Doug Cowan is teacher of science, biology, physiology and human anatomy at Curtis Senior High School in University Place, a suburb of Tacoma, in Pierce County, Washington, not too far southeast of Seattle. He has a most worthwhile op-ed piece in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, titled, "Teaching Students To Be 'Competent Jurors' On Evolution." Cowan writes:
....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 drawings and 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....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?...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.
....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.
I applaud Cowan's balanced approach, and his gutsiness in teaching Pierce County high school students to sort through the evidence on both sides. Simply vilifying as "creationists" the proponents of "Intelligent Design," who believe Evolution does not explain everything about the origins of human life, is essentially akin to playing the "Hitler" card in a political debate: the intent is to shut down discussion by delegitimizing the other side's moral and intellectual standing. For more on the I.D.-Evolution debate, click here.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 01, 2005 07:00 PM | Email ThisEvolution happened. There's libraries full of evidence that this is how we arrived at this point on our spinning planet.
For a long time after it was proven that we live in a heliocentric galaxy, men continued to believe that it was geocentric. Bruno and Galileo were both executed by the Catholic church for what we now know is absolute fact.
Other men believed Christopher Columbus would sail right off of the flat earth in 1492. And we know have irrefutable proof the earth is round.
Evolution happened. It's proven beyond a shadow of doubt in the minds of the rational. However, some are still in the dark and clinging to mysticism exactly as those who believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.
Luddites.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 1, 2005 07:14 PMIt's hard to argue with 3.5 billion years of fossil records. I'm not against creationists per say. Believe what you want to believe, most theologians understand religious teachings as mostly parables. Just don't go trying to say evolution did not happen. It did.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 1, 2005 07:21 PM1. life appears in (evolutionally) impossibly fast 'explosions' of new species,
2. These species remain essentially unchanged for billions of years,
3. After the - dare I say it - miraculously rapid proliferation of species they die off consistently, rather than branching and multiplying consistently
4. there are no proven 'transitional' specimens among the millions of fossils found since Darwin's time. The few quoted in books are either unique species (archpetyrx or platypii) or outright hoaxes.
5. Astronomy has proven that the universe is several *trillion* times younger than the time needed needed for the classic Darwinian 'Gradualist' evolution theory, and biology has proven the Punctuated Equilibrium model to be fanciful thinking (ie. a 'hopeful monster' with a beneficial mutations able to breed with another and pass along traits.)
Net result: fossile record supports the scientific hypothesis that species were introduced 'super'-naturally, and that they don't evolve beyond a set range (can breed many types of dogs, but can't breed dogs to become cats). Hmm - sounds like a case for Intelligent Design.
Don't make me argue details on this because I have bookloads of them, and can squash you like a recidivistic bug! Besides, this is a minor sideshow until the KC election case is done. After that, let's start a forum and have at it. I love making evolutionists say 'Oh. I guess I'm wrong." Easy, affordable and fun for the whole family.
Posted by: rick D on June 1, 2005 07:36 PMI want to applaud this Teacher but also show remorse that we cannot show both sides of the coin in this debate of origin. I agree with aspects of evolution, however I don't agree that it is where "life started" I believe it is where life has progressed to.
All computer programmers have a certain style of program writing, when you look hard at the source may can judge who created it. There are scientists who say the same of all life here on earth, and even go so far as to say that I.D. and Evolution actually are not rivals but partners, God the creator, evolution the method.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." - C.S. Lewis
Posted by: Adriel on June 1, 2005 07:48 PMI believe with every fiber of my being that the REAL reason the 'Evolution only' nuts are so desperate to keep it the only theory is the very same reason they are so desperate to prove life on any other planet - because in their minds, if they are right, they disprove the existance of God.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 1, 2005 08:16 PMWashington's governor told a news conference in Seattle this morning that she will be taking her first trade mission later this month, going to France, Germany and the United Kingdom from June 13-17. Gov. Christine Gregoire said she will particularly focus on promoting three industries - aerospace, biotech and biomedical, and tourism.
Posted by: Skeptical on June 1, 2005 08:27 PMThis is stressful on her too and I've heard nobody claim she was behind any of this, simply the beneficiary.
If the news comes out against her then I hope she extends the trip for a week or so because there is no way she will survive a special election right now.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 1, 2005 08:32 PM "If the Darwinian theory of evolution is the whole story of the origin and development of life on our planet, there is not, and cannot be, any ultimate purpose or meaning in life, for in that case mankind is merely the end result of fortuitous chemical reactions that have been determined by natural laws. This affects our value system, our view of social responsibility and our personal behaviour. Our Western society is rapidly deteriorating at all levels; personal, family, community and international. Something has seriously eroded the forces of social cohesion. Is there any connection between the nihilism of today-the rejection of current beliefs and morals-and the theory of evolution? This question of the relationship of the theory of evolution to society and its effects on human behaviour deserves serious study."
No it didn't. The earth is only 6400 years old.
All of the fossils were created when a large amount of water stored under the earth's crust rose up and created the fossils (many of which are fakes).
Finally, carbon dating techniques don't work, at least the ones dating objects to be older than 6400 years.
Posted by: Erik on June 1, 2005 08:42 PMIf you believe there are "3.5 billion years of fossile records" you are not a creationist.
Posted by: Erik on June 1, 2005 08:47 PMHaven't finished it yet, but it's a pretty good read.
Posted by: Ed on June 1, 2005 08:50 PMWhat an insulting post! In case you did not know it is called the theory of evolution.
Theory: hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, assumption, premise, guess. None of these words imply proof or fact.
So your diatribe is not only insulting but also false. Just because some things (flat earth) have been proven wrong, it is completely irrelevant to evolution, which has not been proven. Given there are two common beliefs in this country; it seems reasonable that both are brought up in class. That way the individual can think about each, ask questions about each, and make up his own mind. It is the typical liberal and the liberal education that wants to censor anything that goes against the dogma. Liberals do not want any thought that does not fall in line with the group think of the party.
Posted by: Fred on June 1, 2005 09:10 PMIf youa re going to try and "prove" something, you first have to get your facts straight. Galileo was not executed by the catholic church. In fact, his house arrest via the inquisition was more for his failure to live by the agreement he made with the inquisition and his ridiculing the pope in a public essay then for his "belief" in a heliocentric model of space.
Bruno wasn't a scientist, he was a philospher.
What you advocate today is exactly what you accuse the "church" of doing back then. Trying to silence people who to not submit to the belief system of those in power.
The thing of it is, Columbus did sail, and dispite the fact the the best minds, the scientific elite of his day, scoffed at his theories, he was alllowed to effectively present his case.
My question to you is: Why do you fear the debate? ID will stand or fall as time and testing provide. No need to club anyone over the head with your dogmatic adherence to the dominant theories.
If you fear what happened in the 1600's then fear the the attempts to silence the critics. When the critics get silenced, THAT is when science is affronted.
Posted by: Eyago on June 1, 2005 09:12 PMWhat? That's stupid, you say?
So's this BS equating natural selection with creationism.
Posted by: chuck Miller on June 1, 2005 09:24 PMAfter reading how some of the systems in our bodies function, you're left wondering how any of it developed randomly or through chance mutations.
The religion of evolution does not allow for dissent. "Thou shalt have no other theories before me".
I applaud this teacher in his efforts to introduce REAL scientific method in judging observations and information.
Posted by: Jack on June 1, 2005 09:51 PMI think we really are discussing whether or not there is a Creator. If there is a Creator, then evolution is not needed, but if there is not a Creator, then evolution (or some other form of naturalism) is the only option.
If I can not believe in a Creator, then evolution must have happened. How else would I explain my existence?
Aye, and there's the rub. The question is a search for meaning. Does life have purpose? What is that purpose? Do those who believe in a Creator ever reflect the nature of that Creator? Does anyone? Is there a moral good? How is it we can reason, and feel? Can chemistry, alone, account for reason, for feeling, and for the desire to find answers to our origins?
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 1, 2005 10:06 PMA slight error here--the Copernican model and Galilean model were not of galaxies, but of the solar system, and, one could also argue, the universe. But not a galaxy, as we know them today. The idea of a galaxy dates to the mid 1700s.
"Other men believed Christopher Columbus would sail right off of the flat earth in 1492. And we now have irrefutable proof the earth is round."
Which men were those? Is this piece of folklore still circulating? It's time you knew the truth:
-------------------
It is sometimes claimed that the reason Columbus had a hard time receiving support for this plan was that Europeans believed that the Earth was flat. This myth can be traced to Washington Irving's novel The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828).
The fact that the Earth is round was evident to most people of Columbus's time, especially other sailors and navigators (Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) had in fact accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth). The problem was that the experts did not agree with his estimates of the distance to the Indies. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's claim that the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, leaving 180 degrees of water. In fact, it occupies about 120 degrees, leaving 60 degrees unaccounted for at that time.
----source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
"Evolution happened."
Which kind? Over how long a period? And to what extent? Something happened, for sure--it's in the fossil record. But what, precisely, was it that happened? Science is not dogma, but perhaps you didn't know that. Science is the constant rechecking and rethinking of old and new data. To say that the book of evolution is closed is to misunderstand science, entirely.
"Luddites."
Perhaps you misunderstand what a Luddite is, also?
A Luddite refers to an anti-technologist, for example someone who may refuse to adopt cellular phone technology in favor of his trusty old rotary dial phone. But in the case of evolution, where is the technology that is being rebelled against?
You stop too short. If ALL our actions are chemical based, then they are purely the result of cause and effect. Consequently, there was no election fraud. Any votes that were cast were not due to a moral choice by any one person but simply the chemical reaction due to external stimuli upon the voter, or the election worker who may have inserted extra votes. But that is not fraud. You certainly cannot call it immoral. There is no morality when everything is based on cause and effect. So, no morality=no vote fraud. Maybe Durken should try THAT approach since the Judge is not seemingly very pleased with the "humans make mistakes" approach. Maybe it should be: humans are just responding to the external stimuli and that is why our election came out the way it did. No one was responsible because responsibility cannot exist. Sounds perfect to me.
Eyago
(doing his level best to keep the focus on the election trial.) ;)
It seems like one side of this issue wants to shut down all discussion and questioning, and declare this "settled science", which is an oxymoron. Science never was, and never will be settled. Let's hope we never become so sure of ourselves that we delude ourselves into believing that it is, and that anyone who doesn't tow the line is a heretic.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 1, 2005 10:22 PMScience (of which Evolution is a theory to explain the origin of the physical universe and life, etc.) can ONLY speak about the physical world. Adriel said:
There are scientists who say the same of all life here on earth, and even go so far as to say that I.D. and Evolution actually are not rivals but partners, God the creator, evolution the method.
That alludes to my point. Science can only produce and test theories about the physical world, from the macro to the micro level. But Science, and thus the Theory of Evolution, cannot ever test theories about the that which is not physical, nor cannot it draw inferences from the physical to the spiritual.
God, the Creator, is spirit. It is the "other" part or element that is present in our world, but not physical or tangible. To draw conclusions about spiritual realities from physical realities is impossible.
I lean more toward the belief that micro-evolution (with a little "e") is possible and that it was used in the creation of life and the physical world, but that Evolution (with a big "E") which has humans evolving from monkeys, or birds evolving from fish and reptiles, etc. is impossible; and the idea that Evolution would then prove that there is no God, ludicrous.
Posted by: JRR on June 1, 2005 10:33 PMBut the best scientific evidence I've seen so far suggests that evolution played a big part in how we became what we are today.
The best scientific evidence I've seen for creationism is oddly similar to the Democrats main argument in the Governor's Election Contest, which is basically that it's just too hard.
Creationists who I've listen to try to support their claims scientifically always come back to the argument that we are simply too complex to have evolved by random chance and selective breeding. They don't have any scientific evidence, so instead they claim that it's simply beyond possibility.
That to me is simply a non-answer. Throwing one's arms up and saying that if we can't explain it, then it must be the work of God, is not only unscientific, it's anti-scientific. It is surrendering one's quest for knowledge and the truth to the easy out, the simple catch-all that if we don't understand something now, then clearly we never will.
Evolution is a theory, but it's a theory that is based on factual scientific evidence. Creationism isn't even a theory, because there is no evidence. Creationism is more of an opinion, based on a belief system that requires accepting one religion's point of view over all others. No matter how you phase it to make it sound more agnostic, Intelligent Design is still creationism, and ultimately comes back to requiring a belief in the Christian Faith. It is religious evangelism, not scientific advancement, which is why I don't think it has any place in our public schools.
Posted by: Jason on June 1, 2005 10:33 PMWell, guess what...when the men landed the dust was only a few inches thick...a very telling sign that our universe wasn't as old as they thought.
Posted by: Susu on June 1, 2005 10:45 PMIt is a third theory that often isn't considered, although the evidence points to it:
I'm talking about SD.
All the evidence points to a creator. Of course, with all our flaws, it implies the creator is somewhat stupid.
So we have the theory of stupid design, or SD.
Try to prove I'm wrong, you IDer's, and I'll point you to ALS, mental retardation, cancer, and all the rest.
Oh wait, maybe the creator is malicious and not stupid. How about MD or malicious design?
Prove me wrong.
Posted by: blurp on June 1, 2005 10:58 PMThat's funny. But that's exactly my point -- we do have reason, we do have morals, we do have a desire for purpose -- and these aspects of life can not be explained by chemistry alone. If naturalism is unable to satisfy our questions, then the rules of science dictate that we must continue our search.
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 1, 2005 11:17 PMThe intent of the creation story is to explain the relationship between the creation (man, the earth, and the universe) and the creator.
The intent of the theory of evolution is to discredit the creation story.
Science doesn't have the ability to confirm the creation story because belief in God is a matter of faith - if He left behind incontrovertible proof as to His existence, there would be no purpose to faith.
The reason that science doesn't confirm the theory of evolution is that there are problems with the theory - but don't worry too much, I'm sure somebody will come along someday with a theory that makes a little more sense and as long as it doesn't include God, all you atheists will have something new to put your faith in...
The core thing is that man has an insatiable drive to know where he came from... it simply does not suffice to say "I exist"... if you want proof of God, that's as good as any place to start...
So Behe asks us to believe that at any particular arbitray level, there could not be building blocks which make up any system. When in fact, all the way down to sub atomic particles, and perhaps even further, each entity of matter is built from precursors. In the same way that a house might seem irreducibly complex to those not familiar with building houses, it nevertheless is simply a construct of nails, wood, screws, tar, paper, metals, glass, plastics, rock, etc. etc.
Each of the materials that make up a house are fashioned into various parts, some onsite and some in previously finished form, but those same materials could just as easily make other things if put together in different ways.
In essence, Behe asks us to accept that a house built, could not have be anything useful if it were not a house. Nevermind that wood, metal, plastics, glass, etc. are used to make many other things besides houses. In Behe's mind, a house is irreducibly complex.
If one wants to believe that there was some form of intelligence in the creation of life at any point from the big bang, or the beginning, or earth, etc. fine, but it should not be necessary to try and concont an antiscience argument to try and advance a philosophical concept such as some sort of divine force. Especially when there is so much science that contradicts Behe's own arguments.
It's particularly interesting to note those who claim that the accepting the science of evolution is soley to reject those who believe in God. My point is simply that as far as we now know, evolution occured. Why is it any more necessary to debunk the science that proves this true now than it was to debunk the science that proved that the sun did not revolve around the earth? And it's also interesting to note, that despite what science has uncovered, religion has remained constant.
There should be no conflict between the two because one is faith and the other is reason. If you accept anythng on faith, then you are not using reason. That's fine. We all do it with many things that we accept every day, but there's certainly no reason to attack it to prove a negative.
I'm willing to debate any scientific claim of irreducibility with scientific studies that show that it is wrong. And if a particular claimed irreducibility has not yet been proven wrong, that doesn't make it absolutely irreducible yet either because you can't prove it won't be proven reducible in the future.
Are we all bitter about the problems we face in life?
There is more to life than naturalism. Human beings have something special, more than just matter. We are able to have emotion, and rise above emotion, to face difficulty, and overcome difficulty, in short, we are able to live.
Life is more than reason, and reason more than chance.
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 1, 2005 11:33 PMSo you really think that when Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon, that it was the first time we had landed a ship there? I suppose next you'll be telling us that they expected to find cheese as well. Why do you suppose the mission that Neil Armstrong was on was call Apollo 11? Perhaps, just maybe, we actually landed a few ships there first, and therefore knew what to expect.
Besides, when have we not been surprised the first time we have gone anywhere. If we knew all there was to know, we wouldn't be exploring now would we?
Posted by: Jason on June 1, 2005 11:33 PMEverything you said makes for wonderful poetry and bumber stickers, but none of it is fact, or can even be proven. That's why it's called faith. We ought to be teaching what we can prove, or support with proof, rather than what we want to be true.
Posted by: Jason on June 1, 2005 11:57 PMWhich is exactly the reason why we should stop teaching that humans evolved from primates and that birds evolved from fish, and that everything evolved from primordial ooze.
Posted by: JRR on June 2, 2005 12:11 AMI would just like to point out this is a commonly held myth. The 'scientists' at the time did not dispute that the world was round they disputed Columbus' figures as to the size of the earth and the size of the eurasian landmass. In hind sight Columbus was wrong and was quite lucky there was a rather large landmass in the middle of his travels.
Posted by: Steve B on June 2, 2005 05:41 AMIn one respect the topic of evolution versus ID is appropriate for the discussion due to the discussion of whether something is mathematically possible. The Shark as put forth a theory (opinion at this point) that it is mathematically impossible for the pro-CG and pro-Rossi precincts to come up with the outcome without human intervention (fraud, ballot-stuffing). Sounds alot like the evolution versus ID discussion.
Posted by: tc on June 2, 2005 06:04 AMIt's a theory that is support by proof. It's still called a theory because we can't prove it conclusively, but we do have supporting evidence for it. Where is the supporting evidence for your version of events, other than in the bible?
tc,
Your opinion is uninformed. The reason Evolution is still a theory is exactly because it can't be proven 100%. If all of the science supported it, it would stop being theory and start being fact.
The problem I have with ID supporters is that they want absolutes. Because we can't (yet) conclusively prove Evolution, it must be flase. And since we can't explain exactly how we became what we are today, it must be the hand of God.
Well guess what, there is a whole bunch we don't understand yet, but our understanding of certain aspects of science is such that 500 years ago people would have thought that electricity was the work of God as well.
Evolution as a theory will continue to develop as we gain more understanding. And it may even be eventually replaced as we learn more. But trying to replace it with ID is a step backward not forward. Because if you accept that we were created, then that basically closes the book. We don't need to know anything more beyond that. However continuing to study, and refine the theory of Evolution moves us forward because it keeps us thinking and searching and discovering, not sticking our heads in the sand as ID would have us do.
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 07:59 AMHow many times does it need to be said, a Theory is called a Theory exactly because it hasn't been proved yet. Scientists question theories all the time, that's how theories evolve, and either become proven, or disproved and replaced with new theories. Evolution is blindly accepted. It has lots of supporting evidence. But the scientific communitiy recognizes that it isn't yet proven, which is why it's still a theory, and why research continues.
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 08:19 AMFor starters, realize that the people quoted by some of the proponents of ID are all members of an organization based right here in the Sound, in Seattle. Ironic, because everyone's always talking about what a Blue city Seattle is, and here are a bunch of very people with Red State ideas right here in Seattle. The organization is called the Center for Science and Culture and messrs Behe, Dembski, Wells, et. al. are part of this organization. http://www.crsc.org/ This organization doesn't generate any real research in the form of hard science and supportable experiments, etc. but is instead more of a policy institute with the goal of advancing ID.
You can read rebuttals to the arguments of those who are part of CRSC here:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
I want to make it clear that I'm conservative. I supportlimited government, I support Rossi, I support getting to the bottom of the obvious election mess, etc. However, I'm also objective enough to acknowledge proper science, and not feel that it is any afront to my spirituality.
The reason why we have a separation of church and state is both to keep the state out of the church and to keep the church out of the state. Intelligent Design ignores much of the science that supports evolution, and requires that the intelligence of its designer go beyond that of man's intelligence and into some form of supernatural intelligence. This is a deceitful way of saying that the designer was God. And again, nothing against God or spirituality, but if putting forth a set of arguments for Intelligent Design, requires suppressing rational science, then it's not going to be good for either religion of science in the long run.
Those who can see past the knee jerk reaction to dimiss me as some kind of radical leftist, and are willing to open their minds and read, will find that Intelligent Design is not supportable.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 2, 2005 08:34 AMIf you accept the scientific dogma that natural law governs everything then you must accept some form of the theory of evolution.
If you admit the possibility of a supernatural God, then you are free to question unprovable theories like evolution.
Posted by: Gary on June 2, 2005 08:52 AMI disagree with your blanket characterization. First, I was a die-hard evolutionist until the time I was forced to present alternative views of the issue and came to discover just how little of Evolution is actually true.
My biggest objection to it is how it is presented as virtual "fact" when about all it HAS going for it is that no one else has anything better. Or, more accurately, Evolution is the best theory we have given the assumption that only what we currently can see and measure are the only valid criteria for determining how something might have occured. In other words, the grand assumption of evolution is that "assuming no external agents" what is the best possible explination for our existence as we see it?
ID on the other hand forces the sceintific community OUT of that assumption and says, evidence suggests that there may other influences on our existence than random chance. That expansion of the "possibilities" forces a paradigm shift and can generate NEW theories about "what if". It is that exapansion of thinking that creates sceitific renaissances.
So, rather than "stiffling" scientific discovery, something like ID can often spark innovation and new approaches, which is the pattern for major sceintific breakthroughs throughout history, while sticking to a dogmatic set of assumptions is really what stifles scientific breakthroughs.
Posted by: Eyago on June 2, 2005 08:52 AMWould y'all be comfortable with this? Frankly I think this would make religious folk far more uncomfortable than just keeping religion in the home and church where they can control what is taught to their kids. Be careful what you wish for, because it might come true.
Posted by: Bruce on June 2, 2005 09:01 AMHow did these values come about? Were they conceived randomly or was there some intelligent design?
An abundance of information supports evolution in its later stages here on earth but so far nobody I’ve read has turned the clock back far enough to convince me that there is not some unseen hand in the process.
Of course Evolution assumes no external agents. How else would we explain anything if we always had to assume that the hand of God were present? I suppose we can throw out what we know of lift and drag as they affect flight, because we have to assume that angels are pushing aircraft don't we? What you suggest is simply rediculous. The scientific method is based on what we can measure, and if we can't measure directly, we do so indirectly, or formulate hypothesis about what could be going on. But when has any theory ever been rejected because it failed to account for the intervention of a supernatural being?
ID doesn't encourage further research, it claims to explain everything with one simple and sweeping phrase, God did it. And because God did it, there is nothing left for us to worry about, or learn about. It's done, all tidy with a nice little ribbon on top.
The proponents of ID don't claim it to be a theory, they claim it to be fact. At least the proponents of Evolution are honest enough to still call it theory, which in-and-of-itself encourages further study, to either prove, or disprove the theory.
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 09:14 AMMatt and many of the commenters here have rightly decried the current state of affairs in the 'sciences' that excludes dissident voices from the public square - and it's not just in 'origins' science.
I don't usually post a link over here, but since I have a clear position on this matter and believe that it adds some value to this discussion, please forgive me for recommending my post:
Posted by: MC on June 2, 2005 09:15 AMI am a proponent of ID, and while I accept it as fact, I don't insist that anyone else accept it. What I do advocate is that in the absence of scientific proof of either theory, that both be allowed as possible.
I note that you capitalise Evolution, does that indicate deity???
To the extent that the scientific and logical constructs of ID can call into question and thereby strengthen or weaken the de facto scientific "working truth" of evolution, more power to it.
On another note, one of the big problems with the main ID argument that certain physical structures in higher order animals could not have developed piecemeal is that it assumes that all the development would have to have happened within the same organism and within close proximity, i.e. that all the appurtenant components of the vertebrate eye, for instance, needed to have been developed together. But this is a false assumption.
What is being ignored is the ability for even complex organisms to merge functions, perhaps first in a parasitical fashion, but later in symbiotic fashion. As a quick example, termites have cellulose-digesting bacteria in their gut that allows them to get fuel from wood. The bacteria are able to move around because of the termites locomotion, and to be protected because of the termites exoskeleton.
The evolutionist looks at that phenomenon and says, "Cool, symbiosis." The ID proponent, however, might be more likely to look at the termite and say, "What are the chances that what began as a carbohydrate-eating insect would develop the mandibles necessary to chew wood AND the gastric environment to metabolize cellulose at the same time?" At the very least, an ID perspective drives one toward conclusions of that kind, while evolutionary theory drives one toward more useful questions like, "I wonder how that evolved?"
The above is a simple case, to be sure, and no doubt ID proponents would rather look to the human eye as an example. But, give me millions of years and the incredibly diverse flora and fauna in the world, and I think an open mind could come up with several theories to explain the development of same. For this task, evolutionary theory will engender more creativity than, well, creationism.
Posted by: Barnstable on June 2, 2005 09:57 AMExactly the point Jason, why should evolution be taught in school at all? You don't believe in ID, more power to you. No one is forcing creationism down your throat. You will even have to admit that an unproven theory is being force down our throats in the public schools in so called science classes. You can teach how the theory of evolution came to be, but you should be prepared to say that it is only speculation, unproven, and may be totally wrong. All of the dating methods so far that have been used are crap. They can not stand up to criticism, in the form of other proven scientific methods. If you were a fair minded person, you would have to say something like "I am unable to believe in creationism (or God for that matter) and evolution has too many unanswered questions and I cannot put my belief in that, so at this point I don't know how things came to be."
Posted by: REBEL on June 2, 2005 10:04 AMEvolution is a theory because it is supported by evidence. ID is an opinion, or a point of view. The only one of the two that has any proof behind it is Evolution. And no, my capitalization of Evolution has nothing to do with Diety, nice try at trying to reading something more into what I wrote. I capitalize it because it is the name of a theory, just as I capitolize Intelligent Design, and Gary.
REBEL,
We teach lots of theories in school. The are plenty of phenomena that we can't fully explain, and so we use theory and hypothesis in the absence of overwhelming evidence. Are you saying that nothing can be taught unless it is 100% fact? Then I guess most science and biology classes will have to be cut, because most of those are based on theory as well. And again, calling something an "unproven theory" is simply a distraction, you might as well refer to water as "wet water" as if there were some other kind. All theories are unproven, otherwise they would cease to be theories! We use theories to help explain what we don't fully understand. We constantly research and try to improve upon theories. ID is simply a cop out. It's throwing your hands in the air and saying that if we don't fully understand something now, we never will, so we should stop trying, because it was created by a higher intelligence that we'll never understand. That's just crap.
And for the record, I don't know how things came to be. Neither to you or anyone else. Even with Evolution we still don't know because it only explains things after they got started. Evolution isn't the theory of everything, for that you should try looking at String theory. Evolution is simply a theory that trys to explain how ended up the way we are now, based on what existed before.
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 10:36 AMThe life form produced by the “soup” would then have to live long enough to reproduce. But why would it have any reason or need to reproduce? If it didn’t have a long life or reproduce, you must believe that this “soup” was just a big life “generator”, producing many life forms until some took hold and started beneficially reproducing. This reproduction would then have to mutate to a more complex form of life. These mutations would also have to live long enough to reproduce. Their “offspring” would have to reproduce, mutate, and reproduce and so on.
From these simple beginnings, these life forms would then need branch out into plants, trees, insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals – humans, all through natural selection and constant change. While adaptation and cross breeding definitely occur, we have yet to see any proof that one species will spontaneously change into a totally new and different species.
In our environmental classes we are taught about complex interrelationships between species in an ecosystem. We are taught that messing with them without knowing them can cause extreme – even terminal problems for that ecosystem. When we try to change that system, we study it. We learn the interactions and then try to balance our changes to produce a better outcome. How would the formation of complex life be different?
If Evolution were a continuing process why would some species “all of a sudden” stop evolving having reached a “perfect” solution? Sharks, mosquitoes, turtles, etc. are all touted as being relatively the same for millions of years. Why them? What force or condition halted evolutionary change in them for so long?
I don’t doubt that life changes over time, but I do have doubts that ALL life on this planet evolved from a single, primordial, ancestor. When I contemplate how many different cells exist in a single living thing and how marvelously complex and ordered they are, I can not help but believe that there is more to it than random chance. In the earlier example of the house, you may be able to break it down into simpler components – nails, wood, paint, etc. But just having a forest, iron ore, tar, cement, rocks, etc. does not guarantee that, over time, a house will eventually create itself. We like to speak of genetic engineering and how smart we are to be able to read the genome and make specific, beneficial, enhancements to those genes. This too is directed. Created by an outside, intelligent process for a specific purpose.
For me, either one of these require quite a bit of faith. Faith in a higher power leads to hope that we do have a purpose in our life and that our death will not be pure extinction. Faith in Evolution simply says we are here accidentally and by chance and we are to only shine briefly and then will be gone forever. I prefer the meaningful journey.
I'm a regular church-going Christian, identify myself as a conservative Republican, and I also have an MS in paleontology. I've followed the I.D./Creationism debate since the late 70s. My conclusion:
Evolution may be a theory because we don't know everything about the manner in which it occurs or did occur, but the fact is that IT DID OCCUR. Name another scientific theory proposed 150 years ago that hasn't been either refuted or largely demonstrated as valid. One by one, the anti-evolution arguments that confronted Darwin (e.g., earth not old enough for evolution to take place, dilution of traits) were shot down with the discovery of radioactivity and genetics/DNA. One by one, scientific discoveries over the past 150 years have strengthened the case for evolution. Paleontologists argued the case for continental drift based on evolutionary theory and distribution of fossils long before it was accepted by the larger geological/geophysical community. The results of genome sequencing have become the latest argument for evolution, and one that is yielding more clues about how evolution takes place. Vast amounts of unused genetic material illustrate the messy nature of evolution (as opposed to I.D./creationism). Huge genetic commonalities among the species that we had anticipated were most closely related further support the case.
The arguments against evolution from the I.D./Creationism community have been disingenuous at best. One of my favorites: they've called evolution "not scientific" because we haven't observed it. Well, the same could be said for our theories about atoms and molecules before the scanning electron microscope. But it didn't stop scientists from applying theories based on indirect observation from developing chemicals or the nuclear bomb. Another argument--lack of transitional forms. Guess what? I've seen them. In the most complete fossil record we have, marine invertebrates, there are plenty of transitional forms that are convieniently ignored by proponents of I.D./Creationism. They like to focus on the poor terrestrial fossil records of man, and then keep changing the definition of what a "transitional form" is.
Posted by: Ex-WA on June 2, 2005 11:49 AMA book I'm working on deals with this issue w.r.t. teaching in public schools. Instead of promoting the teaching of ID or creationism, it promotes removing evolution because it is a faith-based theory having no place in our public schools. The first part of the book describes characteristics of faith-based theories, such as misleading, deception, propaganda, logical fallacies, conclusion-proscribing philosophies, and several others, then applies these metrics to evolution.
The book was quite dry because I don't have enough good "living" examples, but the comments here are great! Jeff B.'s compartmentalization of reason and faith, Jason's misleading statements about lack of ID evidence (whether intentional or ignorant), Chuck Miller's false analogies, the sardonic self-centricity of blurp's SD (Stupid Design), and many others' inadvertant revelation that they accept what they were taught in public school without examing the merit of the teaching, talk about faith-based! Thank you, thank you, thank you.
This discussion is better than most evolution/creation forums because there is more of a cross-section of "real" people, ones who don't obsess solely about a single issue. All in all, great support for my book's theme - hack evolution out of public schools until we have time to build a solid origins theory that can follow the facts without being pre-empted by the theology of evolution (materialistic naturalism). Maybe it can be made into a "Rebel Without A Cause" type movie; we'll call it "Theory Without A Fact".
Thanks again.
Posted by: Ricardo on June 2, 2005 12:02 PMEvolution is still a theory, but it's the best theory we have, having stood up to worldwide scrutiny for over 150 years. It may not be the complete answer, just as we began to realize that Newtonian Physics wasn't a complete answer, but both still do a good job explaining most of what we see and expereince everyday.
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 12:04 PMYes, we have seen this, plenty of times. However strict or loose your definition of "species" is, the phenomenon of speciation (one species evolving into another) has been observed over and over and over again. Scientists have used organisms with short breeding times to isolate and propogate lines, often for years, to see how these populations change over thousands of generations in response to changing stimuli. These organisms have evolved far enough to change the number of chromosomes in their genes, as well as to prohibit interbreeding.
It has happened, is now happening, and has been observed in both controlled and uncontrolled situations.
The link below gives more detail; I found this link in about fifteen seconds on Google. Any ID proponent who is intellectually honest needs to square this evidence with the much-repeated claim that it has never happened. Ricardo, if you publish your book without addressing the vast mountain of evidence accumulated in favor of both micro- and macro-evolution over the past 100 years, it will be a work deserving of scorn.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Posted by: Barnstable on June 2, 2005 12:28 PMYou have convinced me that I did not use the appropriate language in my statement. Using the term "species" was probably not reflective of I meant. Thank you for the link. I read through it and still did not see what I was looking for - a viable path for an algae to become a mouse, or a fish evolving into a snake. These types of evolutionary changes are what I cannot grasp.
I have seen claims and counter-claims that this did occur, but I have not run across irrefutable evidence that this type evolutionary path has actually occurred, or is occurring before our eyes today. Just as some claim that ID proponents ignore evidence against their view, so do evolutionists ignore inconvenient evidence.
Unfortunately, we mortals are at the mercy of scientists and scholars – the good and the not so good. Most of what we know, we are taught. We do not do the research and base study ourselves. We have faith that someone else did and that they did the due diligence. We trust that they teach us this information in a true and proper manner and then we take all of it for granted. Some of us will break out and do the research but on a limited scope. For example, a biologist may initiate wonderful new research but still rely on an economist for the biologists understanding of the economy. Some professionals have taken shortcuts in their research due to financial incentives and these do not always become clear in a timely manner.
Our schools use a lot of paper to declare that they are teaching critical thinking to our children. Isn’t one method of critical thinking the ability to look at multiple arguments for a given topic and to determine what is correct? If so, then how do we train our children in critical thinking with only one argument? What we should learn is discernment.
Life is wonderfully complex. Was it absolutely, positively and irrefutably produced by random chance? Is evolution the ONLY explanation for the complex systems within living things? If you believe this, then we agree to disagree. I believe that ID is not necessarily being used to refute evolution, but to bring it within a greater context. On the other hand, I also believe that Evolution is being used to declare the non existence of God.
Posted by: Jack on June 2, 2005 01:41 PMThanks for completely dismissing me and my point without actually thinking about what I wrote. I said nothing about God or a creator or angels or anything like that and you immediately dismiss me as one of those religious kooks.
Ad hominem is the favored method of those in power to dismiss those who disagree with the dominant paradigm. It's what the church did to Bruno, it's what the church of evolution does to its critics.
Now, what I was saying is that when you limit yourself to only what you know now you restrict progress. Einstein came under heavy criticism early on in his theories. Large numbers of scientists were ridiculed for their theories. Sometimes rightly so, sometimes not. When Bruno proposed his theories, he did not have proof to back them up, but today we know he was right. Had you been living in his day, you would have dismissed him as a kook. For the most part, Copernicus had very little proof and almost all theory when he advanced his system. You would have dismissed him as a kook.
Evolution is the only as good as its primary assumption. And I repeat: "Assuming no factors that we do not already understand", what possible explanation can we come up with.
Unfortunately, we have no idea what we do not know, so it is irresposnible for us to blanketly dismiss that which does not conform to our preconceived ideas. Take a study in the philosophy of science. you'll be surprised how much you assume to be true that just ain't so.
Don't put me in a box and I won't put you in one either.
Evolution may still turn out to be correct, but it has so much yet to prove that it is toally irresponsible for our education system to teach it as fact. And calling it a "theory" is not sufficient if you then go on to teach the rest of it as proven fact compelte with diagrams showing soup to humans in a nice ancesteral tree.
I was raised in evoltuion myth and was trained as a scientist. As a scientist I studied and learned. The only thing is, I kept an open mind and did not toss out alternatives off-handidly. I now beleive the current "grand evolutionary" explanation for life as we know it to be without sufficient merit to be taught in primary school science classes.
Call me a kook if you want, but at least I can say that I studied both sides of the issue rather than just one.
Posted by: Eyago on June 2, 2005 01:43 PMAfter re-reading your post, I apologize for lumping you in with the religious nuts, as you are correct, you never mentioned anything regarding religion. I first read your post on the heels of several others that did, and took your "external agents" comment to mean God or Angels, or some other super natural power.
I agree that we shouldn't limit ourselves to only what we know, which is why theories like Evolution need to be taught. The theory has holes (which may yet be filled in by further research) and it is certainly not complete, and it does require us to assume things that we don't, and probably won't ever, know for certain. But it is the best theory we have so far. Until something better comes along (and I don't mean better sounding, but supported by better evidence) I will continue to support Evolution.
ID is a distraction, and not worthy of scientific consideration, because there is no way to test it. The anti-Evolution crowd jumps on tests that seem to either contratict, or not fully support Evolution. Or my personal favorite, is when they make up tests to disprove Evolution, such Jack's strawman about a fish evolving into a snake.
However what test can possibly be applied to ID? It can't be proven wrong, because none of us knows for sure, but it also can't be proven right either. At least with Evolution there are mountains of evidence accumulating that show it has occurred. What evidence is there for ID? The claim that we are too complex, and therefore it's just too improbable for us to have developed naturally. Just because our origins are beyond our understanding now, doesn't mean they always will be. ID discourages further research and exploration by offering a final answer, God did it. If we taught ID in school, it would be a 10 minute lesson. Then what would the kids do for the rest of the school year, pray?
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 02:11 PMYour objection (again, if I have it right) is practical and well-founded. Two factors influence my differing opinion:
First, no one is suggesting that mice evolved from algae, or that snakes evolved from fish--at least the algae and fish that we see today. Rather, mice and algae and fish and snakes have evolved from common ancestors. A good way to think of this is that, somewhere back in time, the snake/fish antecedent existed and was developed within a set of environmental realities that caused adaptations to its form that both snakes and fish share today--perhaps their locomotion via vertebral torsion, or their development of scales. Eventually, the snake and fish lines split off far enough into new environments that they began to lose all similarity beyond these basic physiologic or functional factors. Again, extend this process over millions of years and your impassible conceptual gulf closes rapidly.
Second, if you think of organisms not as things that look very different, but as things that have developed physically in response to exposure to different environments, it becomes easier to see similarities and possible links between such divergent, yet still, at some point, related organisms.
Algae into mice? No, but how about amoeba-like creatures drifting in the sea--some develop internal gases to float to the surface, and there further develop photosynthesis. Others stay below the surface and develop the ability to feed on the waste products from above.
The floaters clump together and begin to cling via glue-like secretions to half-submerged rocks. Climate change leads to these floaters spending more time out of water. Eventually, algae.
Meanwhile, let's say the sinkers that are longer and thinner persist, until they develop a long ciliate tail, then further locomotive structures. They become scourers of the sea floor, develop hard shells for protection, venture to shore, and eventually, we have mice.
Of course, I'm assuming a lot, but then again I don't have a thousand pages to speculate about each baby step in the process. That doesn't mean that a reasonable hypothesis cannot be constructed to explain each of those small developments/transitions.
In the final analysis, I believe your argument boils down to something like this: I can see how MOAT is related to BOAT, but how can MOAT be related to BLOG? The answer, of course, is MOAT BOAT BOOT BLOT BLOG. Over hundreds of millions of years, billions of environmental variables and countless mutations both successful and not, what's so impossible about algae, mice, fish, and snakes developing from common building blocks?
Posted by: Barnstable on June 2, 2005 02:30 PMScience is the attempt to explain observable phenomena by theories which are able to be tested. That's it.
Science is powerless to test, therefore to assail or even question, the existence of God. Any attempts to do so are anti-scientific, peurile, and useless. Any part of your conception of God that you believe can be threatened by the use of the scientific method is no true expression of theology.
I'll be quiet now.
Posted by: Barnstable on June 2, 2005 02:57 PMThat was very gracious of you. Thanks for taking the time to readdress.
And...I agree that we shouldn't limit ourselves to only what we know, which is why theories like Evolution need to be taught. The theory has holes (which may yet be filled in by further research) and it is certainly not complete, and it does require us to assume things that we don't, and probably won't ever, know for certain. But it is the best theory we have so far. Until something better comes along (and I don't mean better sounding, but supported by better evidence) I will continue to support Evolution.
I am not against the teaching of the theory. It is a valid theory as theories go. I don't even disagree with everything in it. I mostly disagree with when and how it is taught. It is a topic worthy of graduate education, can be touched upon in undergrad, and should be totally absent from primary scool. We can teach lots of useful stuff in primary school that does not speculate on our origins but teaches useful biological science like genetics and stuff. Just take out the speculation. For what its worth, I wouldn't teach ID, young earth OR old earth creationism either. BUT, if you are going to teach evolution, you SHOULD have lots more "alternative" explanations. I think that opens too many doors. Best to avoid that can o worms.
And...ID is a distraction, and not worthy of scientific consideration, because there is no way to test it.
I dsagree. ID is DISPROVABLE. It is based on the idea that cells are complex machines in and of themselves and that those machines cannot have transitionary functions. To knock off one of the pillars of ID, you simply need to demonstrate transition. With billions of different, functioning cells, you should be able to find two cells that show a one or two step variance of structure that still act as healthy, functioning cells with their own respective "role". The problem is, a cell requires dozens of proteins to complete what we might construe as a "simple" function. But the mutaion of one protein isn't enough to change a cell. The DNA also has to change to replicate the altered protein. The helper proteins that build that protein have to also change simultaneously. A simple data flip in the DNA is not enough, and that is what gradualism relies upon. ID explains that dozens of complex changes must occur in a single cell simultanously for that cell to be a new cell that can function in its new roll. Compound that with the fact that in many cases that cell has to fucntion in its new role consistent with the rest of the organism. Gradualism just doesn't work. I think ID forces the theory to consider spontaneous mutation. I think ID puts the burden on gradualism to come up with an answer to that challenge.
Ultimately, evolution will either have to demonstrate gradulism, or spontaneous mutation (in the sence of a mjor functionality change that is positive not negative to the organism), or find a different mechanism to explain macro evolution.
Posted by: Eyago on June 2, 2005 03:03 PMI too have studied both sides of the issue. You argue that we shouldn’t dismiss one side (the I.D./Creationism side) out of hand. But since when have we taught more than one side of Newtonian physics? Physicists have demonstrated that there is a realm where Newtonian physics do not apply, and have developed some pretty strange theories to explain what we observe. Some of these theories may not stand the test of time, and we should be critical in our examination of them. But the fact that Newtonian physics is only an approximation of how matter interacts, and completely breaks down at some level, does not invalidate the teaching of Newtonian physics WITHOUT COMPETING THEORIES at the secondary school level. You could take a 50-year old physics textbook and find that the same formulas describing relationships between mass and momentum are taught today.
Evolution is much like physics. It has a Newtonian side which, in my view, has been supported by geology, biology, and physics over the past 200 years such that it is non-debatable and requires no teaching of a competing theory. It also has its “string theory” side, where there is current debate in the scientific community as to the exact mechanisms by which evolution occurs. What is non-debatable is that (1) the earth is “old” (4.6 billion give or take a hundred million), (2) simple forms of life developed early in earth’s history, complex forms late in earth’s history, (3) particular types of organisms appeared, evolved, and either went extinct or continued on to become dominant forms or no-so-dominant forms, (4) separate populations of the same species evolve along different paths (see Australia), (5) all fossil records are incomplete because animal soft-parts are seldom preserved and many environments are subject to erosion rather than deposition, (6) the marine fossil record of easily-preserved (e.g., calcareous-shelled) animals is the most complete evolutionary record and shows numerous transitional forms, (7) the terrestrial fossil record is incomplete and shows some transitional forms, (8) the fossil record is explained by a theory of evolution supported by physics, geology, and biology (including recent DNA sequencing). No other theory that we know of adequately explains all these readily observable conditions.
Posted by: Ex-WA on June 2, 2005 03:04 PMEvolution is much like physics. It has a Newtonian side which, in my view, has been supported by geology, biology, and physics over the past 200 years such that it is non-debatable and requires no teaching of a competing theory. It also has its “string theory” side, where there is current debate in the scientific community as to the exact mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
Your comparison breaks down on a couple of points.
1. Newtonian physics does not try and answer the origins of life.
2. Physics as taught in school is more analogous to genetics as opposed to evolution wich is a speculative portion of biology. In other words, physics addresses what is testable and useable in a general sense.
3. They don't teach string theory in primary school. They COULD teach the idea behind it just like they teach the idea behind evolution, but they don't It is irrelevant at that level.
4. Yes, there are parts of Newtonian Physics that don't hold in extreme cases just like there are cases where Euclidian Geometry break down. However, dispite those breakdowns, we have actual application of those formulas in modern daily life. Bridges are built using those methods. The idea that life origianted from primordail soup has no practical application and thus is not analogous to physics or geometry.
The point I make is that you can keep the speculation out of biology class just like you keep the speculation out of physics and other topics taught in primary schools.
Posted by: Eyago on June 2, 2005 04:28 PMI approached the issue of origins using intangibles, because I believe (faith, if you will) that there is an intangible side to life.
Besides the intangibles, there are plenty of tangibles to discuss. Here are a few...
A naturalist must explain three things:
1) Origin of the Universe (Big Bang)
2) Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
3) Origin of Species (Speciation)
1) Either the universe always was, or else it had a beginning. Science suggests that the universe had a beginning. What was before the beginning? A speck of matter? A sea of energy? Nothing? Where did the speck come from? What caused the sea of energy? Did something come from nothing?
2) Either life always was, or else it had a beginning. Science suggests that life had a beginning. The simplest model for life requires the ability to use energy, the ability to reproduce, and a protective membrane. This simple model requires at least 100 proteins. Each protein requires, on average, at least 100 amino acids. Observation of life shows us that proteins are formed exclusively from left-handed amino acids. Observation of chemistry shows us that left-handed and right-handed amino acids are equally likely to occur, except in carefully controlled experiments, wherein most of the amino acids are destroyed. So for each occurance of 100 proteins, each with 100 amino acids, the odds are 1 in 10^3010 that the amino acid chains are will contain only left-handed amino acids. If all of the matter in the universe were formed into amino acids, and all of these amino acids were constantly forming into amino acid chains, for the entire history of the universe, there would be approximately 10^133 chances to form the 100 proteins in our example. That leaves the best-case odds at 1 in 10^2877. But we still have problems. While this scenario results in amino acid chains that are left-handed, it says nothing about whether we have proteins which are able to sustain life! The odds worsen as we attempt to more closely model the real world, and build proteins using specific sequences of amino acids.
3) Speciation requires one species to gradually develop into another. Some (most?) evolutionists propose random genetic changes as the pathway for this to occur. According to this reasoning, species that are most alike genetically would be most likely to develop from one species to the next. But species that are most closely related genetically are not necessarily closely related physiologically.
Naturalists agree that these three points must have occurred, but are unable to describe how they occurred. For schools to teach hypotheses as dogma is wrong.
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 2, 2005 05:54 PMNoticed too that my offered link isn't functional (earlier in comments) - here 'tis raw:
http://pullonsupermanscape.typepad.com/pull_on_supermans_cape/2005/05/diktat_summons_.html
Posted by: MC on June 2, 2005 06:18 PMSo Intelligent Design is more than just a counter argument to Evolution, it's also the "theory of everything"? Evolution wasn't meant to address the origins of the universe. So I think you are merely distracting from the argument. And while I do think the Big Bang theory is plausible, I to wonder what happened just prior.
The point is, no one knows for sure what happened, either here on Earth, or out there in space. Anyone who claims to know for sure is sorely misinformed. All we have are observations and suppositions based on those observations. In regards to the development of life on this planet, we have the theory of Evolution that has the preponderance of evidence behind it. I also don't think that Evolution ever tried to explain how life began, only how it evolved over time. I've heard various theories about how life began, involving comets and lighting storms, but none of us knows for sure. So none of us can claim that some process was too complex, because none of us saw it. I also don't buy your argument of "all of the matter in the universe..." because there is far more matter than any of us is aware of. I have no idea where you got that from, but I suggest you check your source.
I think Evolution should be taught as other theories are taught, by qualifying it with "We don't know that this is what happened, but the best evidence we have to date suggests it".
Evolution is a theory, but it's a good theory because it is support by evidence. What is ID supported by? The bible? Common sense (because common sense must dictate that if something is too complex, then it must be God's work)? There is no evidence what-so-ever to support ID. Teaching something based entirely on faith with no empirical data is what we need to keep out of our schools.
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 07:02 PMI see part of your problem is you think evolution attempts to explain the origin of life. Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species." Primordial soup and the "spark of life" is a different question entirely that is certainly more speculative in that we cannot observe directly or indirectly what happened (unlike evolution).
Posted by: Ex-WA on June 2, 2005 08:15 PMAcutally, I was not arguing Darwin at all. I couched my argument in the context of "general evolutionary theory" which is to say the current unified theory of "soup to man" as beleived by the vast majority of adherents to the theory of evolution. I agree that there is a big difference between what Darwin orinially wrote in his "The Origins of Species" (Which I have read, btw), and what goes for evolution today. I do not refere to Darwin. And it is not Darwin that is taught in school but the unified theory which includes classic Darwin and a whole lot more.
The thing of it is, Darwin observed micro evolution, extrapolated it into macro-evolution, and wrote about the requisite evidence that would need to be discovered to bear out his theory. The we still await the evidence yet his theory maintains its strong standing dispite this, and in fact, has been expanded to include the primordial soup portion.
Anyway, I digress. Suffice it to say I was not confusing the issue.
Posted by: Eyago on June 2, 2005 09:03 PMFirst, evolution is one aspect of naturalism. Naturalism believes that every event can be explained through natural laws, while recognizing that these laws are not always fully understood. So when considering an event which would violate natural law, there are three options. One, naturalism does not hold true in all cases. Two, naturalism does hold true, and the event can not occur. Or three, the relevant laws need to be changed, or new laws discovered, to agree with the evidence. The examples regarding the origin of the universe and the origin of life can not be explained by natural laws as we know them. Yet both occurred. The point here is that if naturalism does not hold true in all cases, we may question whether it holds true for evolution.
Regarding the origin of life, specifically, it is true that no human observed the first reproducing life form, but it is hard to imagine any simpler case than the one given. Here are the numbers I used:
100 proteins
100 amino acids per protein
Probability of left-handed amino acid is close to 50%
Probability that 100 proteins with 100 amino acids each will be formed entirely from left-handed amino acids, is 1 in 2^(100*100) which simplifies to 1 in 10^(3010)
3 x 10^(52) kilograms is the assumed mass of the observable universe
1.66 x 10^(-27) kilograms = 1 atomic mass unit
132 amu is a rough average for the mass of an amino acid
100 proteins * 100 amino acids per protein = 10^(4) amino acids per trial
So there is sufficient matter for up to 1.37 x 10^(73) simultaneous trials.
1.5 x 10^(10) years as the assumed age of the universe
3.156 x 10^(7) seconds per year
5.391 x 10^(-44) seconds is the Planck time
This yields 8.78 x 10^(60) Planck times in the history of the universe
Allowing each simultaneous trial to complete every Planck time, we have 1.37 x 10^(73) * 8.78 x 10^(60), simplifying and applying significant figures, we have 10^(134) total trials.
Note: The previous figure of 10^133 was off by a factor of 10.
Now, combining odds with total trials, we have best-case odds of 1 in 10^(2876).
Sources are Wikipedia and Google.
Now back to evolution. The proposed mechanisms do not mesh with the facts. What are we to do with a theory that has no mechanism by which to operate?
Life is filled with complex patterns, and random chance is not a viable explanation for the information in those patterns.
Would you be satisfied by a natural law that allows the introduction of information where there was previously chaos?
I propose that Intelligent Design is such a law. It recognizes that information exists, and suggests that there is some mechanism other than random chance by which information comes into existance.
I would go further, and state that it is more than a law, but that is my faith, that there is a Creator, and not just a creative force.
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 3, 2005 03:49 AMI think the "requisite evidence" you seek already exists in the fossil record. But your point about the expansion of evolution to include "primordial soup" is valid, albeit a small part of what any secondary school student should be taught about the subject.
The requisite evidence is likely to come from DNA--we would expect that large chunks of both our active genes will show commonalities with our closest relatives, but also that the so-called junk DNA will show commonalities with more distant relatives. I think the very presence of junk DNA argues against ID and for evolution (think of how messy a computer code can become over a years of adding and modifying features) though I read something that tried unconvincingly to argue the reverse. As we start to analyze the genome from several thousand species, we should see where the turning off or on of certain genes made organisms what they are today.
Your mention of the primordial soup as part of the evolution "package" brought me back to my major objection to the teaching of ID/Creationism. ID/Creationism also is a "package" where many other elements of science unrelated to evolution are impeached. They start with age of the earth, using weak arguments to refute independent evidence from the fields of astronomy, physics, and chemistry; talk about "flood geology" and how the Grand Canyon could have been formed in a matter of weeks, or obvious glacial features are the result of floods, thereby refuting 100 years of geologic study; and they question the validity of radiometric dating (scientists are well-aware of the limitations of radiometric dating, but ID/Creationists argue that you can't trust the physics on which the dating is based).
ID/Creationism is also a moving target, in the sense that there are those who maintain the earth is "young" (not much older than Archbishop Ussher calculated), and those who maintain that it is "old", which is anywhere from a million to billions of years. Some look at the fossil record a being a big deception and try to reject stratigraphy, the geologic time scale, each of which is only tangentially related to evolution, while others accept these while continuing to reject evolution. Some question whether a creature such as a dinosaur ever existed, or maintain that humans and dinosaurs existed simultaneously (Flintstones Creationism?). Ultimately, teaching ID/Creationism requires the rejection of one or more FACTS of "hard science."
Posted by: Ex-WA on June 3, 2005 08:49 AMI think you are arguing the wrong case. I'm not sure where in my postings I gave the impression that I favor teaching ID/Creationism, but let me be clear that I do not. I am primarily aginst teaching evoltion, but that is different than requiring an alternate explanation of the origins of life to be taught in its place.
I have no problem with teaching hard science. What I object to is teaching philosphical speculation as if it WERE hard science. That means I would object to creationism as well as evolution. You would be hard pressed to find an evoltionist to agree to the same conditions.
As afr as "junk" DNA, two points:
1)We don't know enough about DNA yet to categorically call any of it junk, yet. If I recall correctly, experiments in tweakig DNA has shown that ther are several sequences inolved in the formation of most features and traits, so we cannot be sure that something we "think" is unused actually has a purpose we have yet to identify.
2) Probably the thrust of the argument about design of supposedly "junk" DNA might be that the "program" was written with enough capability to be used in multimple ways so that a variety of organisms can be created from a basic set of "code" by activating or deactivating various "modules". That would argue even more strogly for design.
But it's all speculation right now anyway. No mechanism for the creation of DNA, and no demonstration of the beneficial natural mutation puts this problem squarely back into the "theory" category and thus makes it inappropriate for primary school indoc...er...education. :)
Posted by: Eyago on June 3, 2005 09:18 AMI have a problem not teaching certain things because they are controversial. And at the high-school level, some regular science and especially AP classes need to cover this material. To leave evolution out of an AP Biology class would be like studying the history of music and leaving out Beethoven. Also, the subject treatment should be the same as they'll get at college, which would not include ID/Creationism. Unfortunately, there probably aren't many public school teachers who can do justice to the topic of evolution, but that's an argument for another day.
Posted by: Ex-WA on June 3, 2005 11:58 AMLet me get this straight. You would rather that a poor job be done on a controversial subject at the high school level that has no scientific application but has a high degree of moral and philosophical implications rather than avoiding the topic?
Since the question of biological origin is entirely speculatory, why would you present only one view of it? It does not matter if all the scientists agree, it is not actually science. Do you agree then that it was totally appropraite for schools to teach creationism as science 120 years ago becuase the majority of scientists beleived it to be true? Is it simply that we teach specualtive science based on the majority rules method?
Posted by: Eyago on June 3, 2005 02:34 PMYou said: “Let me get this straight. You would rather that a poor job be done on a controversial subject at the high school level that has no scientific application but has a high degree of moral and philosophical implications rather than avoiding the topic?”
I disagree with your premise on several levels. 1) Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. The essential elements of evolution and its supporting evidence are NOT controversial. The age of the earth is NOT controversial. That trilobites preceded dinosaurs is NOT controversial. That continents collided and drifted apart influencing the life forms we find there both today and in the fossil record is NOT controversial. Anyone who suggests otherwise has been drinking the Kool-aid. I would hope that a biology or geology teacher could spend a week on the basics and not get too much beyond their knowledge. As far as moral/philosophical implications, they exist only if you want them to exist. There are plenty of topics dealt with in secondary schools that have moral/philosophical implications (e.g., history, economics), but we teach them nonetheless.
You said: “Since the question of biological origin is entirely speculatory, why would you present only one view of it? It does not matter if all the scientists agree, it is not actually science.”
The points mentioned above are not speculatory and they ARE science. I would confine my teaching to those points without dwelling on the more “speculatory” aspects of evolution such as DNA mutations (but I would mention the predominant theory).
You said: “Do you agree then that it was totally appropraite for schools to teach creationism as science 120 years ago becuase the majority of scientists beleived it to be true? Is it simply that we teach specualtive science based on the majority rules method?”
I’m sure a lot of things were taught 120 years ago that were not true. In the end, facts win out. The old theories of geology were often taught as fact without competing hypotheses. As late as the 1960s, geology students, especially in this country, were taught geosynclinal theory because continental drift was bunk (interestingly, the major argument was that there was no known MECHANISM for moving such large pieces of the earth—similar to one of the older arguments against Darwin), despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, those students were able to overcome this false education and accept the fact of continental drift and the theory of plate tectonics, a pillar of modern geological and geophysical study with huge practical implications (earthquakes, volcanism). There is not enough time in a student’s day to cover every competing idea, especially when no rift (there we go with plate tectonics again) exists in the scientific community, as is the case with the basics of evolution. As I said before, these basics are NOT speculative.
I’m sure that something is being taught in a Washington public school at this moment that will later turn out to be untrue, an historical “fact”, a word usage that will be considered obsolete in 25 years, an economic concept, or a political theory. How scientific are these? You’ve set the bar so high that many things we try to teach will fall under your umbrella of “speculative” and “non-scientific.” But how are we to challenge these theories if we are not exposed to them in the first place? We would hope that where real disagreement exists within the community of those most knowledgeable, that such disagreement is reflected in the teaching of the subject. Evolution is not one of those where you’ll find such disagreement.
In the interst of putting this thread to rest, I will refrain from being picky. :)
For the most part I do not disagree with the basic points you laid out. I do not have a problem with a theory that suggests that trillobytes came before dinosaurs or continental drift or the methodologies for the age of the earth. I primarily object to the imposition of naturalism as the only valid mechanism for explaining where life comes from and how it "evolved". I think we have both misunderstood each other to some point and placed the other too far on the extreme. I think we are closer than we originally thought, and had we had this discussion over dinner, we would be comfortably airing out our ideas and theories without rancor and respecing the other's point of view.
On the issue of speculative and 'unscientific', you are right, I set the bar too high in my previous post. I am not afraid of 'viewpoint', just dogma masquerading as incontrovertible truth. I'll leave it at that in the interest of closure.
Posted by: Eyago on June 3, 2005 05:38 PMThanks for the thread.
Posted by: Ex-WA on June 4, 2005 05:49 AM