New at Reason

December 23, 2005

Ron Bailey busts out the eggnog over this week's monkey trial verdict.

Comments

|12.23.05 @ 8:16AM|#

This is a bit tangential, but I found a great quote:
�If individuals occupying social roles other than parents are involved in cultural transmission, then many of the selection processes that act on cultural variation may increase the frequency of genetically maladaptive cultural variants.�
p. 198 Culture and the Evolutionary Process
By Boyd and Richardson

We should let parents run their kids education.

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 8:27AM|#

What you science types may want to think about is what the court did. I expected that they would pick apart the religious motivations of the school board. Instead, from what I can tell, the court focussed on the religious motivations of the ID scientists involved.

There is something good about this. It means that all ID gets Constitutionally discredited, not just just the ID of each individual school board on a case by case basis. Less lawsuits, at least in theory. Awesome, right?

The flip side is that courts, if they follow the Kitzmiller approach, will now be looking at the individual motivations of scientists to decide if their science is really science. Specifically, a court can pick out some scientific "leaders" and take a close look at their religion. For example, Isaac Newton was quite clear that he did his scientific work to honor his Christian God. Under the Kitzmiller approach, Newton's work would have to leave the curriculum.

Now that possibility may not bother you too much, because we both know that Sir Isaac is going to stay in.

However, what you may not realize is that the court considers atheism to be a religion. In oter words, if some scientific "leader" can be found who feels that her work furthers the cause of atheism, that is grounds for removing that "leader's" strand of science out of the curriculum. If there is such a poetic justice lawsuit, preferably in the Dover judicial district, remember: you heard it here first.

Enjoy yer eggnog!

|12.23.05 @ 8:32AM|#

Dave W., I think you misunderstand the jurisprudence here.

"Religious intent" is not a one-drop rule. The government can carry out functions that are partially motivated by a religious purpose, so long as there is a legitimate secular purpose as well. For example, Catholic Charities' can get grants to feed the homeless, even though the group is motivated to do so by their religious convictions, because aiding the poor is a legitimate secular purpose.

In the Dover case, there is no legitimate secular purpose to teaching ID, just a religious one. The IDers claimed that they had a secular purpose - to teach good science - but it turned out they did not. Their motivations were purely religious.

Rich Ard|12.23.05 @ 8:34AM|#

I expected that they would pick apart the religious motivations of the school board.

He did, and

...the court focussed on the religious motivations of the ID scientists involved.

had to because there was no science to examine in place of the proponents' motivations.

Because Behe is a scientist most of the time doesn't mean he's one all the time - if thoreau or Herrick et al come up with some wacky, nonsensical shit, it isn't necessarily science just because they're scientists.

Rich Ard|12.23.05 @ 8:35AM|#

Or, what joe said.

|12.23.05 @ 8:44AM|#

I knew it was going to be a Dave W. comment before I got past the first sentence. Do your trick, pony!

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 8:47AM|#

In the Dover case, there is no legitimate secular purpose to teaching ID, just a religious one. The IDers claimed that they had a secular purpose - to teach good science - but it turned out they did not. Their motivations were purely religious.

I am not disagreeing with the way the court the evidence the court used to find religious intent.* The things that the court cited as evidence of religious intent were indeed evidence of religious intent. And you may know, I was happy when I first found out ID lost, only becoming unhappy as I read pieces of the opinion.

What I am asking is: who's intent should matter: the intent of the scientist or the intent of the school board. I am arguing that a good scientists may have religious (eg, atheistic, Buddhistical) motivations. That shouldn't matter as to whether their science gets taught. Scientific method does not have religion tests for scientists -- the integrity of the scientist's work is determined in other ways in the scientific community. I don't think US courts should be trying to change that. It will just politicize science in bad ways.

So who should be responsible for choosing the science so that it is not unConstitutionally tainted by religion? I am saying that it should be the body(ies) that are responsible for setting the curricual, school boards, boards of regents, the no child left implememtation council, etc. It is these people who have a direct responsibility not to violate the Establishment clause. It is these people whose motivations should be scrutinized, not those of the scientists and purported scientists and alleged scientists whose work product must be selected from in the curriculum setting process.

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 8:49AM|#

FOOTNOTE to my previous:

* still seems like it should have been a jury issue, not a judge issue. A judge can and will do some crazy-ass shit on those rare occasions where he knows for a fact that he won't be appealed! That is when the judge is free to make Bailey smile real big.

|12.23.05 @ 9:01AM|#

Dave,

A little FYI: in cases heard before a judge only, rather than before a judge-n-jury, the judge is charged with making the finding of facts that would be the duty of the jury in a jury trial.

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 9:06AM|#

How did this come to be a judge case? Was it stipulated by the parties? Are all Dec Jay actions automatically judge actions? Is this what Blonder Tongue (the one patent case I refuse to re-read) was about?

(Not trying to trap anyone; I really don't know and am too lazy to research this.)

|12.23.05 @ 9:09AM|#

Dave W., as I understand it the religious motivations of the ID proponents weren't the sole concern here. If I figure out something that's useful for cancer therapies, and I say that I chose cancer research in part because of my religious convictions (which is true), nobody will bar my findings from science textbooks. Why? Because my results will be supported by data that doesn't depend on religion.

If ID had some solid data in support of it, something more than "Well, shit, I can't figure this thing out", the religious motives of the proponents would be irrelevant. But since there is no data, the judge had to determine whether it is merely wild speculation, or whether it is in fact religion. He concluded that this is religion, based on the context.

A certain amount of wild speculation can be tolerated in science (a bit, just a bit). But ID is religion, and religion isn't supposed to be part of the curriculum.

Now, if you wanted to argue that the disclaimer actually given in class was too mild to be considered religion, that's a separate point that we can debate. But don't try to tell us that the religious beliefs of scientists are what determine whether or not something is science.

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 9:18AM|#

Dave W., as I understand it the religious motivations of the ID proponents weren't the sole concern here. If I figure out something that's useful for cancer therapies, and I say that I chose cancer research in part because of my religious convictions (which is true), nobody will bar my findings from science textbooks. Why? Because my results will be supported by data that doesn't depend on religion.

How does this work in practice? If you are a scientist who is doing work for the greater glory of the atheist religion (and is not shy about saying so), then who can do the work that supports you? If it is just other atheists, then you know what the opposing lawyer is going to argue already. She'll say: "see, your honor, not only is this work atheist based, it is also atheist supported. that just makes it worse!"

I guess you could find some Chritian or Buddhist scientists to support you, so that it is clear that the relevant portion of the scientific community was not religiously motivated as a whole. But, c'mon, that is not the world you want to live in.

What you should want, as a scientist, is for courts to stay out of your religion, whatever it may be, altogether. I'm telling ya, T., this Kitzmiller reasoning has the potential to really come back and bite u & bailey in the tail. The good news is that the next decision repudiating ID is likely to be a lot more jurisprudentyially serious than this one. I gotta have fa-ai-ai-th.

|12.23.05 @ 9:20AM|#

OT, but this is an opportunistic post to wish y'all a happy holiday! I'm out of here until Tuesday.

And I'll stuff your stockings with some of my favorite evolution-related Web sites:

olduvaigeorge.com

www.oceansofkansas.com/varner.html

www.oceansofkansas.com/hendersn.html

gallery.in-tch.com/~earthhistory

dml.cmnh.org (where paleontologists discuss the latest developments in their field, and the King Kong movie)

|12.23.05 @ 9:22AM|#

Dave W.

Thanks for ruining my Christmas.

Warren|12.23.05 @ 9:23AM|#

OK I really feel the need to vent on the ad hominine attacks. Yes, ID blows as a scientific theory, yes proponents of ID are religious zealots. However, the former is not the least bit established by the latter. There is nothing that prevents the devout from doing perfectly good science. Furthermore, it's pure poppycock to think that all good scientists are dispassionate and objective about everything.

Science is objective, scientists are human beings. As such, scientists (even the really good ones) are chock full of preconceived ideas, self interests, all manner of prejudice and ulterior motives. What keeps these ugly blemishes of the scientist from contaminating the science is the method.

The scientific method (still under construction) is I would say mankind's greatest 'big idea'. Its ability to sift useful concepts from silly nonsense is unrivaled. It has been an unmitigated success. The method is what allows the scientist to see if his idea conceived out of his human need to indulge his own prejudice holds water.

Pointing out how "unscientific" the advocates of ID are is simply not a valid scientific critique. What's more, pretending that scientists working in the field of evolution are motivated by a pure quest for knowledge is just false. I think we do a disservice to science by perpetuating the myth of the objective, dispassionate, dull, egghead, in a labcoat.

Mike|12.23.05 @ 9:29AM|#

Interestingly, Judge Jones found that board members later lied under oath about making these and other similar statements

Isn't lying under oath a crime? I'm hoping Santa makes me happy this Christmas and charges these bozos with purjury.

|12.23.05 @ 9:31AM|#

Warren-

We are far from dispassionate and dull, but our results are only science when they can be verified by somebody with a different culture and personality.


Dave W.-

I can assure you that the scientific community isn't just a bunch of atheists. We have tons of Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus. We have Objectivists, FSM worshippers, druids, Wiccans, and people who worship D&D deities.

We even have a few Christians.


Anyway, I don't have much more to say on this. It's a shame that I aired all of my grievances on this in the past couple days. I should have saved my grievances for today, Festivus!

Festivus can't end until somebody wrestles the head of the household. On Hit and Run that means either Tim Cavanaugh or Nick Gillespie.

I hope they don't mind.

|12.23.05 @ 9:33AM|#

Oh, and Jews. We have Jews. I didn't mean to leave them out. Sorry.

We also have some Deists.

dhex|12.23.05 @ 9:34AM|#

"Under the Kitzmiller approach, Newton's work would have to leave the curriculum."

so we should adopt newton's astrological obessesions?

you know, reading some of those robertson et al quotes is rather nerve-wracking, especially when the thrust from that one gentleman was "the public doesn't like evolution, so..."

what the fuck kind of logic is that? i want the drugs they're doing, because these people CLEARLY DO NOT APPRECIATE THE HIGH.

|12.23.05 @ 9:35AM|#

The flip side is that courts, if they follow the Kitzmiller approach, will now be looking at the individual motivations of scientists to decide if their science is really science. Specifically, a court can pick out some scientific "leaders" and take a close look at their religion. For example, Isaac Newton was quite clear that he did his scientific work to honor his Christian God. Under the Kitzmiller approach, Newton's work would have to leave the curriculum.

Wrong.

While a scientist may be a believer (though why someone devoted to reason would give into the bullshit called religion, I'll never understand) the moment they let the scientific method become tainted in the name of whatever mythology they happen to follow they cease becoming scientists.

While he certainly believed in a lot of irrational garbage, Newton was a serious scientists. In his quest to "honor God" he used responsible methods to devise his theories of gravitation and motion, he did not fudge his experiments or his calculations to lend credence to his spiritual convictions. While is personal motivations were religious, he didn't let them affect his professional results.

Thus, Newton's theories are no more "tainted" by religion than Gregor Mendel's theories of genetics, or Einstein's theories.

Then there is... ahem... "Dr." Behe. If Behe was a real scientist, he would have actually conducted peer-reviewed experiments to prove his points on "irreducible complexity." However, he all but admitted on the stand that he didn't. If Behe was a serious researcher, he would use the scientific method properly without any preconceived bias and accept whatever the result regardless of his own belief. Yet, at the Dover trial, Behe admitted that his definition of science would include astrology--fucking ASTROLOGY! Behe didn't play by the rules and it is apparent that he let his personal religious views drive the methods and direction of his research. It clear that ID is still religion matter what sort of facade you put around it. The same can't be said for Newton.

I don't know how many more times we have to explain this to you, Dave, but you should really stop. It only makes you look like an even bigger moron than you've proved yourself to be.

|12.23.05 @ 9:35AM|#

It's a horrible decision.

If teaching bad "science" that supports a particular set of religious convictions is an establishment or religion, then it's quite likely that teaching some good science that undermines particular religious convictions is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. It's the same amendment and neither truthfulness nor correctness are at issue.

There's a hell of a lot more good science and good reasoning that undermines specific religious beliefs than there are reformulations of creationism. Allowing a judge to prevent some schools from introducing ID may result in effectively prohibiting all schools from teaching anthropology and its implications, serious courses in comparative religion, or even stating the results of surveys that show that on average the more intelligent or schooled you are, the less you believe in God.

Having "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency is much closer to a law respecting an establishment of religion than advocacy of ID or even creationism in a science class. If the judicial system can't figure that out, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do a good job vetting curricula.

Having judges deciding what can be taught is much more likely to restrain reason than encourage it.

|12.23.05 @ 9:41AM|#

Thoreau - don't mean to speak for Warren, but he echoes my feelings on the subject, so...

"We are far from dispassionate and dull, but our results are only science when they can be verified by somebody with a different culture and personality."

I don't think he'd dispute that (I don't, and I agree with everything he said). He just said that pointing out the biases of the scientist is not a scientific critique, it is a critique based on reason. So that those who dismiss ID outright because it comes from religious scientists are themselves failing to act in a manner consistent with good science.

Critics of ID should focus on pointing out the actual flaws in the science of it, because getting into the debate about bias plays right into the hands of those who argue in favor of ID.

And BTW, I consider myself a Taoist. I'm highly insulted that you didn't include me in your list and am thinking of suing you for emotional distress and religious discrimination. Where can I serve process on you? :)

|12.23.05 @ 9:42AM|#

"Festivus can't end until somebody wrestles the head of the household."

Can heads wrestle? Don't you need an arm and a leg, minimum?

Seriously, I think believers in ID need to behold more complexity in their everyday lives. That way they can go ahead and be agog, but still not feel it necessary to ascribe the phenomenon to an intelligent designer. I've used before the example of all the forms and colors simple water takes. How many people realize the number of possible chess moves is on a par with the number of atoms in the Universe?
Help me out.
I Googled "complexity everyday life," but didn't mine too deeply.

Warren|12.23.05 @ 9:49AM|#

This argument has centered around science and religion. I'd like it to center on first amendment rights. I propose that it is not possible to construct a curriculum that does not violate some students first amendment rights. I conclude that public education is unconstitutional.

|12.23.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Isn't it interesting how this dispute has been framed on both sides?

"You're teaching religion!"

"No, we aren't!"

"You're a liar!"

This is because both sides are trying to work within the U. S. Supreme Court's framework of "strict separation of religion and government (except when we say otherwise)."

So people who are trying to get God into the government school curriculum are trying to cover up God, as if He were the Watergate burglary or Monica Lewinsky.

This puts the whole story on the footing of Enlightened Judge Exposes Shocking God Scandal!

|12.23.05 @ 9:58AM|#

As long as we're stuck with government run school, I�m happy with a ruling that keeps pro- and anti-religion unscientific claims out of the classroom. When I told my high school biology teacher I was interested in cultural evolution, he pointed me towards a book that claimed Judaism and Catholicism were parasites on people who believe them. Since my mom�s family is Catholic and my dad�s family is Jewish, I was a bit turned off. The book cited no studies, and the half a dozen studies I�ve seen since show that adhering to established religions today increases one�s genetic fitness. These studies don�t prove religion is �good�, but they did disprove the claims of parasitism. My teacher overstepped some boundaries giving me a book like that and presenting it as science.

|12.23.05 @ 9:59AM|#

All the more reason to get the govt out of the business of indoctrinating children.

True devotees of science would examine the record of the government schools and consider whether that record is such an improvement over private schools as to warrant socialized education.

|12.23.05 @ 10:04AM|#

Ruthless-I remember that at one point I was trying to get good at chess. I sat down and did the math to figure out how many combinations of opening moves there were. (One move, properly: white moves/black moves). I forget the number, but I remember thinking "Holy shit, that can't be right." I rechecked, and yes, it was correct. Working out the possible combinations of a two-move sequence, I got into numbers to big to deal with. Again, I forget, but I'm pretty sure it had to be written in scientific notation to fit on my TI calculator. That has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but since Thoreau and Joe said everything I wanted to, I'll just say that chess is a facinating game.
For the real math/science guys: Has anyone figured out the possible number of sequences in Go? If anything, I'd think there are more than in chess. My understanding of that game is very limited, though.

|12.23.05 @ 10:19AM|#

f teaching bad "science" that supports a particular set of religious convictions is an establishment or religion, then it's quite likely that teaching some good science that undermines particular religious convictions is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. It's the same amendment and neither truthfulness nor correctness are at issue.

How many times do we have to explains this to you fuck-tards?

Evolution, or any scientific theory, doesn't seek to "undermine" any particular faith. Teaching evolution is no more an exercise in religious (or irreligious) indoctrination than is teaching other factual topics like geology, economics, history, astronomy, mathematics, or English literature. These academic disciplines exist to teach facts, not convert anyone to any worldview.

Now, if a student with a Christian upbringing, after hearing Darwin's theory and other scientific evidence regarding the origins of the universe, decides to become an atheist, then did the diabolical power of science magically turned him into an unbeliever or did he make that decision on his own? I took biology in high school and college (both public) and both taught evolution. AT NO POINT did my any of my biology instructors EVER say, ala some Jack Chick tract, that "evolution proves that God doesn't exist."

Of course, if a measly scientific theory like evolution can sway a believer to atheism, I would think that perhaps there were some fatal flaws in that their particular faith to begin with.

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 10:29AM|#

I just want to know what Dave W is smoking and where I can get some.

|12.23.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Number 6,
If Joyce Kilmer thinks only God can make a tree, how big a leap is it to think only God can make a a game of chess (or Go)?

Is my argument "complexity reductio ad absurdium"?

|12.23.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Timothy:

He's high on JEEZ-us, which tells me that our government is banning the wrong opiate of the masses.

(This was the only thing Marx got right, BTW.)

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Akira: Not to go too off-topic, but Marx actually had some interesting historical insights...if you understand them in the proper context. 19th-century industrial England was a pretty tough place to be a factory worker, etc, and there wasn't much balance of power between workers and employers. But, Marx's solutions were fucking crazy and his proposal for an economic system has been quite proven disasterous. Because in order to control markets, you have to control people.

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 10:37AM|#

AT NO POINT did my any of my biology instructors EVER say, ala some Jack Chick tract, that "evolution proves that God doesn't exist."

And the ID disclaimer in this case did not say "ID proves that God exists." In fact, the discalimer in this case, if my memory serves, was careful to say that ID itself was not proven.

Neither atheists not Christians need to talk as bluntly as Chick tract to cause a first amendment issue.

|12.23.05 @ 10:38AM|#

Akira-You're teachers were right not to tell you that evolution doesn't disprove the existence of god. It can't. Nor can it disprove the existence of spaghetti monsters, Shiva, Zoroaster, or Odin. It can, however, disprove notions like "The world is 10,000 years old."
That's really the threat to the fundies-science may force them to accept that the bible and their leaders' interpretations of it are not infallible. That undermines what they think of as authority, and that is the real threat.
Meanwhile, anyone with the most rudimentary education in logic realizes that you can't prove a negative like "God doesn't exist."

|12.23.05 @ 10:40AM|#

My teacher overstepped some boundaries giving me a book like that and presenting it as science

Did he? Because when I've heard the term "cultural evolution" tossed around it's in the context of philosophical or social development rather than science. (The "social sciences" are hardly sciences, except for their adherence to methodology. That's another discussion though.)How can you equate "cultural evolution" with science, or biology? It sounds like what he gave you was, on the subject, a good book, or at least an appropriate and on-topic monograph. Something on the corrosive effects of Judeo-Christianity on society is in the topic of cultural evolution.

Also, he may not have believed the theories in the book, ever consider that? I once had a teacher assign me two books which gave contradictory points of view, without telling me, just to see what's I'd make of it all. After my critique, he admitted his motivation was simply to see if I could flesh out the straw men in one of the books (after I properly did so). There might have been a good method in your teacher's approach.

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 10:41AM|#

On this thread, I have qb and warren basically on my side. qb even put my argument better than I did! On the other thread, T. and I co-operatively crafted some excellent language for North America's school boards to consider and hopefully adopt. For once, I feel like I am sort of fitting in here at HnR.

To answer your question about the smoking: not telling.

|12.23.05 @ 10:42AM|#

Akira, I second Timothy's comment:

Marx was right about alot of things. Remember that the "capitalism" that he critiqued and sought to overthrow was really mercantilism. Many of his criticisms of mercantilism were spot on.

Of course, he misidentified the true nature of the problem and concluded that it was caused by the market and not by the state's involvement. Which is why his solution amounted to cutting off the head to save the body...

|12.23.05 @ 10:44AM|#

And the ID disclaimer in this case did not say "ID proves that God exists."

It doesn't take a theologian or to realize that in the contxt of the Dover trial, "Intellegent Design" meant "Christian God."

I thought your deity frowned on lying. Oh! Of course, it's perfectly all right to lie (along with murder) in HIS name, right?

In fact, the discalimer in this case, if my memory serves, was careful to say that ID itself was not proven.

"Not proven" = Not Science.

|12.23.05 @ 10:46AM|#

Number 6,
If Joyce Kilmer thinks only God can make a tree, how big a leap is it to think only God can make a a game of chess (or Go)?

Is my argument "complexity reductio ad absurdium"?

I see chess as an example of how coherent patterns can arise from complex systems with simple rules. If chess says anything about god or a lack thereof (and I doubt it does), it suggests that the direct intervention of a diety is not necessary for complex systems to arise. The flip side of that, I suppose, is that men invented chess and its rules. Without the rules, there is no game. Without the rules inherent in the universe, it would be something very different (or nothing at all). A thinking theist might ask "Who made the rules of the universe?"
That's a different, and interesting question. Of course, it's predicated on the supposition that there must be a conciousness and volition behind those rules, and that is by no means settled. Even if we do establish the necessity of volition, it's still a long leap to the concept that god is a guy with a while beard (or seven arms, or one eye, or whatever) and one that can't be made based on anything other than faith.
That's a roundabout way of saying that the jump from "This system is really complex" to "God did it" is long and not supported by reason, much less the scientific method.

Now, what the hell were we talking about again?

Dave W|12.23.05 @ 10:46AM|#

I'm functionally illiterate and suffer from Asperger's, this leads me to keep repeating the same things over and over and over again in hopes that I'll achieve a different result. No worries, it'll all come out in the discovery phase.

|12.23.05 @ 10:54AM|#

This is the club we need to keep whapping creationists upside their heads with:
"the jump from "This system is really complex" to "God did it" is long and not supported by reason, much less the scientific method."

|12.23.05 @ 10:56AM|#

Number 6,

...Meanwhile, anyone with the most rudimentary education in logic realizes that you can't prove a negative...

Prove it!

|12.23.05 @ 10:58AM|#

On the other thread, T. and I co-operatively crafted some excellent language for North America's school boards to consider and hopefully adopt.

We did?

|12.23.05 @ 10:58AM|#

MAS-Crap, I walked right into that one, didn't I?

`Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 10:58AM|#

Sorry about that, Timothy. I did not mean to type your name in the "name" line in the earlier message that I wrote in response to you. What I meant to do was say "Timothy" as the first line because I wanted to address you without quoting your post. I never meant to change my screen name within this discussion and I am still not sure how I made my mistake. I apologize for the confusion here.

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 10:59AM|#

Thoreau: Dave is arguing with the posters in his head again.

|12.23.05 @ 11:01AM|#

Actually, Timothy, I think he's agreeing with an imaginary thoreau.

I guess it's better that he agrees with the imaginary thoreau than argue with the imaginary thoreau.

The real Dave W. leaves me baffled.

`Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 11:05AM|#

"Not proven" = Not Science.

I have repeatedly (because I have aspergers like Hak) argued that high school should make this clear to students. Specifically, the class should be candid and forthright in telling students both of the following:

1. God is not proven, so God is not science.

2. a universe that is only the product of random, impersonal forces has not been proven, so this is not science either.

Why, T. and I were just working on this text, yesterday so that teachers could get this not proven, not science stuf accross to the kiddies. What makes you think we don't get it?

|12.23.05 @ 11:24AM|#

cdunlea:

My teacher was rather enthusiastic about the book. Questioning the effects of a philosophy on a society is within the realm of social science. However, to stay science, the author has to present some _data_. Otherwise it boils down to something like, �Those Jews and Papists are infecting this nation with dangerous ideas.� Anyway, this guy was a good teacher 99% of the time.

|12.23.05 @ 11:24AM|#

Akira:

Just a thought. If religion is the mind altering drug of the masses, does that make psychiatrists who prescribe mind altering drugs the clergy of the elite?

|12.23.05 @ 11:29AM|#

�I have repeatedly (because I have aspergers like Hak) argued that high school should make this clear to students. Specifically, the class should be candid and forthright in telling students both of the following:
1. God is not proven, so God is not science.
2. a universe that is only the product of random, impersonal forces has not been proven, so this is not science either.
Why, T. and I were just working on this text, yesterday so that teachers could get this not proven, not science stuf accross to the kiddies. What makes you think we don't get it?�

I agree with Dave�s point here.

|12.23.05 @ 11:44AM|#

So, Dave, all you really want is to make sure that teachers don't imply that science has disproven the existence of God. I've got no problem with that. Science has done no such thing, and any teacher who says otherwise is conveying falsehoods about science.

So we agree on the goal. It's the methods that we break down on. I'm actually fine with a careful discussion of the philosophical issues inherent in any scientific investigation, as well as the additional issues inherent in inquiries about events that happened millions of years ago.

The challenge to you is to propose a discussion that doesn't (1) give a privileged consideration to religion and (2) doesn't have any scientific misconceptions (e.g. "We have no idea how mutations happen.).

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 11:53AM|#

well, we will have to bring the text back and keep hammering away. My recollectin of my last proposal was that it did not give religion a privileged footing. I was trying to be extra careful about setting up a tonal symmetry between "the God people" and "the randomness ppl."

As far as the thing about our knowledge of mutations: ok, it will probably take me some time to figure out a kid-friendly way of saying: science has some good ideas about the mechanism that causes mutations, but no real knowledge about whether this mechanism is ultimately directed by randomness or by God. We're still good on that, right?

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 11:57AM|#

I quibble with the not proven = not science formulation.

I generally take the Popperian view that not disprovable = not science. A wholly materialist universe could be disproven, God can't be. It is impossible to disprove the existence of an all-powerful sky-friend, therefore the God hypothesis isn't scientific. A wholly materialist universe could, presumably, be disproven if said same sky-friend made itself known.

|12.23.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Dave W.-

Well, we do have Occam's razor. We know that mutations happen in organisms today, and that these mutations seem to be explicable in terms of basic chemical processes. And when we assume that mutation rates have been (more or less) constant through time, and compare genomes of contemporary organisms, we can estimate when they diverged from common ancestors. And the ages of those common ancestors seem to match pretty well (in many cases, anyway) with the fossil record.

So, we have a history and a mechanism to explain it. A mechanism that is observed in the lab, and gives estimates that are consistent with other observations.

If physical mechanisms seem to be explaining what we see, it's not clear why we need to invoke anything else. And I'm not just ruling out supernatural mechanisms here. I'm also ruling out processes other than mutation, e.g. Lamarckian evolution.

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 12:06PM|#

As a biology professor I had once said: You've got to look out for those hard-line Lamarckians.

This has led me to recall that in my high school biology text there was a one-paragraph overview of creationism that basically said, "some folks believe that the world was created by God, but that's not really testable, so we're not going to talk about it beyond saying that the belief is out there."

Is that essentially the statement y'all are looking to make?

Warren|12.23.05 @ 12:07PM|#

I have repeatedly (because I have aspergers like Hak) argued that high school should make this clear to students. Specifically, the class should be candid and forthright in telling students both of the following:
1. God is not proven, so God is not science.
2. a universe that is only the product of random, impersonal forces has not been proven, so this is not science either.

Yeah, have to dump some cold water on you for this one Dave. This is another common misconception about science that makes me want to slap people. I'm constantly reading about 'scientific facts', 'proven facts', and 'just a theory, not a fact'. It is just false to claim that not proven means not scientific. No theory is ever "proven" in the sense that we can now be absolutely sure it is true. All theories undergo revision and sometimes are even replaced with something better. It's interesting to look at gravity as an example. Newton's gravity worked perfectly well for hundreds of years. However, even at the time of publication critics objected to its 'action at a distance' quality. Later Einstein's gravity replaced Newton's as being a more accurate description of nature. What is interesting is that even though Newton's gravity has been proven 'wrong'. It's no more 'wrong' now than it was in the past, and because it's much easier to understand and compute, it is still taught to students, and still used by scientists.

Theories do not become facts when they are conclusively proven. Theories remain theories, but they gain acceptance as they are tested.

God is not science. Not because God is not proven, but because God is not testable. Saying "God did it" is the end of thinking, science never stops thinking.

Warren|12.23.05 @ 12:13PM|#

thoreau,
The writings of Penn Jillette have convinced me; Occam lived in vain

|12.23.05 @ 12:24PM|#

Simple fact: it is on the asserter of a given proposition to meet the burden of proof. If you ASSERT that God is real, you have to provide evidence. Until you do, I will not believe in your assertion anymore than I believe in green goblins, unicorns etc. The point said earlier needs to be drilled home: you cannot be asked, logically, to prove a negative!

Thank you.

exits soapbox

Warren|12.23.05 @ 12:40PM|#

Ayn Randian,
So you're saying you can not logically prove that you don't have an elephant up your ass?

|12.23.05 @ 12:50PM|#

How about we:

1) Don't teach ID, because the data don't support it.

2) Teach NOMA at the start of the school year with the scientific method, because it a good summary of Kant's "Critic of Pure Reason" that a high school kid can understand.

|12.23.05 @ 12:55PM|#

It would be great if a little prolegomena was taught in science class. Science should be neutral, but both nauturalistic and theistic philosophies invade the discussion of evolution. Perhaps ID could be a part of the prolegomena discussion?

Thoreau (or anyone who can help),
I am Pastor, but my original training was in engineering, so I admit that I probably see design in evolution and the irreducible complexity arguement really hits home to me. I have not found a good source to explain how naturalistic evolution can produce these "machines". Also, symbiotic relationships are difficult for me to grasp. I really haven't read much about all this since 01' or so. Any good reference would be good- I can handle scientific texts.
Thanks.

|12.23.05 @ 1:05PM|#

Wisconsinite:

My organic evolution professor was the best. Her lecture notes are online at
http://www.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc150/index2.html
The book we read, Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma, was very good.

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 1:26PM|#

What about a double negative statement? Can that be proved? Does it matter whether the statement is edited to make it more gramatically correct?

As I have said on other threads, the can't prove a negative thing is a prudential rule of thumb and not a rule of logic.

Dave W.|12.23.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Is that essentially the statement y'all are looking to make?

No. the additinal point to get across (and it will probably take more than a statement) is that evolution may or may not be ultimately caused by random, undirected forces. Because of this, evolution theory is not relevant to the existence of God. this is important to stress because some ppl, even some scientists, make a mistake about the probativeness of evolution on the God issue.

Obviously, this is not the kid-friendly version. that is getting worked on.

|12.23.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Thoreau,
I have heard the debunked arguement, but have never seen the example. Behe's does bring up blood and that seems to have some reasonable explanations (incomplete- but that's fine), but many of his specific examples I have not seen the debunking examples- only assurance that they exist.

I am saddened that the creationists have tried to take over ID for political purposes. Most folks I know who admire ID are theistic evolutionists like myself rather than creationists.

jtuf- I'll check out Futuyma's book.

Thanks.

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Talk Origins has something on Behe's clotting cascade example here. I'll see if I can find a GNXP link for another post, as the server squirrel will reject comments with multiple links.

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 2:05PM|#

More Talk.Origins on blood clotting.

|12.23.05 @ 2:08PM|#

Warren - Common Sense would dictate, but strictly speaking, no, because, if asked to prove a negative, some smart ass could just say "maybe it's a tiny, invisible elephant, you can't prove that it's NOT!".

Dave W., good Galt man, are you serious? Are you just on here to troll, get your own kicks or what?

|12.23.05 @ 2:12PM|#

As I have said the blood clotting is the big example many have pointed out. It is the "machines", not the systems that are what I remember his main work and expertise.

|12.23.05 @ 2:13PM|#

Better answer to that, Warren. The default position in logic is the negative, i.e. that proposition X is not true, because it has yet to be proven. So, therefore, it is on the assertor of said proposition to logically prove his statement. For example, there is no China until enough logical proof for its existence is demonstrated, at which case, the onus, or burden of proof, is met. The burdens are determined ahead of time.

So, asking someone to prove there's not a God, Santa, Green Goblins (other than the cars), etc. is a logical fallacy. If you assert that something's real, you should have the evidence to support it.

Timothy|12.23.05 @ 2:22PM|#

Wisconsinite: Apologies, I misread your earlier post and thought you hadn't seen any of the debunkings of blood clotting.

Warren|12.23.05 @ 4:21PM|#

Ayn R,
Your burden of proof argument is appropriate for a courtroom, but I think you are mistaken when you call it a logical fallacy. Sound's to me like a restatement of Occam's Razor. I say I can prove that I am not hiding the Chrysler building up my nose. The fact that you can play semantic games over the definition of the Chrysler building, is YOUR logical fallacy.

If you want to claim that you can redefine what words mean at your pleasure, the yeah I can't prove anything - positive or negative. This I think is the real fallacy behind proving God does not exist. If the definition of God was fixed and you could prove he didn't exist. For example

Straw Man: God is love
SM: God is all powerful
ME: Yesterday I saw a story on the news about a little girl that was raped and murdered. An all-powerful and loving God could not have allowed that to happen. Ergo God does not exist.
SM: But God's ways are mysterious.
ME: So no matter what happens it is God's will?
SM: Exactly

See it's a definition problem, as soon as you say God can not exist because of such and such they say God is all powerful and could have made it that way. To which I say, yeah well he sure went through a lot of time and trouble to make it look like he doesn't exist, are you sure you're not insulting him by insisting he does.

At any rate I still say proving a negative is logically possible.

|12.23.05 @ 5:36PM|#

"Currently, science does not have the observational tools to prefer either the randomness people or the God ppl. Therefore, debate from these sides rages on and is likely to continue to do so for the rest of your life. Hopefully, science will one day collect evidence to definitively decide between the God ppl and the randomness ppl. Science currently has no real reason to prefer either side."
Dave W., just to follow this line of thought, why would the fact that we are not certain of which natural cause begat the mutations lead to the plausibility of a non-natural explanation? Can you give me some other areas where we need a non-natural explanation?
Also, you revive the idea that we cannot speculate on origins because of lack of data. Hmmm. What about the Big Bang? It's the Mother of Origins theory and someone found empirical, replicable data to substantiate that one. And guess what? It was a natural explanation!

|12.23.05 @ 6:50PM|#

ME: So no matter what happens it is God's will?
SM: Exactly

It was God's will that ID was banished from schools. Thank God.

|12.23.05 @ 8:32PM|#

Not to go too off-topic, but Marx actually had some interesting historical insights...

Marx produced virtually nothing of true insight on his own; all the insightful historic stuff was ripped off from Hegel.

|12.24.05 @ 10:28AM|#

Ken,
A natural explanation? You mean to describe what happened is an explanation? It doesn't tell us why. It tells us there was a beginning, not why there is a beginning.