Raymond Finney, MD of Tennessee wants to ask a bunch of pompous questions of his state board of education (“Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?” etc., etc., etc.). Although I’m getting my fill of arrogant doctors lately, I really don’t have any problem with a stuffed shirt in the state senate asking questions, and now we learn that neither will the Tennessee courts—it’s not unconstitutional. As long as there is no penalty if the education commissioner doesn’t answer, or answers in a way Finney doesn’t like, it’s not an issue.
And of course, I’ve already written up the answers for the commissioner, helpful guy that I am. A simple “NO” will handle it.
Finney has admitted his actual goal now, though, and I do think that this ought to be smacked down hard.
Finney, a Maryville Republican, said he wants the department to say there’s no scientific proof for the theory of evolution and to let schools teach creationism or intelligent design.
That is a fundamental misconception, and one I wish we could somehow hammer into these gomers’ heads. There is no scientific proof of anything…proof isn’t something scientists deal with at all. It’s an inappropriate demand in several ways.
- It singles out evolution, but as I said, there is no scientific proof of anything. Why not question cell theory or electromagnetism?
- If Finney is going to demand “proof”, where’s the proof for creationism or intelligent design? He’s awfully inconsistent.
- The word Finney is actually looking for is not “proof”, but “evidence“. Evidence is what we look for in science classes. There is evidence for evolution; there is none for creationism or intelligent design. Case closed.
Finney is a kind of standard issue pretentious creationist boob, and he’s said what his kind always say … a load of codswallop. The real test here, and what I’ll be very interested to see, is Education Commissioner Lana Seivers’ response. This is where a competent and no-nonsense educator should simply cut through the crap and put Finney in his place. Or she can be a dithering political creature and betray the educational goals of the teachers and students of her state by sucking up to the grandstanding pol. I don’t know a thing about her, so we’ll have to see how she emerges from this little test of character.
I suspect that they are not going to stop trying.
Finney is already backing away from this, saying that he’s “probably going to reword it anyway. This may not be the time and place for that.”
He may be up to much more serious mischief though. He’s co-sponsor on a bill to give the General Assembly alone the authority to require the human papilloma virus vaccine intended to protect against cervical cancer in women. While I’m not familiar with Tennesee law on this, I’m betting it is intended to take the decision on whether to mandate the vaccine away from the state Commissioner of Health, where medical concerns might be at least on an equal footing with political and religious concerns, and put it in the legislature where medical considerations will count hardly at all.
Oh, and some red meat:
In all fairness- I think many of us get confused about the difference between proof, evidence, hypothesis and theory, especially outside of the lab.
I’m quite willing to believe that proof means something a little different in a court case than for example in a math paper.
I’ve never really understood exactly what evidence is. Is a dagger covered in blood evidence in a court case if it’s later found out to be a family steak knife- and the victim turns up alive 3 days later?
Can you have evidence for something which isn’t ultimately true?
Is it possible to claim that the apparent design of animals is evidence for intelligent design- even if it is not very strong evidence- and ultimately it is shown there are severe faults in the whole ID argument?
OT, but, sorry, can’t help to have noticed in that link to Tennessean.com, you’ll find another link to a story about the next scientist who has seen the Light. Dr Christof Koch (Neuroscientist) is of the type that discounts burning bushes and turning water in wine, but he has heard of “Heis en berg’s (sic) uncertainty principle”. Then he mixes in some Chaos Theory and the result is:
“I can never be 100 percent accurate. That, at least, opens the door to God,” he said.
Obviously, reporter forgot to ask whether it also opened the door to the FSM & that little teapot orbiting Earth.
Also:
“Christof Koch is brave, because he is a neuroscientist who talks about a problem — consciousness — that most scientists fled from. They left it to philosophers, theologians and novelists.”
Very brave indeed to look for open doors to God in a nation like the USA that is so critical about religion.
“let schools teach creationism or intelligent design.”
??? if the schools WANTED to teach intelligent design there is nothing actaully PREVENTING them from doing it. I think he means “Make teachers who are too educated to believe this stuff teach creationism whether they find lying to kids unethical or not.”
amph:
No no no! 100% accuracy can only come when you have been blessed by the Invisible Pink Unicorn and touched by Her magical horn!
If Finney is going to demand “proof”, where’s the proof for creationism or intelligent design? He’s awfully inconsistent.
C’mon, PZ, that’s a really bad mistake. Finney says that if there’s no proof for ToE, then it should be ok to teach creationism or ID, which also aren’t proven; that’s perfectly consistent, which is his whole point. It’s just that “proven” is not the only criterion, or a criterion at all, for what should or shouldn’t be taught in science classes, and hopefully Ms. Seivers will point that out.
Morning all: I went to college in Maryville, TN back in the 60’s when the Scopes law was still on the books there. (yes, I’m THAT old!). The college taught evolution, but the “townies” had not been exposed to it, just us residents from other states. We had some interesting conversations, arguments and discussions about evolution then. Of course, it was somewhat too late, since they had been immersed in creationism since birth, and at the ripe old age of 18 couldn’t be converted.
On another note, I recently volunteered for the AAAS K-8 Science Volunteer Project, which puts retired scientists in public schools to help w/ the science curriculum. WOW, were my eyes opened! For one, the science teacher doesn’t accept evolution (we had a heated discussion on the peppered moth data), the standard science questions (for the “No child…”) were not reviewed by scientists! I reviewed them and suggested some changes, but I doubt that I had any effect. I should point out that these schools are not in Mississippi, but in Maryland! 20 miles from the NIH!
We are knee-deep in scientists here, but the schools don’t reflect that. I’m going to make it my mission to involve more scientists in these programs. Progress has to be made, but it’s an uphill battle!
SG
Well, if these creationists were actually being consistent, they’d be demanding we teach geocentricity in astronomy class and phlogiston in chemistry class. The arguments being given for creationism could just as easily be used to demand any outdated theory be given a place in science class. If they actually believed that all theories should be given time in class until absolute, universal proof is found, then they’d be pushing for more than just creation against evolution.
But consistency is not to be expected from religious fundamentalists. And of course none of these boobs actually believe the nonsense they spout about “equal time” or “let the children decide for themselves” or “present all sides of the issue”.
Last week, on the broadcast idiocy seminar that is KSFO, the morning host was explaining the nature of science. You see, it’s all about what’s true (I’m kind of with him so far) but it has nothing to do with consensus. Oh, oh. He thinks truth is absolute and can be proved, rather than provisional. Why do all these people who know nothing about science insist on lecturing us about it?
More here.
Christof Koch collaborated for 16 years with the late Francis Crick who, aside from co-discovering the structure of DNA, wrote “The Astonishing Hypothesis”, which he dedicated to Koch — that hypothesis being that consciousness is a completely natural physical phenomenon. I suspect that article misrepresents Koch’s views. See, e.g., http://www.machineslikeus.com/articles/FreeWill.html
Well, if these creationists were actually being consistent, they’d be demanding we teach geocentricity in astronomy class and phlogiston in chemistry class. The arguments being given for creationism could just as easily be used to demand any outdated theory be given a place in science class. If they actually believed that all theories should be given time in class until absolute, universal proof is found, then they’d be pushing for more than just creation against evolution.
Yes, of course. Finney’s only consistency is the thing PZ said he’s being inconsistent about.
Yes.
Or rather, let’s word all that differently: you can have evidence that is consistent with several hypotheses, at most one of which (obviously) can be correct.
Of course. As long as you mention stupid design… :-)
Yes.
Or rather, let’s word all that differently: you can have evidence that is consistent with several hypotheses, at most one of which (obviously) can be correct.
Of course. As long as you mention stupid design… :-)
“Can you have evidence for something which isn’t ultimately true?”
Yes. In courts evidence is just information that might (and “might” is the key) be useful in deciding the issue in front of the court. Some evidence is good, some weak, some unpersuasive and some false.
In science, there is evidence that the earth is flat, in our daily experience of it – we don’t, as we walk about, get a sense of being on something round. When we consider that with other evidence, we don’t conclude that the earth is flat, but it isn’t a complete shut-out.
Even Behe’s view of the bacterial flagellum as machine and the whole ‘it looks designed’ guff is evidence. When examined in detail it starts to fall apart, but that affects the weight it is given, not whether or not it is evidence (and, IMO, the appropriate weight to give it is the weight that we give our intuition on the question of the shape of the earth). One of the pieces of evidence that fossils are the preserved parts (or traces of the activity of) once-living organisms is that they look like once-living organisms (and their traces) and this is striking to us when we view fuzzy photos on the web, even though we know that it is the detailed similarities that clinch the case not the gross similarities.
On the matter of Finney’s Fatuous Question, as a bureaucrat myself, I hope my confrères in Tennessee will give the proper bureaucratic response: ‘It is not our responsibility to ultimately decide questions of fact about the world but to reflect the consensus of those who study a given area of knowledge.’
I’ve never really understood exactly what evidence is.
An empirical observation that supports a hypothesis over the null hypothesis is evidence for that hypothesis.
Can you have evidence for something which isn’t ultimately true?
Yes, certainly.
Is it possible to claim that the apparent design of animals is evidence for intelligent design- even if it is not very strong evidence- and ultimately it is shown there are severe faults in the whole ID argument?
The apparent design of animals is better evidence for evolution than for intelligent design, since it’s the sort of design we would expect of evolution, whereas it doesn’t seem very intelligent at all. Do keep in mind that the critical word is “intelligent”, and “apparent intelligent design” is just question begging.
I want every state to do this. Let’s see where people stand. Make it a national debate.
I believe the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, is already on the record as being okay with a both/and approach.
Some legislator should put together a new program for American school children: No Creationist Left Behind.
Kids would get free psychological counseling, a thorough de-brainwashing, and lots of science drummed into their heads.
re: Koch; @truth machine: Thanks for pointing that out: I see Koch has an impressive track record. If this is the same Koch, as seems likely, yes -either the Journalist distorted what he said, or Koch, being “raised a Catholic” perhaps said a few things to please Mom and Dad. Of course many intelligent people are capable of defining God away in a manner that allows them to go on saying they believe. Still, that insipid Heisenberg & Chaos routine, would the journalist have made that up?
Some days I’m so frustrated it all just makes me want to cry.
How many heads does this Medusa have, anyway? I just got done reading Monkey Girl, and I wish there would be a movie made of the Dover trial transcript (with original people as possible) so it could be required viewing of everyone who opens their big ignorant mouths with the same stuff over and over again.
The reality-based community makes two errors when responding to challenges from the fantasy-based community. They often start responses with one of these two phrases:
1) There is no such thing as proof.
2) What’s a “Darwinist”?
Although there are valid points to be made here, they don’t deserve a point of prominence at the beginning of an article. By doing so, you’re addressing the words, not the idea that lies behind them.
When someone says “there is no proof”, it’s reasonable to interpret that as “there is no evidence.” The proper response is to offer a summary of the evidence, without quibbling about whether that constitutes proof.
Likewise, when they refer to us as “Darwinists”, it silly and unproductive to point out that evolutionary theory has progress far beyond what Darwin envisioned. Most of the time, it simply doesn’t matter to them or their objections.
The first sentence or two must really go to the heart of their challenges or the opportunity to persuade is lost.
Nathan – I think you’ve hit the nail on the head right there. I’m guilty myself of wanting to start off with what scientific proof means. The better response to “There is no proof” is to retort “There are thousands of pieces of evidence”, and to keep repeating it. If they ask for one, start off with the annual flu shot and go from there.
Raymond Finney wants to ask questions about evolution with the intent of having it removed from the schools if there is no evidence supporting it? But he wants to inject creationsim, for which there is no evidence, back into the schools? I just wanted to get Finney’s logic straight. Although, if we follow Finney’s ‘logic’ the schools end up teaching neither evolution or creationism.
I think that creationists don’t go after classical physics like electromagnetism, mechanics, or thermodynamics because they work really damn well. It’s hard to deny something when it’s so obviously all around you.
But things like relativity, and as you know evolution and global warming, they’re a bit harder to see, and so they get denied (although I’m still wondering why relativity is so bad, at least I can see why they squirm with the others).
Besides, those other things don’t challenge their worldview, and they do provide them with nifty gadgets like refrigerators, computers, and airplanes. That’s why I think that they go after evolution and global warming. Or maybe they know not to mess with the Physicists, that we don’t play nice.
What do you mean there is no evidence for creationism? We have a special book, written and compiled ~2,000 years ago, containing the true nature of the origin of the Universe as it was revealed to a small number of men living in a tiny part of the Middle East. That’s what I call evidence!
All you have are your dozens of radiological dating methods, thousands of geological samples, tens of thousands “research papers”, 100’s of thousands of experimental results, millions of fossils, and not even 2 full centuries of scientific data in support of your evolution.
Any moron knows what the guys in the Middle East had revealed to them trumps your evidence. Case Closed PZ! Get down on your knees right now and confess your sinful ways.
Mark
Relativity removes a universal reference frame that all can agree on. Some believe the universal reference frame is god therefore relativity is bad.
I once had a math professor who spent years working on various mathematical proofs that would “disprove” relativity. As if his proof would eliminate the actual evidence for relativity.
LM Wanderer
LM Wanderer, your prof sounds like the Intelligent Design guys with their barrage of mathematical proofs that evolution is just too unlikely. The evidence for evolution as something that had happened and would happen was a watertight case by the time Darwin published.
The “we’ve learned a lot since Darwin” idea is best phrased, IMHO, along the lines of, “Darwin knew about steam engines. But we’ve learned enough to build racing cars and jet planes, even though he didn’t know how. Our knowledge of evolution has grown in comparable ways.”