Evolution on trial again in Kansas

[Timber Loftis]

I support any alternative theory anyone wants to teach in school. However, if you're going to teach it as science, it must be vetted through the Scientific Method of theory investigation. You can't call ID "math" because it's not proven via mathematical theorems (actually, it's disprovable by math -- note earlier discussion of logic, which can be represented mathematically using modal sentential logic, but I digress). You can't call it science because it hasn't been tested using the Scientific Method.

It is what it is -- religion/philosophy.

[ 05-19-2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Stratos]

What the scientists are objecting is that C/ID is presented as if it were genuine science, but still forced into the school curriculum.

Edit: Using Timbers post above, most scientist probably don't object to students being taught ID, they just don't want it in science classes.

[ 05-19-2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Lucern]

Originally posted by Cerek: 1. One of the core arguments for the validity of science over religion is that science and scientists are willing to question their theories and religion is not. Scientists (and those that support a scientific POV) loudly and proudly proclaim their open-mindedness to questions EVERY theory, hypothesis or conjecture presented and that ALL scientific discoveries should be exhaustively tested. So WHY are scientists so upset - to the point that "National and local scientific leaders for the most part boycotted the event" - about the manner in which Evolution is taught is being questioned?

At least two members of the school board boycotted it too. I don't think boycotting necessarily means any were upset. Hell, it's a week of arguing with creationists. I'd duck out too lol. Seriously though, ID has no researchers, no research, and will never have either. It's not science. What can scientists say about non-scientific theories? Call it scientific neutrality, but unless they're willing to overstep their bounds, they can't. On the other hand, what can advocates of a non-scientific theory say about a scientific one? Anything they want. Its limits are defined differently. I read that some scientists were worried that even showing up would give ID unecessary credence, a great balancing of not-at-all equal forces in terms of their scientific validity. Their strategy isn't what I would have picked though. Giving creationists an open mic night in front of the rest of the school board doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

2. ToE supporters claim they are NOT trying to explain the origin of life with ToE, they are just presenting apparantly indisputable facts that evolution has occurred. Fair enough. But if ToE isn't designed to explain the origin of life (by implication at least), then again, WHY do scientists so strenuously object to alternative "theories" or conjectures regarding the origin of life being presented? If ToE isn't meant or designed to explain the origin of life, then why object to a view that does attempt to explain the origin of life?

Not so as I see it Cerek. ToE is presenting disputable facts - that's the point! It sports a wealth of falsifiable evidence, but the disputes aren't about its broader validity, they're in the technical matters of the how much, and how long questions being researched currently. They should object to any unfalsifiable theory in science curriculums. Any other measure for scientific analysis would be political. Science doesn't need that hindrance.

3. The argument is presented that teaching Creationism will only "confuse" students and "endanger their ability to excel in science". If the core of scientific investigation is to examine and question everything, then how will "questioning" the Theory of Evolution "endanger" the ability of students to excel at science? Is that really the concern, or are the ToE supporters insisting that ToE be "accepted as the right answer" by students?

That would hold true Cerek, if they used the same mode of analysis (if ID was as scientific as ToE). Science should take a critical eye to itself - it does afaik, and that should be taught. A good science teacher doesn't spout facts - s/he works to lay out evidences for theories and the changes those theories had on the overall field so that students know what's commonly accepted as true (and what's hanging by a thread) as well as getting a better understanding of how science works. That would be much more effective and consistent than throwing in a non-scientific theory.

Evolution (via natural selection) has been questioned more than any theory I can think of. It's been an uphill battle since 1859 because it happens to deal with very personal issues that goes against so many peoples' worldviws. It surely would have fallen on its face if it was anything less than a unifying theory. It gets questioned in every student's mind, because it's not a common sense theory. It's really abstract from an individual perspective. It can handle any scientific rocks you throw at it (though parts do change - it's an ongoing inquiry after all). To what end is non-scientific inquiry a valid criticism of the conclusions of scientific inquiry? I would say it's about as relevent as scientific inquiry into that which it cannot examine!

On a practical level, I wasn't taught any kind of creationism nor evolution, and I was not at all ready for introductory college level biology. It was overwhelming enough not knowing much of anything about evolution, but imagine if I had had non-scientific blocks to my willingness to even listen to it. In this sense ID is not only not science, but it's anti-science. That's the danger to students' capacity to excel at science as I see it.

(Azred) Also, no one has, to my knowledge, explained how the jump from viruses (which don't have any real biological processes) into bacteria (which do).

That's not so off-topic as the whole multiple-dimensions U-turn Azred lol. Just wanted to point out that viruses have the most important biological process in terms of natural selection - replication Of course the viruses we know of use cells, so they probably didn't resemble viruses much except in their size and relative simplicity.

(Mr. Harris) Stratos you are correct that it(ID)is in the political/religious arena. That is were the problem lies, as an example look at this thread who has asked questions and who has issued statements? I'll give you a hint the question asker is a "so called" religious closed minded one.

Yeah but they're largely rhetorical

I kid. I think everyone comes to this table having asked some questions or prepared to ask some. I offer my paper-length responses having asked a lot of questions in the past about them, and clearly being of the long-winded persuasion anyway. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now since the ID can't be proven or disproven by science, since science does not and is not set up to ask the questions that ID asks/answers science should say we don't know and don't care we are not trying to answer those questions and don't care if they are asked or answered, it's not our job to ask or seek the answers to those questions. But is that what they are doing?

You have a point in some cases (which it seems you've observed elsewhere) that scientists (humans) overstep the bounds of their credibility when they publicly speak as experts at that which cannot be examined scientifically. I hate to see white-coat shills on TV spouting off such ideas (in their white coats, with "Scientist" under their name).

However, in this case it is because the limits of ToE are defined scientifically and because the limits of C/ID are defined religiously/philosophically, and possibly politically, in a setting of science education, that C/ID's scientific merits should be weighed and measured.

To turn your question around on the C/ID advocates, are they guilty of interjecting philosophy/religion/politics into a non philosophical, non religious, and non-political arena?

It's hard to find good info on the preceedings of the school board (blogs are by no means good info...), but I did find this:
http://www.alternet.org/story/22042/

which is really only worth this:

The Legal Strategy The final witness was Calvert himself, who announced that he planned to file "an extensive legal brief" in the coming days that would provide the basis for revising the science standards to allow ID. His legal argument, which had been implicit in all of his questioning of witnesses, goes like this: (1) Evolution as it's now taught in Kansas schools is based on methodological naturalism, that is, the search by science for explanations only in the natural world. (2) Methodological naturalism always implies philosophical naturalism, the belief that there is nothing beyond the natural world. (This, say anti-ID scientists, is the fatal flaw in the argument.) (3) Philosophical naturalism is atheistic. (4) Atheism is a religion. (Needless to say, this is a proposition not universally accepted.) (5) Therefore, religion is already being taught in Kansas biology classes. (6) So religious fairness requires that evidence for intelligent design and against evolution through natural selection also be allowed in the classroom. By arguing, implicitly, that the supernatural should be introduced into science curricula alongside "naturalistic" ideas, Calvert is relying on the federal government's No Child Left Behind Act, which requires that teaching be "secular, neutral, and non-ideological" with respect to religion. For three long days, many in the audience had been wondering which witnesses were correct -- those who said the new standards would not inject religion into the curriculum or those who said or implied that they would. In his testimony, Calvert cleared up that confusion. To meet the legal requirement of neutrality as he defined it, schools either must allow religious teaching in biology classes or else allow nothing at all to be taught about how biological species come to be.

Which shows that the answer to my (rather rhetorical) question is yes, at least in their legal strategy, whether or not science is in fact secular. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[shamrock_uk]

A nice article about something similar happening in Pennsylvania. Lots of detail if you like that sort of thing.

[Lucern]

If we like that sort of thing? lol, the Kansas event didn't get very detailed reporting at all once the initial story broke. It likely won't receive coverage again until the board's recommendations come out mid-summer.

This is a very well-informed article Shamrock. Thanks for posting it!

It reiterates much of what has been said in this thread.

[John D Harris]

That's just it Lucern, the questions were not rhetorical, If you look back at the first pages of this thread(maybe not your intent) the No-God crowd was trying to use science to say there is no God. I'll tell you right now I'll buy it hook, line, and sinker, if somebody can answer the questions of how the FINITE can define the INFINITE, by the very definition of the words it is impossible, the finite can't grasp the Infinite. It(the finite) can at best grasp only what it can see in it's finite limited vision of the Infinite.

The problem is the no-God crowd(that is the correct term, for I believe that evolution is correct and the way the Infinite chose to make this rollercoaster ride we call life happen, Therefore I AM an evolutionist, and a believer in God.)wants to say that it was blind ass luck that made things the way they are, without any proof. There are no records of what caused the changes in any spieces, just that there were changes. ID says the changes came about because God wanted them to happen, they too have no proof. (Non rhetorical) Why is blind ass luck to be accepted without proof, but design can't be accepted without proof? Why did the genitic mutations accur? Were the genitic mutations built in, designed so that if a natural disaster happened life would continue? vs blind ass luck, random changes? Look at this world everything goes through cycles, the weather, prey and predator, the very land on which we live is all governed by cycles. And somebody wants to tell me Random came up with cycles? By definition Random is NOT cycles, it is Random, Non repeating. If it is repeating (in the cosmic over all sense) it is not Random.

[shamrock_uk]

I guess the difference is that we observe mutations occuring spontaneously all the time, especially at the cellular level. On the other hand, its pretty unlikely anyone has been spotted drawing up blueprints... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I guess the difference is that we observe mutations occuring spontaneously all the time, especially at the cellular level. On the other hand, its pretty unlikely anyone has been spotted drawing up blueprints... [img]smile.gif[/img]

But the question that science has not been able to answer so far is WHY these mutations occur at all. The popular explanation is that mutations occur to help animals or people adapt to their environment and conditions, but what about animals that are already well adapted? If an animal is already perfectly suited for thier particular environment, then they should STOP mutating.

Also, scientists say that adaptations occurred in species throughout history to adapt to changes in their environment. They also suggest these adaptations were more or less random and that the animals which developed the "right" mutation for thier area were the ones that survived. But HOW did ENOUGH animals develop the "right" mutation in time to continue procreating the species?

The point is that science can NOT answer these questions irrefutably. They can't answer with irrevocable certainty WHY and HOW these changes occurred, yet - as John D. pointed out - they claim they CAN state with irrevocable certainty that it was NOT the result of ID.

If they don't know the true causes, how can eliminate ANY causes with such absolute certainty?

[Lucern]

On the other hand, its pretty unlikely anyone has been spotted drawing up blueprints...

LoL Shamrock. If only I could be that concise.

But the question that science has not been able to answer so far is WHY these mutations occur at all. The popular explanation is that mutations occur to help animals or people adapt to their environment and conditions,but what about animals that are already well adapted? If an animal is already perfectly suited for thier particular environment, then they should STOP mutating.

That's a fair question with a misleading answer. We know mutations occur; we can surmise how they occur in most cases with our knowledge of sub-cellular biology (DNA replication especially); we know mutations aren't the only source of variation (don't we?); we know that roughly one in 10,000 cells has a mutation (IIRC). Would anyone really posit a scientific answer to why they occur? You might find your answer in the trappings of genetic replication for individual cases, but to say that mutations happen in order to create random variation is not an answer I'd give. Variation produced from mutations is a byproduct, not a raison d'etre. As for why all I'd give you is a 'flaw' in the basic biochemistry of DNA - but it's a flaw that gives life of all kinds long-term malleability. The 'why' question is still up for grabs.

Why would any species ever stop mutating? DNA replication will have none of this, whether it's beneficial to the species or not. Consider that conditions change, constantly, whether it's temperature, rainfall, the amount of nitrates in soil, or the increase or decrease of predator/prey type and amount. A well-adapted gene one year can quickly shift to poorly adapted the next, and we know that organisms as a whole have kept up with that change. Far more species have already gone extinct than are currently living, so you know what the alternative is. To not change is to risk annihilation when everything else changes, and it's not really something that can be turned on or off anyway.

Given a moderately consistent environment, it's not that mutations should stop. It's that they would not prove to be beneficial or would be benign, and thus have little effect on the population as a whole. In that case they effectively stop, which is more or less what happened in the case of sharks, which haven't really changed much in 100 million years.

By the way, with all this talk of random mutations, you guys sound like biologists from the 1930's [img]smile.gif[/img] , sometimes dubbed the mutationists - overestimating the rate and importance of mutation's effect on populations. The picture is much more complicated than that, as random mutations are only one source of variation in a system that is not random. In fact, the conditions set by the environment are said to select traits as favorable or disfavorable. Selection is the functional opposite of random, is it not? 'Random' is more of a mental aid we use to comprehend the variability of genetic mutation, but if the input of variation into a generation is random, the weeding out process of a lifetime (the output) is anything but random. What's left is generally little change, but that change is important. We should not forget that the quickest adaptation has to do with traits that are already in the gene pool of a species and their frequency. As an example, in areas of intense UV activity like the equator, each human generation will likely get increasingly dark skin to help filter that UV radiation out. In areas of very low sunlight, generations should get lighter skin to get as much UV as possible for vitamin D synthesis. These are traits that are within the human gene pool, evidently - just look at all of the variation present in a single species like ours. On the second page of this thread you have my answer to an emphasis on random mutation in evolution.

To answer the bigger picture stuff:

A very important point of science is that we created a system that acknowledges and works within a framework that we cannot prove anything to be 100% true. We cannot even disprove anything 100%, even if we're 99.99% sure something is false, we just cannot know if all of those repeatable experiments were accurate. I say this because I do not believe claims of irrevocable certainty about natural selection's truth and ID's falseness were made by scientists, and I know such claims cannot be made by science. There's a whole 'Hale' of a lot of evidence for evolution by natural selection, which gives it the scientific credibility it enjoys, but don't think there aren't possible sources of error listed and accounted for in each of the thousands of experiments that have contributed to our understanding.

ID is rejected because it's not playing the same game as natural selection. It's not playing by the same rules, and though it has an answer for everything - those answers aren't supported by falsifiable hypothesis testing. It is scientifically irrelevent.

Science can only eliminate what is physically testable. ID cannot be examined on this point, and though the questions it answered/asked aren't eliminated, the mode of asking them is. ID does not have a more or even equally scientifically valid answer for Why than any actual theories. Philosophically valid and scientifically valid is an important distinction here. How do you want scientists to treat this? I'd say ignoring it in scientific debate, and making sense of the philosophical aspects in their own time wastes the least time and money.

To repeat from another page, there is no competing scientific alternative to answer the questions that evolution by natural selection answers. There were, but they've been discredited because they worked with falsifiable hypotheses and were found false. Lamark's theory of acquired characteristics, which predicted that an individual giraffe that stretches its neck would have offspring with slightly longer necks, is such a theory. I'm 99.999999% certain that that's very wrong, but maybe everything we know about genetics is wrong. ID can be eliminated for the different reason that it does not work with testable hypotheses of any kind. Lamark's theory is testable, and for all practical purposes it's wrong.

JD - I see what you mean about the questions. I admit that I wasn't paying close attention to the philosophical sideshow of the second page [img]smile.gif[/img] . Theism was never at stake in the evolutionary debate, because you can make sense of natural selection with No Hand just as you can always make sense of it with such a Hand. Your post demonstrates that better than any I've seen here. Just because scientists explain a theory scientifically with No Hand (as this is more inclusive of cultural diversity and the appropriate thing to do as less biased scientific professionals), does not mean that most scientists do not make sense of such a Hand in it. Of all the pioneers and popularizers of this biological science, very few are self-described No-Handers, after all , but since this is a philosophical matter it can be left outside of the scientific debate. ID as an interjection into a scientific theory is as unnecessary as it is irrelevant.

And finally, beware the alien, the mutant, the heretic, all. Inquisitors are watching. [Dawn of War/Warhammer 40k reference in case you're wondering]