamentalist, evangelical religion on one hand, and a turn toward increasingly non-theistic reason and science on the other. The two forces have effectively been in combat ever since, which carries us up to science textbooks, school prayer, abortion and homosexuality, sacrilegious TV sitcoms, the last two presidential elections and the rest of today's "culture wars."

Above and beyond that, Ruse makes a heretical argument in "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" that will not endear him to members of his own team. Creationism and evolutionism, he says, are siblings, born of the same historical crisis, and they provide distorted reflections of each other. "The two sides share a common set of questions and, in important respects, common solutions," he writes. More explosively, he thinks both are essentially theological in character; they are "rival religious responses to a crisis of faith -- rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies -- pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind."

Ruse is drawing a crucial distinction between evolutionary science, narrowly considered -- which need not have any religious or spiritual consequences -- and evolutionism, the secular, atheistic religion he says often accompanies and enfolds Darwinism. Leading evolutionists like Dawkins, Ruse believes, have failed to draw clear distinctions between the two, and have led many to believe that Darwinian science is fatally allied to an arrogant atheism and a hostile caricature of religious belief. In essence, Ruse believes that fundamentalist evolutionists like Dawkins and W.D. Hamilton hold similar beliefs to fundamentalist creationists -- both sides would agree that Darwinism is a "dark theology" that removes ultimate meaning and purpose from the universe and augurs the death of God.

You might say that, in this new book, Ruse is calling for a Reformation within the church of evolutionism. He himself honors the truth claims of science and is "a hell of a lot closer" to atheism than to religious belief. But he thinks evolutionists must purge themselves of reflexive anti-religious fervor, and acknowledge at least the potential validity of the classic Augustinian position that science and theology can never directly contradict one another, since science can only consider nature and God, by definition, is outside nature. Without this consciousness, Ruse suggests, evolutionism is in fact a secular religion, a church without Christ. And if that's what it is, what is it doing in biology class?..."

- SEAGOON

Perhaps you could point to me exactly what you would want taught for ID? Which version? Whose God? ID belongs in a history/religion class. Even if I was religious I would not trust public school teachers to teach my children about religion, and if you are already religious then your kids know about god. So really this is about trying to use the schools as a recruitement center for religion and I won't stand for it, and neither should you.

I would like to know what you want taught. This question never gets asked and I thinks it critical.

[Seagoon]

Hi Raider,

Originally posted by Raider179
Perhaps you could point to me exactly what you would want taught for ID? Which version? Whose God? ID belongs in a history/religion class. Even if I was religious I would not trust public school teachers to teach my children about religion, and if you are already religious then your kids know about god. So really this is about trying to use the schools as a recruitement center for religion and I won't stand for it, and neither should you.

I would like to know what you want taught. This question never gets asked and I thinks it critical.

I'm not an ID advocate, and ID is certainly NOT Christian theology. I wouldn't want ID taught in a competent Christian theology class, because it has no basis whatsoever in the bible. It is the result of observations and theories generated in the lab, not biblical exegesis. In fact, very, very, few ID advocates are evangelicals as ID assumes several things that most evangelicals reject, such as the presumption that the earth is billions of years old, and I've never yet met a thoroughgoing ID advocate who embraced six day creation as taught in Genesis. Most IDers take the scientific data as their starting point, but conclude that the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis cannot explain it.

As far as teaching it goes, what they want to do is simply be able to show the evidence that stands against the theory of Darwinian evolution, point out the debunked theories in existing textbooks, and to present material in much the same fashion that XrightyX has been doing. What they are against is presenting Evolutionism as an unshakeable dogma to be accepted and believed by all those who do not wish to be ostracized, caricatured, and ridiculed by society. What they want is the ability to present material for AND against Evolutionism in a neutral fashion.

Here's an article written by Doug Cowan, a High School teacher already teaching ID in a public school, explaining his teaching methodology. Go ahead and tell me what you object to:
------------------------------------------
"I am a public high school biology teacher, and I do an unusual thing. I teach my students more than they have to know about evolution. I push them to behave like competent jurors - not just to swallow what some authority figure tells them to believe - not even me - but rather to critically analyze, with an open mind, the evidence set before them.

Scientific theories have come and gone for centuries, replaced by better ones as new evidence arises. There has always been controversy in science and tremendous opposition to those who challenge the orthodoxy of the day. An effective way to teach science is to explore some of these controversies.

Teenagers, not surprisingly, find this approach exhilarating.

When I note that contrary to their large and monolithic biology textbook, some highly credentialed scientists insist that there are limitations to Darwin's theory, the students perk up.

And when I note that some current biology textbooks contain widely discredited evidence for Neo-Darwinism - a synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics - the last of the sleepy looks in the classroom usually vanishes.

Skepticism for its own sake isn't the goal here, but it's important for students to realize that even respected scientists have peddled fraudulent evidence in defense of a pet scientific dogma. A few examples my students learn about are Ernst Haeckel's faked embryo drawingsand the infamous Piltdown Man - fossils of a primitive hominid that turned out to be a hoax.

I also expose students to the reputable evidence for evolution. They learn about some of the pillars of evolutionary theory - genetically altered fruit flies, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide resistance in bugs, how breeding programs change domestic species, and how oscillating climates affect the beak size of certain kinds of finches. These and other examples demonstrate that organisms are capable of change over time.

What is the significance, I ask my students, of these microevolutionary changes? Can they be extrapolated to explain macroevolution - that is, evolution from one type of creature to a fundamentally different kind?

I also dissect these evidences using recent discoveries that have raised important questions among evolutionary biologists.

My students learn that even highly trained biologists disagree on these issues, interpreting "hard" evidence in different ways.

The job of the scientist, I explain, is to find the best explanation to a problem, not just to defend his or her own position at all costs.

After my presentations, many kids will ask what I believe, since they cannot tell what my position is.

One such student told me she appreciated my neutral approach. Her reason was simple: hearing the evidence for and against the theory gave her the freedom to weigh the evidences for herself.

This student eventually wrote an article for our local paper about my approach. After it was published, a reporter from that paper appeared unannounced, interviewed me, and called my superintendent to ask if she knew how I was teaching evolution.

My principal saw that it was a freedom of speech issue and gave me his full backing.

My superintendent asked me to stick to the adopted curriculum - which does not include intelligent design theory - and I've done so. However, I have retained the freedom to mention intelligent design theory to curious students as another viewpoint used to explain life and its diversity.

The superintendent reminded me to remain neutral in my presentation, and gave me her backing.

We were on firm legal footing. Constitutional law allows this approach:

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible to teach students about alternative scientific viewpoints and scientific criticism of prevailing theories.

And a June 2001Senate addendum to The No Child Left Behind Act states, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist ...."

Finally, this approach comports with the state of Washington's high school assessment test, which expects students to be able to think critically, analyze information, and draw informed, reasoned conclusions.

Charles Darwin wrote, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

That, in my opinion, is what science is all about."

Doug Cowan is a veteran science teacher at Curtis Senior High School in University Place, Wash., where he teaches biology, physiology, and human anatomy.
------------------

- SEAGOON

[midnight Target]

Nonsense!

In fact this is dangerous nonsense.  ID is just the latest fad name for creationism and is just the latest version of stick-your-head-in-the-sand religious pseudo-science to come down the pipe. Same idiocy that coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro evolution" (no such thing).

It is religion in general that is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong and asking our children to turn off their minds. There is nothing refutable about ID or Creationism. It is based on faith and must by definition leave out all other possibilities. You might as well burn Bruno at the stake again.

[Mini D]

It would be better if you slammed a gavel down when you said that. Or had someone kiss your ring right afterwards.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Seagoon
...I wouldn't want ID taught in a competent Christian theology class, because it has no basis whatsoever in the bible. It is the result of observations and theories generated in the lab, not biblical exegesis.
...
- SEAGOON [/B]

The reason ID bunko rings true to so many people is because there's subtlety here that many people just don't put forth the effort to grasp.

Seagoons quote here is at the heart of it. ID is NOT, NOT, NOT the result of observations and theories generated in any scientific setting.

ID IS all about jumping to a conclusion based on certain gaps in what can be observed and explained. Huge difference.

Going back to the original articles. Perhaps von Sternberg's treatment was over the top, but the shunning of his premise was valid. It is NOT science to say "evolution theory cannot explain  such and such and therefore so and so must be true."

My analogy:

You're walking through a parking lot and come across what you believe to be the sleekest, most stylish, most beautifully designed car on the planet and you've never seen anything like it before. There is no badging of any type. You happen to be a Ford guy, so the lack of any badging to the contrary and the fact that's it's the most beatifull car on the planet confirm to you that it's a Ford. That's religion. Science would say, "Hmm. That's not like any car I've seen before, I wonder who made it."

Evolutionary Science says, "Here's all the things that we can explain scientifically. Here's some things we can't. I wonder how I can set about finding the answers and validating them"

Intellegent Design - by it's very premise - says, "Here's stuff that Evolutionary Science cannot explain. We have an answer for them. We don't need to be able to apply the same science evolution does to their explanations because these are things that are as yet unexplained by science (but we still know the answer).

Bunko science by it's premise.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Mini D
It would be better if you slammed a gavel down when you said that. Or had someone kiss your ring right afterwards.

Only if the appropriate mood music was playing... Like the 2001 theme.

 

(I know it is called Thus spake some guy with a 'Z' name)

[Siaf__csf]

Zarathustra I believe. Nietche.

[bustr]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Nonsense!

In fact this is dangerous nonsense.  ID is just the latest fad name for creationism and is just the latest version of stick-your-head-in-the-sand religious pseudo-science to come down the pipe. Same idiocy that coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro evolution" (no such thing).

It is religion in general that is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong and asking our children to turn off their minds. There is nothing refutable about ID or Creationism. It is based on faith and must by definition leave out all other possibilities. You might as well burn Bruno at the stake again.

In turn your statement saying Faith leaves out all other possibilites, but, science as the alter to it sees all possibilites, is a limiting statement of your definition of science, in that it is limiting "one" possiblility - Faith. After all it is your Faith in the scientific method that you are basing the fact of your statement.

Half of you folks in this thread get down right preachy and protaganistic over this faith thingy. You sure your antagonism isn't giving you a blind spot in your self proclaimed "open" minds? You almost give the impression that you are willing to persecute what, beleivers in Faith? Christians? You guys BBQ'd any christians lately? I bet by now Seagoon is smelling kinda hickory like.....