One of the most vocal pro-creationist governors in the country, Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky (home of Ken Ham’s infamous creationist “museum”) has had his re-election bid go down in flames. This is fabulous news. Revere sees it as one more sign of the impending demise of the religious right — I can’t be quite so optimistic, since they always seem to resurrect themselves. Greg Laden is also pleased with the result. He also takes exception to the claim that creationism is properly taught in social studies and comparative religion classes — and to that, I’d add the frequent suggestion that it belongs in philosophy classes. It does a disservice to all of those disciplines. At best, it ought t be mentioned in abnormal psychology classes, as an example of the madness of crowds or of religious hysteria.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I got news for you, PZ — we don’t want it either…
Axis II, no doubt.
I am not sure that creationism deserves any kind of special mention in comparative religion or social science classes, other than to note in passing than the scientific consensus is that it is not scientific and that theologians generally consider it bad theology, at least at school level.
The issue as why people insist on believing in things for which not only there is no evidence but an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence is something I find of interest. What is about creationists that is different ? I have seen a number of suggestions. Ignorance is certainly a factor but cannot be the only one. I sometimes wonder is there is something different about the way creationist minds work that differs from rational people.
Poor ID creationism. The lunacy without a home.
Except in the churches, of course. But some of us would like to see those razed, boarded up, or converted into chicken coops or something, too.
PZ,
Here in the UK many rural churches are being put up for sale as they no longer have the numbers of worshippers to support them. There is one in the village where I live that has just been sold. Most are turned into rather nice homes. The builders may have been religious but they did have an eye for architectural detail in many cases.
Of course I imagine in the US the architectural merit of churches may be somewhat lower.
The study of Intelligent Design is a marvelous exercise in the theory of knowledge, and properly belongs in science class, where knowledge is useful.
=================================
Oh dear, here come the trolls :(
The same phenomenon is going on in the rural midwest, largely because of depopulation. Some of what we’re losing is actually quite fine: these beautiful old 19th century stave churches that were built by immigrant farm communities. Unfortunately, what’s happening is that people are moving away from traditional small towns into the big cities, where they fall into the ghastly abominations of the megachurches.
Count on creationists to point out where evolutionists depend on faith, that is on the elucidation of the mechanism of the development of the so-called ‘irreducible complexities’.
======================
Kim,
Theory of Knowledge is not a scientific theory but a philosophical one most commonly associated with Bertrand Russell.
It has no relevance to creationism/ID which rely on distortion and outright lying to make their case.
I see nothing wrong with teaching about religious beliefs (i.e. creationism) in a class about comparative religion (as long as it isn’t presented as more “true” than anything else covered in the class. It would be a poor religion class that didn’t cover something as interesting and important to religious belief as the creation story.
Of course, teaching it as truth is just as wrong in social studies/comparative religion as it is in science.
My point in #9, Onias, belongs in science class. Or would you prefer budding scientists be blind to their own blindness?
========================
Alright, I’ll bite.
Kim, you do realise that Behe’s definition of science (you know, the definition that allows Intelligent Design to be qualified as science) does not exclude astrology? Is astrology a “marvellous exercise in the theory of knowledge”?
Cycles. Ascendant. Descendant. Ascendant. Descendant. Cycle after cycle the peak ascendants don’t reach the strengths of the previous. Each trough descendant is deeper and broader than the one preceding.
There’s actually a law, named after some historian or sociologist, that describes this phenomenon. Can’t remember the name as I learned it 30+ years ago while hiding out in the High School library.
The rule goes: Societies surge back-and-forth to polar opposites with, over-time, the center of the population moving to a more liberal stance as things that weren’t acceptable, become routine. Anyway, I’ve been watching it for 30 years and it seems to hold true in its general principle.
Opening the door to valuable science classtime discussion being wasted on discussion of creationism/”intelligent design” is the reason that I am not mentioning PBS’ “Judgment Day” to my students nor am I showing any of that website’s clips, because those clips include valid criticisms of ID.
The schismatic ID thinking would be a valuable topic in sociology and philosophy only if all alternative views are examined.
Would love it if my students viewed it on their own, to stimulate their thinking. But I just do not want to waste their limited classtimes on non-science: want to focus them on science.
If classtime were allotted for discussion of the peculiar case of ID, I think (from previous attempts) that the fundamentalist students would not budge from their petrified thinking. And that those students who do currently apply critical thinking skills would not experience any enhancement of those skills (although they probably would
realize a decreased respect for some of their classmates’ thinking processes).
And so, Matt, science is the only route to knowledge?
===============================
What belongs in a science class is science and how science is done.
Since creationism/ID have at their core a rejection of the very foundations of how science works they do not belong as either part of science or how science works. They may have a role in other parts of the curiculum as examples of how people can believe stupid things despite the evidence.
Kim,
Correct. Science is the only route we have to knowing HOW the universe works.
Well done, you finally got it.
II think the Bible answers that for us quite well: “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.”
In short, since science, indirectly, questions and attacks faith, ID is the metaphorical “plucking out the eye.” And, as we know, a blind scientist can’t observe.
Cyan,
I rather suspect you are right. Whilst creationism/ID may in someways be good example of bad science/theology they probably carry to much baggage to make them useful as such.
You make the mistake of thinking I’m a creationist. I’m certain they underestimate the survival value of some of the ‘irreducible complexities’, for instance the clotting mechanism leads to the integrity of the internal milieu, and flagellae confer mobility. Can you imagine life without homeostass or mobility? I suspect they give an inadequate role to the immense amount of time during which these evolutionary advantages could be expressed.
I’m merely arguing that the ‘faith’ of evolutionists that the mechanism of development of the ‘irreducible complexities’ will ultimately be shown to be naturalistic is a good teaching point, one which it would be useful for scientists to understand.
You seem to want to have a lot of other arguments with me. Why is that?
=======================
Well, I have an aesthetic appreciation for creation myths but, then again, I’m not sure kids would share my enthusiasm.
Well, Matt, what I finally got is that you have meager expectations for human knowledge.
======================================================
To clarify post 22: I was talking about comparative religion, I’m too trigger-happy with the post button :)
To Kim: It’s not faith at all. It’s reasonable to assume that “irreducible complexity” will be explained away because every single other instance has already been explained away.
There are none so blind, Onias, as those who will not see. I’m not talking about creationist myths, I’m talking about a useful bit of understanding about the philosophy of science. You illustrate my point quite ingenuously, and blindly.
=================================
The question is (I think) really about time and editing– I don’t treat 20th century creationism in my history of science class anymore, because there’s so much more important material to convey. Creation does come up earlier, just as intelligent design comes up in the 18th/early 19th century material. Even then scientists recognized the emptiness of ‘Goddidit’– this was only ever a ‘what else can we say’ result, and the search for informative accounts in terms of secondary causes was seen as essential to any real scientific theory. The utter emptiness of ‘SomeunspecifiedIntelligentDesignerdidit’ (who knows its motives/purposes/ etc.) would have startled (and even frightened) Paley, who certainly had at least the goodness of God in mind as a real constraint on the process (the harshness of the natural world is still more dodged than recognized, despite Darwin’s clear recognition of the facts, and his limited effort to palliate them in terms of the general lack of fear and the swiftness of death in most cases). Sad to see the pygmies of intelligent design today, pursuing tattered remnants of an idea whose proponents were so much braver and more honest. It’s time to let this once-proud idea rest in peace, rather than artificially re-animating it and sending it out to totter around like a mindless theoretical zombie.
Kim,
Meagre expectations ?
Is knowing the size of the universe meagre ?
Is knowing how to eradicate smallpox meagre ?
Is knowing the structure of the atom meagre ?
Is being able to cure many diseases meagre ?
Is increasing human longevity meagre ?
Is the sense of wonder we get from knowing and doing these thing meagre ?
I would point out that religion or belief in god has never once cured a life threatening infection. Science has, millions of times. If I was to become ill tomorrow with a life threatening illness is not to priests or shaman I would look, it is to doctors and nurses, and the scientists and technicians who back them up.
Ah, yes, Onias, you are quite explicit with your faith; you even call it reasonable.
==========================
And you believe the ‘how’ is the only province for human knowledge, Matt?
========================================
Kim, I’m confused. You seem to be advocating a definition of science that includes a host of very unscientific methods of enquiry, yet you seem to be rebuking Matt for his positivism. If, by your definition, everything qualifies as science, does this not suggest that science is the only valid activity, just like Matt?
Kim,
No. But then I never said I did.
However science remain the only method we have for understanding how the universe works, despite your stupid claims otherwise. We tried using god to explain how in the past. It did not work. Invoking god explains nothing, but leaves even more to be explained. If the universe is hard to explain then how much harder is a god going to be to explain ?
And you, Bryson Brown, might find that if you brought ID into the classroom you might have an active discussion on your hands, that you might not otherwise have, and from which it is even conceivable you might learn something, never mind the kids. Try it, you might like it.
=======================
Kim, if I twist the door knob of my house with the expectation of it opening, is my expectation based on faith? No it’s not, it’s based on prior experience. There’s absolutely nothing irrational or faithful about rational expectation.
What are my ‘stupid claims’, Matt?
Now, ironically, I must be off. Continue in my absence.
============================
Onias,
A slight correction. I am not claiming science is the only way of knowing, but am claiming science is the only way of knowing the how. How the universe works is something that only science seems able to explain. No other methodology seems to work, especially “goddidit”. There are many issues science does not explain, or at least only in a small part. That humans are moral creatures can be explained by science but science only has an informative role in helping us decide what is moral.
Kim,
That creationism/ID are science ?
That would seem to meet the criteria of being stupid to me.
Bryson,
#26
succinct and appreciated
My apologies Matt.
And, of course, the creationist insults us, then leaves without addressing any of our rebuttals. Shit, I could have been doing something useful. I ALWAYS get baited by trolls.
Onias,
No problem.
As for Kim, he just following standard creationist/IDiot doctrine. Argue your you case until you see you are up against superior intellects and then run away :) I think it must be something that they get taught first day at fundie school.
1. No mistake. There is a polarity. Either nature evolved things or they were intelligently designed by a supernatural designer. The middle steps are smoke and mirrors and fall quickly to the problem of regression.
2. We have lots of arguments because we deal with liars like you all the time. Now, whether you’re lying to yourself is unknown, but there’s nothing in your arguments or rebuttals that isn’t Creationism Doctrine. No matter how many times you put your fingers in your ears and say say “la la la la you’ve proven nothing.”
3. You’re totally predictable. Every argument you’ve tried, or will likely try, has been shot down in flames a 1000 times before. At this point in time I’ll just point you to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Feel free to pick and choose which arguments you want to have and pretend that I’m making the rebuttal.
k thx bai.
They made me come back. Matt, that is not my ‘stupid claim’. Actually, I might stick around; you seem to have an inkling, but your tone is unscientific.
Buh bye for now.
===================================
Moses, have I made a single creationist argument?
Y’all are blind. Exactly the sort of blindness that a course in the theory of knowledge would help.
========================
Blind to what, dear Kim? Enlighten us foolish lost souls.
There is something different about creationism and its closet variety, ID. They are trying to sneak cretinism into our children’s science classes. This is part of the fundies attack on science and attempt to force their wacko lies onto the rest of us.
People believe all sorts of weird stuff. The Amish reject modern technology, scientologists believe billions of Thetan ghost roam the world, New Agers believe crystals have “powers”, and on and on. Since these groups aren’t forcing their ideology on us, no one much cares. Free country, last I heard.
No one would care about creos as long as they didn’t try to force their belief system on everyone else. They could wave their rattlesnakes around, tell scary stories about evolutionary biologists, and raise their kids to be voluntarily ignorant and stupid in peace. It isn’t the belief in 4,000 year old mythology, it is that they attempt to force it on everyone else.
Kim,
You have called for creationism/ID to be taught in science classes. That is from page one of the big creationist book of how to bullshit.
And what exactly is ‘good’ theology?
To the kim person:
What other avenues to legitimate knowledge are there outside of science, logic, and rationality?
Givea few examples of knowledgegained outside these realms. Your a great stone chucker but please lay your cards on the table.
Raven,
I understand that difference about creationists but I must not have made myself very clear. When I asked what is different I could equally have included the Amish in with the creationists or any other group that rejects reason in favour of superstition. I was just wondering why some people do that and some, like you, me and PZ do not. The oft cited reason is, as I said, education, but that does not seem to be sufficient to me.
Kim,
In all your posts here you have posited questions, but I cannot find any of your posts in which you provide any possible mechanisms by which to consider those questions could be addressed.
No substance.
Since this is a thread concerning science, which includes attempting to figure out the mechanisms by which events in nature occur, what is it that you are attempting to contribute to this discussion?
1) Can you answer this specifically, instead of vaguely?
2) Will you do so?
Uber,
You would need to ask a theologian. All I was doing was going on what the consensus seems to be about creationism/ID amongst theologians and that would seem to be that creationism is bad theology.
Yeah, the way I understand it is that YEC theologians believe that if any part of the Bible is wrong, it’s not the Revealed Word of God and is worthless. Mainstream theologians disagree.
RE#42: Teach creationism in a theory of knowledge (or epistemology) course? Aren’t such courses typically (and appropriately) taught in philosophy departments? And wasn’t that PZ’s original suggestion re. where creationism should be taught?
Note: I’ve only taught the design argument in my Intro to philsophy courses (Hume’s Dialogues — devastating). It isn’t actually a bad idea to teach it in an epistemology course, although it might be better suited to a philosophy of science course as an illustration of the difference between science and pseudo-science.
I sure would like there to be some class that discusses creationism, because there are lots of people who need to hear the counter-arguments.
I wouldn’t go as far as consensus.
That is an enduring question for the ages. The empirical fact is that humans believe all sorts of weird thing. Almost as many believe in astrology as creationism. 20% believe Copernicus was wrong. Currently the champions are Sunnis and Shiites who are killing each other over minor doctrinal disputes that date back 1400 years.
My answer would be, it is just human nature. Even the so called scientific socialism (communist) societies are (or were) full to the brim with superstitions.
Most of this is relatively harmless unless and until they start trying to force it on everyone else. The Amish aren’t roving the US in gangs cutting power lines and I don’t care if they have electricity or not either.
Well, the strange thing is that I don’t believe that theology is worthless, even as an atheist. The aspects of theology I despise are the pretensions of rationality among theologians like Alvin Plantinga (and, of course, the bigotry and intolerance). The best theologians, I find, are open fideists like Soren Kiergekaard.
*pretensions to rationality, my mistake.
Too bad I’m in that tiny minority of Americans who can’t drive to Kentucky in a day, otherwise I’d be tempted to go there and thank someone.
“The issue as why people insist on believing in things for which not only there is no evidence but an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence is something I find of interest. What is about creationists that is different?”
Nothing. It’s just the way the human mind works. Everyone’s mind works more or less the same way, and it takes years of training and experience in being wrong to learn how not to. (Or at least, how to do it less.)
People base their beliefs on what the people around them or like them believe, what they want to believe, whether it fits with what they already believe, on initial appearances, on apparent correlations, on respected authorities. The whole catalogue of fallacies and errors are well-known “bugs” in the software of the human mind.
Creationists are irrational on this topic, but on subjects in which they have less emotional investment they can be perfectly rational. But non-Creationists are often the same, having their own pet delusions about other subjects, and are just as stubborn about defending them. Even the scientist is no exception – the advantage the scientist has is that he or she recognises the fact, and has the technical tools with which to circumvent their own biases if they choose.
Kids should be taught the methods of science in such a way that if they ever do come across ID, they will be able to find the flaws in it on their own. You shouldn’t have to even mention it. If they can’t, or if it only takes a new disguise for it to gain converts again, science education has failed.
Peter,
Your points are good but as I am sure you would agree aimed at undergrads, not school students.
Now Peter, in your Philosophy of Science class are you going to have philosophers or scientists? And Matt, don’t let youngsters think about such things.
=======================
Not a single. Multiple.
Matt (#59)
I primarily have undergrads in mind. Although I do like the idea of teaching philosophy in high school, a philosophy of science course would be too advanced for most students at that level.
Kim (#60)
everyone who’s interested is welcome in my philosophy classes.
Uber #46, see my post #21. Cyan #48, see my post #6. That’s the whole deck, folks. Moses, in #40, seems to want to have a word with you, though.
======================================
Sorry. Had edit and blockquote problems. It was five posts, four well defined and frequently seen creationist arguments in those five posts.
Glad this one rational Kentuckian could help.
Kim, irreducible complexity is a celebration of ignorance. It states that since someone doesn’t understand how something could have evolved (and doesn’t bother checking the scientific literature to see if others have ideas), then it must have magically been poofed into existence.
That isn’t how science works. If you don’t understand something, you investigate it and try to understand it, not just throw your hands up and cite the supernatural.
When someone does come along and demonstrate that your example of irreducible complexity is neither, your god is down one miracle, a bit smaller and less grand.
You miss my point, Peter; this argument is pertinent for scientists to learn, and the younger the better.
But, keep ’em blind. Don’t let their poor feeble minds learn how to resist creationism on their own. You really sound more like propagandists and bookburners than scientists.
========================
Kim,
Along with Peter, I have no problems with schools students learning philosophy. I am not sure where you got the idea I was not in favour of that. Of course that does not mean that philosophy of science, and the role of creationism/ID within that is a suitable area of study.
Kim,
It’s necessary that students realise that creationism is a falsehood through instruction because creationist arguments are deceptively convincing, but fall apart after closer scrutiny. It’s easy for even the most keen and intelligent minds to fall prey to their lies if they don’t pursue the topic in greater depth, which is, quite frankly, a waste of time.
Kim,
When it comes to school the idea that a pupil is a “scientist” is a silly one. Certainly a pupil may have a keen interest in science that they intent to pursue at university but at school level education needs to expose students to a wide a range of subjects.
As for your stupid comment about us being book burners and propogandists, you really do seem to have problems with comprehension. Nowhere have I seen anyone advocate book burning or anything like it. What you have seen, and could not, or would not, see is people informing you that a person who advocates teaching creationism/ID in a science class in acting like a proponent of creationism/ID and not like someone who actually gives a toss about education.
kim,
You really,really don’t get it do you. Keeping it out of the classrooms as legit subject matter is necessary simply because so many come in to class already indoctrinated into silliness. Granting equal time to such obvious pseudoscience does nothing more than confuse students and take time away from teaching real science that can actually be applied in real world scenarios and not lala land.
Now if one wants to use ID as a foil to show why it’s bad science and pseudoscience and therefore irrevelant to scientific pursuits that angle has some traction. But to pretend it’s a way to knowledge just makes those that present it as such liars to children and they get enough of that already.
They need to know evolution is as well grounded as gravity.
And you still haven’t listed your ‘ways’ of knowing.
I think it’s a contradictory wasteland which has some minorly interesting arguments. Mainly I find it sad. Sad that grown men spend their only life doing it. I will give a hat tip to fideism in it’s many forms as I to appreciate the angle and find it honest.
Kim,
Something you seem to be ignorant of is that in order to tell psuedo-science from good science is that students need to learn critical thinking skills. Key among those is them asking “Where is the evidence”. Of course once that question is asked creationists/IDiots must lie as they know full well they have none.
Meanwhile, the position of Chief Gubernatorial ID Proponentsist has been transferred from Kentucky to Louisiana, where Bobby Jindal is hard at work devaluing his much-flaunted Ivy League/Oxford education.
Uber,
I think your first point is important, at least within the US. Creationism/ID is really too contentious a social issue to be useful as an example of pseudo-science. Of course it is not an issue at all within science as no reputable scientist will give creationism/ID the time of day.
Kim,
Your reply to my post #48 in your post #63 that your post #6 addresses my questions: nope, your #6 did not at all address my queries to you for elucidaton of your thinking.
Again, I request that you address my questions specifically, because I truly want to understand the flow of your thinking and thus its results.
Kim (#66) you may miss my point as well. I think everyone should study a little philosophy. And I’m inclined to think it would be a good idea for science students to study the philosophy of science, although I’m relectant to say that it ought to be a required course in science programs. But I do think philosophy of science would be a bad idea at the high school level. It’s really hard, and requires a background in philosophy, logic, and science to be properly understood. And I think students who come away with a very poor and/or distorted understanding of a subject matter are harmed rather than benefitted.
Damnitall, PZ! Quit sending us your rejects!
I am a philosopher. I study philosophy, write philosophy, and teach philosophy. Please, please listen to me when I say Intelligent Design Creationism has NO PLACE IN PHILOSOPHY CLASSES EITHER!!
Or rather, teaching about ID has the same use in a philosophy class as it has in your biology classes: It can serve as an illustration of error, as a textbook example of how NOT to do things.
Moses, Moses, Moses. You confuse ‘creationist argument’ with ‘argument made by creationists’. I specifically deny belief in creationism in post #21. My arguments are in the theories of education and knowledge, some of which theories are also made by creationists. Do you see?
Is that the bell? Well, until we meet again, don’t go trashing ideas like they are books to burn or something. Class dismissed.
===================
Now, of course, am laughing at myself for the creationist hoops that I’ve just attempted to jump through, when I see my latest attempt to get blood from a stone!
Dang, ‘some of which arguments are made by creationists.’ That won’t be on the quiz.
===========================
Peter,
Would I be right in thinking not least of your reasons for wanting to introduce school students to philosophy would be to show them how to think critically about issues ? After all critical thinking is a key skill in being a scientist but it useful no end of areas, not least in everyday life in learning how to tell when someone maybe conning you, or deciding who to vote for.
Matt (#80) you would be right.
Kim,
What “Arguments made by creationists” ? Lies do are not arguments, nor is willful ignorance an argument. I am not aware of a single issue raised by creationists that has the slightest merit, let alone be worthy of being introduced into a science class.
Peter, your concern for the fragility of your pupils’ minds is touching. You get extra credit.
==========================================
Matt, read Moses #61 post. I’ve half a mind to put that on the test.
========================================
G Felis: (#76)
PZ is not advocating pushing creationism/ID into Philosophy classes. Quite the opposite (bold added by me):
And I claim it is religious hysteria to refuse to consider discussing the error of Intelligent Design in science class. Now, that will be on the test.
====================================
kim wrote: And I claim it is religious hysteria to refuse to consider discussing the error of Intelligent Design in science class.
“religious hysteria” – that’s hilarious. And for a really tough problem to solve, why do these trolls keep saying goodbye and then come back with the same old crap over and over?
Kim,
Oh, I see. Very clever the way you keep shifting your position. In your first post, you said “the study of Intelligent Design is a marvellous exercise in the theory of knowledge” and later accused me of having “faith” that every instance of irreducible complexity will be explained away when, as I demonstrated, I did not: I had a justified and rational belief. Now, of course, you’re contradicting yourself by saying Intelligent Design is erroneous to get more attention. And here I am falling for it. Damn.
The perfect use for a discarded church is as a library. Let the temples of darkness become repositories of knowledge.
Kim,
You would have a point if creationism/ID was wrong science. The problem you face is it does even come into to the criteria of scientific ideas that were wrong. There are many of those, Darwin and Einstein amongst the scientists who put forward those ideas. Creationism/ID is not bad science, it is NON science. To borrow from Peter’s field it was what philosophers call a category error, or others have said is “not even wrong”. (I forget who said that, and I have consumed too much red wine to remember!). The simple fact is that creationism/ID has none of the things that mark even a wrong scientific hypothesis out from people talking out of their backsides.
GallileoWasaDenier (#58) wrote:
Excellent point, and excellent post. The critical thinking skills in science do not come naturally. What comes naturally are tendencies to rely on intuitions, simplistic analogies, fuzzy categories, pragmatic benefits, and subjective validation. Creationists and other pseudoscientists tend to see the issue as a matter of “who do you trust?” They think we just trust what the scientists say and do.
No. Science is what you use when you don’t trust scientists. They’re just ordinary human beings, who make mistakes same as everyone else. But the methods force them to be accountable — to each other, and to the evidence. That makes science much, much more rigorous than those methods which only make you accountable to “God.”
Surely the point is that the distinction between ID and science evidently isn’t taught in schools, since people can still fall for it. Now it may be, as people claim, that this is because that level of philosophy and logic is beyond schoolchildren, but in that case you ought to stop pretending that what you’re doing is teaching them science. You’re teaching them to accept the authority of scientists, rather than the authority of churchmen.
There are people who think peer reviewed journals accepted by a consensus of academics are inerrant, and those who think authorised scripture accepted by the consensus of Churchmen is inerrant. If they’re not already a believer in one or the other, it’s impossible for the poor kids to tell the difference.
(And I’ve met people who are genuinely confused about evolution who have said so.)
It’s really not all that complicated. You probably wouldn’t want to use ID or any other political controversy as a classroom example, because it already has too many preconceptions attached. But when it comes to what children need to learn about science, telling it from junk surely comes higher than many of the topics they cover. Not many non-scientists need to know the internal structure of the Earth or the base-pairs in DNA, but being able to spot pseudoscience is surely an utterly essential part of everyone’s mental toolkit?
Like I said, I probably wouldn’t use ID as an example until much later, but there are enough easier examples around to teach kids the signs. Isn’t that all Kim is asking?
GallileoWasADenier wrote:
Surely the point is that the distinction between ID and science evidently isn’t taught in schools, since people can still fall for it.
That isn’t the point at all as I guess you know full well. Only an idiot would think people fall for creationism because schools don’t teach kids the difference between fake science and actual science. Creationism is indoctrinated in children by churches and parents, and that is where it must be stopped. It’s very difficult for schools to reverse those early years of indoctrination.
If any of these trolls who moved over from the Stan Palmer thread wanted to learn about ID, all they would have to do is watch the PBS show on the Dover trial where the “science” of ID is laid bare for all to see.
I have a daughter in high school. The fact of the matter is that the science teachers barely have time to cover the material that the students will be responsible for on the high stakes tests that they must pass to earn their diplomas. Given the paucity of time, why should ‘intelligent design’ be given any special status over other discredited explanations from earlier eras of human history? Anybody calling for a unit comparing the geocentric and heliocentric descriptions of the universe? No? Anybody calling for a unit comparing the theory of humors–you know, blood, phlegm, black bile, yellow bile–with current descriptions of human physiology? No? Anybody calling for a unit comparing the theory of plate tectonics with earlier descriptions of a static earth? No? Why ‘privilege’ one and only one discredited theory? To encourage critical thinking you say? Puh-leese don’t make me laugh! If that were the case, it would not always be ‘intelligent design’ that is proposed as the means of helping students develop ‘critical thinking’. So stay out of my daughter’s classroom, Kim the Concern Troll! My daughter has enough to contend with without some disingenuous attempt to turn history on its head in order to ‘wedge’ religious advocacy into the public schools. Because that’s what crea–oops, sorry–intelligent design advocates try to do. They take an early nineteenth century watchmaker analogy that was ANSWERED by Darwin’s theory of natural selection and make it seem as if that analogy was the ANSWER TO the theory of natural selection so that they can say, “Hah! Materialist explanations are inadequate.” Critical thinking? Only in the alternative reality found in an Alice in Wonderland world where the sentence precedes the trial.
And talking of examples of the madness of crowds or of religious hysteria, anyone else see the hillbilly bitten by a rattlesnake in a church snake handling thing who died. Not enough faith apparently). Of course, this being the US, her family are suing…the hospital that treated her.
PZ posted on it yesterday.
‘kim’ is also crapping on Denialism
Wherein AGW is proven false in three brief posts:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/11/vikings_disprove_global_warmin.php#c634339
Heeheehee I’m sorry, I know it’s stereotypical, but I can’t help but imagine two Amish guys in homespun cloth ninja outfits cutting power lines using wheel-sharpened blades with wax-covered handles. “Quick, Zebadiah, to the escape buggy!”
pz said, “At best, it ought to be mentioned in abnormal psychology classes, as an example of the madness of crowds or of religious hysteria.”
dave munger said, “I got news for you, PZ — we don’t want it either…”
News, guys. Such events say more about psychology than all the studies based on game theory and interesting optical illusions ever will. The human mind is an emotional computing engine. Cognition is a service provided occasionally to human minds that is called up by emotional forces and delivers back its results as emotional inputs to that engine – to be further weighed.
Just because the emotional operation of the mind is largely invisible and incomprehensible to psychologists – doesn’t mean that humans “think” our way through life.
Wolfgang Pauli:
Peierls (1960) writes of Pauli, “… a friend showed him the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly ‘That’s not right. It’s not even wrong'”.[2]
tomh,
There certainly are some people who are prejudiced in favour of Creationism and don’t care about evidence, and thousands more who genuinely see it as a viable, rational alternative to the scientific version. They don’t know enough biology to spot the subtle flaws, and they don’t know enough about the tactics of the pseuds or how to find the truth because teachers haven’t taught them. Keeping Creationism out of schools can do nothing for the former. It is the latter you are fighting to save.
There’s a lot of pseudoscience out there apart from Creationism; people take homeopathic remedies and campaign to ban mobile phone masts and eat five organic fruit and veg a day. They invest in perpetual motion machines and believe opinion polls and government statistics. Most people do not go on to become scientists, and do not have much use for many of the things we teach them in science class. But if there is any part of science that people really need, it is how to spot bullshit. And if you teach them how to do so, and Creationism meets all the criteria, there will be a lot who will decide to have a think about that.
The entire point of the scientific method is to circumvent the investigator’s own prejudices and biases. It works even on Creationists, forcing them to deliberately and consciously lie in order to avoid drawing the correct conclusions. Some will, but most people won’t.
Parental indoctrination sets up initial beliefs, and science education breaks them down. If it cannot, if children cannot learn to overcome their own biases by looking for objective evidence, then they haven’t been taught any real science.
It doesn’t have to be ID used as an example, and it certainly shouldn’t be the only one, but something needs to be done.
—
PS. As it happens I do recall the old static Earth theory being discussed in geography lessons, and the four humours in history, and certainly the controversy over a dialogue concerning two world systems. I do not recall anyone failing to get the point.
Dim, Dim, Dim,
More than you. Creationist denying being a creationist in order to gain some pseudo-high-ground using an argument you think we’re too stupid to remember.
And, BTW, you did, specifically as cited, use creationist arguments. I even pointed to the chapter and verse.
Now go away. Your ID apologetics and rampant lying are boring. At least wallow in the Anthropomorphic projection of the finely tuned universe like David Puddle. Then you might have some amusement value.
So completely not surprised. I also recognize ‘kim”s particular style but I’ll be damned if I can remember which troll “kim” really is…
Dear “Kim”:
It’s been awhile sice this sort of prank has been played at this length here, but I now call “bullshit” and the game is over.
Collect your Loki points and go. And may we never meet again!
“As it happens I do recall the old static Earth theory being discussed in geography lessons, and the four humours in history, and certainly the controversy over a dialogue concerning two world systems. I do not recall anyone failing to get the point.”
GalileoWasADenier: I remember these outdated theories being mentioned as well when I was in school, but only in passing and merely for historical reasons, to illustrate the development of the scientific method over the centuries and to demonstrate its increasing power as an explanatory mechanism. This is not, however, what the crea-oops-intelligent design advocates are seeking. They seek to position their ancient narrative alongside natural selection as a legitimate alternative ‘scientific’ explanation for layers and layers of fossils and the current diversity of life. We do not ask our children to CHOOSE between geocentrism and heliocentrism, between a flat earth and a round one, between a dynamic earth and a static one, or between four humors and modern physiology; and the fact that only this one ancient explanation is singled out gives the lie to the claim that the motive of the intelligent design proponents is to encourage critical thinking rather than religiosity. And thus I say again: stay out of my daughter’s classroom! During the time set aside for the study of science, that’s what I expect her to be doing. And as for her other subjects, anyone who tries to wedge any creation narratives into her history or literature classes had better give equal time to the myriad attempts that ancient pre-scientific folk all over the globe have made to account for the world and its inhabitants. In short, I do not send my child to school to be proselytized by the sect that happens to be (for now) the majority sect in the US; nor do I expect my tax dollars to be used for such a purpose.
You know, true logic classes, I think, **might** sometimes do way more good than a morass of general facts, like classes are designed to provide. Case in point (and this will tell you how my mind works some times… lol) I recently got to thinking about the old theory of how vision worked. At one time it was concluded that some unseen thing projected from the eye of the observer, out into the world, where it would then strike an object, and thus return information about the object. We ironically use precisely this mechanism for raytracing, mostly because it doesn’t matter mathematically, and because its computationally insane to try to do it the “right” way. Basically, by going from camera to object, then from that to lights, you need a ray per pixel + how ever many extra rays are needed to increase precision of the result and handle reflections, multiple light sources, prism effects, etc. To do it the other way, you have no predictive means to determine “which” rays would effect the resulting image, so you would have to cast an near infinite number of them, the vast majority of which would never *reach* the camera.
Anyway. I got to thinking. What would it take to *prove* that the theory was wrong and that its the light source providing what the eye uses to observe the world, and not the eye? Well, the most obvious conclusion people would come up with is (this has to be based on stuff *available* to the people from that period): Build a maze of mirrors, so that when you light a candle can be seen through two openings, once lit, one path is short, the other is optically a mile in length. See if *both* light up at the same moment.
Wrong! It won’t work. All you have proven is that a longer path must be followed, not *which* potential source was producing the invisible thing used by the eye to see with, you haven’t proved that its the candle, instead of the eye. Second idea was to use a series of fire lighters, lined up on the tops of hills, and a fourth observer, but that probably wouldn’t work out either. The question is, without some way to measure light itself, and verify that it *is* causing some effect, would it even be possible to construct an experiment that could prove that its impossible for the *eye* to be generating some invisible *seeing ray*, instead of it being the light source itself that makes seeing possible?
The problem with logic and philosophy *both* is that you can only derive results for which he has at least “some” valid criteria to start with. If you reject the evidence, facts or criteria used to derive an answer, as ID/Creationists do, it becomes impossible to derive either philosophical or logical answers that are valid. Science is, on a basic level, the seeking of the basic facts, criteria and evidence needed to derive valid logical and philosophical arguments. ID and the like fail, not because they do not contain their own internal logic, or can’t be derived from certain criteria and facts, they are invalid because its ***only*** possible to derive them if you cherry pick the facts, deny evidence or both narrow your criteria to those things that have proven *necessary* to rational arguments, but also broaden some aspects of your criteria to arbitrarily include things for which no evidence or facts imply are either necessary, or pertinent to the questions. In other words, to derive logical conclusions, they have to include those things that are not logical, by anyone else’s standards, and exclude vast swaths of things that **are** valid.
The are a bunch of Greeks arguing about how, since they don’t know what light is, its only logical to conclude that the eye “sees” by the mechanism they describe. But they only get their by a) denying the evidence that says that light itself works very differently than they predict, and b) using thought experiments to reach their conclusions, because by throwing out the stuff needed to draw *correct* conclusions, they also throw out the facts and evidence needed to derive *any* physical experiment that wouldn’t confirm their perceptions. In the case of ID, they seem to have thrown out what is needed to make **any** real world experiment, but that’s beside the point, since their answers are also based solely on imaginary authority, with the concept of theory and their thought experiments thrown in as an after thought. That makes them far worse off than the Greeks though, who at least *tried* to come up with explanations and work out experiments to prove their ideas.
Using only the tools available to them, the original philosophers on vision couldn’t have “proven” one way or the other if the eye or the light was the “source” of what let them “see” things. With the tools ID allows itself… They can’t even do an experiment, regardless of how pointless it would be to conduct it. The ancients did science. ID proponents can’t even manage philosophy without screwing up.
GallileoWasADenier wrote:
… thousands more who genuinely see it as a viable, rational alternative to the scientific version. They don’t know enough biology to spot the subtle flaws,
They are brainwashed, addled with woo, authoritarian followers. They will never give up and will waste their entire lives living in a complex delusion; that is unless the trolls here represent the benefitting deluders themselves, which is not likely.
tomh wrote:
The problem with Creationism is that parts of it are wrong — and I think GallileoWasADenier is correct that Intelligent Design especially throws in enough esoteric details that you need to have a background in science to see the flaws — and parts of it “aren’t even wrong.” It’s a nasty combination of bad science, pseudoscience, and non-science.
If you can catch mistakes — or find a step-by-step evolutionary pathway to what was once considered “irreducible complexity” — then you more or less falsify it — which makes it bad science, at best. But as others point out, there is no actual “theory” in ID theory. At least Young Earth Creationism has a model. “Suddenly a miracle occurs” isn’t any kind of model at all. You really can’t falsify it — if nothing else, they can claim that God miraculously created the mechanisms of evolution, so there.
Kagehi (#106) makes an excellent analogy using discarded beliefs on how we see. Hadn’t thought of that.
A few have accused Creation/IDists as “lying.” Although they may be stating “things that are untrue,” does not ‘lying’ mean “knowing that what one utters is false?”
The problem, with Creation/IDists is their own failure to understand not only science but the basic principles of science and of scientific reasoning — i.e. the way one figures out truths.
The problem is not just that “People base their beliefs on what the people around them or like them believe, what they want to believe,” as GallileoWasADenier said, but that people tend to believe what they are first taught by authority figures that they trust (or have been led to trust).
I am quite certain that if I had been surrounded by Creationists (or simply creation believers) as a child, and went to schools where enough teachers/coaches/etc. were the same, then I too would, most likely, have been greatly influenced in my thinking, and in my way of thinking, toward their way of thinking.
The problem is, those not taught free/critical thinking, and sound scientific principles as a youngster, turn out to be like “Kim” who will never learn.
Poeple like “Kim” can only simply and forever resort to overly simplistic (which easily register in their minds as the “truth”) propaganda-like statements.
It is this propaganda coming from Governers and Preachers and other “Teachers” that are the real problem, though. Creationism and ID are propaganda. That is where they ultimately belong in academia.
Kagehi,
That’s a very good thought experiment. The way I would argue it is to suggest looking at shadows. Vision obviously involves an interaction of three things – the eye, the object seen, and the light. You not only have to cast a ray out from the eye to the object, but have to bounce it off the object to the light. The shapes of shadows where an object gets in the way of the light, and what you see when you stand either in or out of the shadow, demonstrates that there is something passing in straight lines from the light and past the object, and this “illumination” effect correlates perfectly with being able to see the brightness of the light when you stand there. Everybody sees a different subset of things from their different perspectives, but they all see the shadows in the same places.
So the light and shadows show that there is something behaving like geometrical rays coming out of the light independently of where the eye is, and whatever it is is closely connected to vision and brightness. To the extent that the positions and properties of the lights more than the eyes seem the primary determiner of those bits of the situation that are constant, I think the Greeks could have concluded they were the more fundamental cause and therefore the origin of the rays. But I’m not sure the question of which direction the effect goes has any meaning unless you know the effect takes a finite time to travel, and of course they couldn’t measure that. If they have no data on which to base a decision, the hypothesis or working theory is not unscientific so long as they leave the question open.
In thinking about the eye-ray theory, you ought to be asking whether the eye-ray stuff is physical, what makes it (and what effect making it has on the eye), whether it can be measured, how its predictions differ from alternative theories, and what is required for it to happen. You ought to be nervous that it has introduced a new and intangible ‘stuff’, and many unexplained mechanisms. You ought to be asking about optical effects – colours, coloured lights, textures, shadows, transparency, refraction, reflection, blindness, different people looking at the same scene, and so on to see if it all still makes sense.
Like the eye-rays, ID has its own internal problems which kids can be taught to look for. When told of a new theory to explain the world, ask questions about mechanisms, about whether it can be quantified, about how it is generalised, about the predictions it makes, about how it can be measured, about what pre-conditions it requires. Watch for warning signs of pseudoscience – does it make an attempt to follow the scientific method, is it quantifiable, repeatable, predictable, does it constantly shift ground when challenged, as questions are pursued does it get more or less vague, does it introduce new elements arbitrarily, does it posit properties of things without evidence, does it create or violate any symmetries or conservation laws, does it use arguments matching well-known logical fallacies, are any of the things they say or rely on false, do they use standard techniques for eliminating bias, are there any familiar counter-examples to its assertions or good reasons for their lack, when problems are explained away by citing additional effects do the additional degrees of freedom invalidate the significance of the places where they fit, and so forth.
You don’t necessarily have to use ID to illustrate it, but it can make a good example. I’d imagine you would probably spend need to spend a couple of lessons examining pseudoscience, you would want to pick out perhaps a dozen examples of both good and bad hypotheses to illustrate the different varieties, and I can’t see that you would want to spend more than ten or twenty minutes on ID. If you can’t demolish it in that time, you haven’t been paying attention.
“What a silly statement. There are no subtle flaws in creationism, the whole thing is based on a gigantic, in-your-face fairy tale.”
The creation story in Genesis is, yes, if it occurs to people to apply critical thinking to it. But ID and the general scepticism over macro-evolution are not so obvious. I’ve come across any number of people (agnostics and atheists even) who hold various confusions over the theory that lead them to doubt it, and believe scientists are exaggerating their certainty. They don’t believe Genesis for a second, but they doubt Darwin too. If you explain properly, rather than fob them off with arguments from authority, they accept the correction and are often much happier.
Yes, those maniacs who do the public debate circuit cannot be convinced by anything, and those who feel their emotional investment in their faith threatened will try to resist, but there are an awful lot of people out there who are honest in their wrong beliefs, and open to be persuaded.
“…but there are an awful lot of people out there who are honest in their wrong beliefs, and open to be persuaded.”
Agreed. Many times I’ve seen someone bring up something they’ve heard about, like errors in radiocarbon dating methods, or fish fossils on mountain tops, or whatever, and the people in the room will go, “Ah ha…that’s very interesting. They always feel like they’re being let in on a big secret, and you can tell that they are concerned that people aren’t being told the truth about these important “new findings”.
IMO, the spread of this kind of misinformation is the biggest contributing factor in the public debate about whether bible mythology should be taught alongside mainstream science.
Those who have gone to the Dark Side are experts in obfuscating the facts and sowing doubt in the minds of lay persons, until finally we have what we see today, a big morass of ignorance.
If science wasn’t such a low priority in this country, they wouldn’t be so easily duped.
GalileoWasADenier wrote:
The creation story in Genesis is, yes, if it occurs to people to apply critical thinking to it. But ID and the general scepticism over macro-evolution are not so obvious.
You were speaking of some other creation story? You seem to have a basic misconception about ID (and there is no “general scepticism over macro-evolution, by the way). ID not only has nothing to do with science, it is not pseudo-science, or even fake science. ID is a ploy, a semantic ploy, to try and get the Genesis story of creation into the schools once again. It no more belongs in a “critical thinking” class than it does in a philosophy class. And in spite of their resounding failure in Dover those brave folks at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere soldier on, secure in the knowledge that about 80% of Americans are maniacal religionists, that they have practically unlimited financial backing, and that all it takes is one Supreme Court decision and they won’t be sneaking into schools they’ll be marching in the front door. So don’t spread the smokescreen of macro-evolution and irreducible complexity, or whatever. Those gems were never meant to convince anybody, they just thicken the smoke.
ID is to philosophy as Twinkies are to food.
Great observation tomh! GalileoWasADenier is, imho, what I would call an ID insinuator. He works at seeming to be reasonable while gradually falsely defining “positive” or even neutral aspects of ID into every thread in which he is involved. He wants to inculcate the unwary and get them to agree with him on certain aspects of thought processes, scientific approaches, etc., which will then serve the creationist/ID quote miners quite well.
Omigod, even when it’s explained Moses can’t distinguish between arguments for creation and arguments made by creationists. No wonder you can’t understand me. You get a big fat ‘F’.
======================
I think “Kim” is a chat bot
Kim, you have about as much credibility at assigning grades on this site as a gnat has at assessing plans for a moon mission. Go back to the ID hole from which you’ve crawled; we just aren’t buying your nonsense here.
Well, it would explain a lot, don’t you think?
Face it people, we’ve been had. Arguing with an autonomous program.
Kim.
Tell us, so you cannot make yourself any extra wiggle room or move the goalposts further, A) what is it, exactly, that you believe, B) what is it that you are proposing be taught in science classrooms and C) what supposed good will it do to include your ideas in a curriculum. You are failing to impress anybody here with your schoolmarm impressions. Get to the point.
However, as a college bio prof, if you do happen to have an interesting idea, which I doubt, I might include it. For example, I include spoon bending to demonstrate misdirection and how scam artists work as part of a lab on critical thinking skills.
I’m calling it. Lets see your cards.
If you won’t get around to answering these, I think it may be time for a good old fashioned disemvoweling.
Robster:
A. #21
B. #6 & #21, a twofer.
C. Stimulate discussion.
And you get an E for Effort.
=================
Kim is just a troll, feeding off of provoking people.
If you have time to feed an ugly troll, your life is totally fucked up and you need to find a new one.
Look what happened to Kim. One day his life and mind got lost and he was unable to invent a new one. So as a ghoul, he parasitizes other people’s existence.
Darwin’s balls, another thread shot down.
Kim, please quit being obtuse. You suggested the marvelous possibilities for teaching ID in the classroom, and yet you refuse to say why. All that’s happening is,”You don’t understand ME!!”
And why should we try if you won’t quit being so inscrutable?
:/
It is useful for a scientist to understand the difference between belief and knowledge. That the most complex entities in the biological world were evolved is a matter of belief, that is, faith, because the mechanism of development is not elucidated, it is not known.
It’s simple. But you don’t see it. Believe me, the creationists do, and they are amazed at your blindness to faith.
=========================================
This is in fact an elementary point of beginning epistemology. Had some of you been exposed to the ID argument in your cribs, you might understand.
===================================
“That the most complex entities in the biological world were evolved is a matter of belief”
Wrong. It is, at worst, a reasonable assumption based on the facts that we know that mutation, natural selection, drift, and other such processes happen, and we know that they can alter the allelic frequencies of populations, and even spilt populations into subspecies, and eventually, reproductively isolated species (see talkorigins.org). We know all this happens, we know it can happen. We have NO evidence for any other processes effecting the same sorts of change, let alone some nebulously defined “intelligence” that the “leading lights” of ID steadfastly refuse to define, but one that seems to have the same skill set as a certain famous bronze-age deity. We have NO reason to believe that the process is anything other than naturalistic.
“And so, Matt, science is the only route to knowledge?”
Self-flagellation and peyote ingestion are other routes to knowledge, yes. But they’re not very good ones.
RF, you don’t know how those entities developed, you have a strong and well-grounded faith that they evolved through natural means.
You all state my point over and over. It is the word ‘faith’ that you have trouble with and it is synonymous with belief. But surely you do understand that you do not ‘know’ that those mechanisms developed naturally. You would be claiming knowledge that you do not have.
My point is simple. That you do not see it just exemplifies that elementary understanding of theory of knowledge is lacking, even among sophisticated scientists. It should be a no-brainer to concede to the IDers that ‘intelligent design’ is possible, and then proceed to demonstrate why it is highly improbable. But you can’t seem to do that. It’s just suppress that damnable idea….don’t you dare expose human minds to it.
Pitiful.
=================================
Nuts.
Why should I concede that something is possible when those proposing it can’t even come up with a coherent explanation of what that something is and how to tell if that something happened?
I’d be glad to explain to human minds exactly why ID is incoherent.
Truly, why should you concede that anything is possible?
========================================
Also, you’d be glad to explain to human minds exactly why ID is incoherent, but you won’t allow it to be discussed in school.
I believe I see my point, yet again. Why is it that you all seem to contest my point while illustrating it?
=================================
Exactly. What does “anything” even mean, that I should concede it?
For someone who is so keen on theory of knowledge, you certainly seem to be eager to make unsupported inferences.
I would be glad to explain to human minds exactly why ID is incoherent, and I would support this explanation being made in schools.
Kim, not willing to answer are you? Why are you afraid of putting your ideas down in print?
From what I can figure, you are an ID proponent, just another word for closeted creationist. Stimulate discussion just means teach the controversy.
There is no controversy since ID has no evidence.
How does that help discussion?
Is design possible? Lots of things are possible, but does that mean that they all can be examined by science? Obviously not. Is there evidence of design? Not really, even if you believe in a cruel idiot as the designer, as Behe seems to. However, the same weak evidence of a masochistic dunce is strong evidence for evolution, producing structures just good enough for survival, with organisms occupying all conceivable niches, including parasite of a parasite.
Without any evidence, but plenty of dishonesty and flashy PR, ID has no place in the introductory biology classroom, although I happily offer bonus points to my students for watching “Flock of Dodos.”
I answered, Rob. Was I too succinct?
Owlmirror, read my post #6. I’m happy you agree that intelligent design should be discussed in school. Here, I thought you were disagreeing with me.
======================================
kim wrote: …why ID is incoherent, but you won’t allow it to be discussed in school.
A good discussion to start with would be why, in their big science book, Of Pandas and People , the word creationism was changed to ‘intelligent design’ about 150 times, soon after the Supreme Court barred teaching creationism as science. The definition, of course, was identical. Let’s discuss the semantic games in science class. Good idea.
Omigod, did I just hear you say that ID could only be presented one way in school, Owlmirror. There is to be no discussion, only ex cathedra pronouncements? Perhaps you were educated this way?
================================
Yes, in science class, tomh. You are coming around.
=====================
The only reason to have a discussion is if there is some part of the explanation that was not understood.
Were you educated with the tenet that anything is possible?
Or were you taught that some things are plain facts, regardless of any confusion on your part?
“The only reason to have a discussion is if there is some part of the explanation that was not understood.”
Did I guess there was a need for argument about theories of education here? Did I hear my arguments about education called ‘creationist’, by the undiscerning?
I was educated with the tenet that if something cannot be disproven, it might be possible. You cannot falsify creationism, therefore it is possible.
=====================================
For someone who drones on about epistemology, you sure as hell don’t seem to understand it. “Faith” is belief without evidence. The belief that complexity evolved through natural means has a broad body of evidence in support. The conclusion is, in part, based on induction — but that is absolutely not the same thing as faith.
Of course, you already learned that in your theory of knowledge class, right?
Ah, I see. You’re just trying to get our goat by using the word “faith” over and over. Meh.
I haven’t even read most of this thread, I just wanted to jump in and shout,
BALLS
I don’t even know if that is intelligent or not (my thoughts tend to “not”)
but it needed to be said, nay, shouted, at the gentle people (notice how, by being nice to them personally, I seem gentle and accomodating) who happen to believe in any sort of “intelligent” (as many have pointed out, any god who created this mess of a universe has “some ‘splainin’ to do!” creator is at best incompetent. I feel no need to be good to my “fellow person”. I actualy hate them and wish they would die.
Most humans are pathetically stupid douchebags.
I am beyond the point where I pretend that I care about them. Am I wrong to want my (presumeably more intelligent) offspring to utterly subjugate those moronic trailer denizens who bought lotto tickets instead of beef jerkey?
There have been thousands of different theories of intelligent design creationism taught in the course of human history. All of them have exactly the same amount of evidence in favor of them yet they all claim that ALL other competing theories are untrue.
Does Kim seriously think we should teach ALL of them in science class?
If not, which one should we teach and by what criteria is Kim making that judgement.
I am in favor of teaching any theory that has the evidential basis to support it – as judged by the standard means of judging scientific consensus – the number of peer reviewed publications that show evidence in favor of each view.
Let the IDiots actually do some research and get some evidence to back their claims and then we might have a controversy worth discussing.
Frankly, any one would do, MartinC. That should be obvious if you’ve paid attention to my argument.
==================
IC
The term”irreducibly complex” is a contradiction in terms.
Irreducible means:
“r`re`du´ci`ble
a. 1. Incapable of being reduced, or brought into a different state; incapable of restoration to its proper or normal condition; as, an irreducible hernia.
2. (Math.) Incapable of being reduced to a simpler form of expression; as, an irreducible formula.
Irreducible case
(Alg.) a particular case in the solution of a cubic equation, in which the formula commonly employed contains an imaginary quantity, and therefore fails in its application.”
While complex means:
“# (n.) Assemblage of related things; collection; complication.
# (n.) Composed of two or more parts; composite; not simple; as, a complex being; a complex idea.
# (n.) Involving many parts; complicated; intricate.”
Quite simply a thing that is irreducible cannot be composed of more than one part while a thing that is complex has to be composed of two or more parts.
Given the normal usage of the English language a thing cannot be both irreducible and complex.
One of the hallmarks of a false pattern is complexity. Real patterns tend to have a basic simplicity about them – that simplicity and repetition is really what makes them a pattern. Imposed patterns – where we “find” a pattern that isn’t really there tend to be insanely complicated, with exceptions, variations, and numerous rules. A great example of this is language: when people try to define formal grammars for human languages, they tend to be utter monstrosities: human language doesn’t follow strict grammatical rules. So formal natural language grammars tend to have lots of rules. For example, one of my college textbooks develops an approximation of an English grammar – which is nowhere near complete – has 400 rules.
Mark chu-carrol
and so it goes
“Frankly, any one would do, MartinC”
Kim, if that is the case then you would have any objection to having the creation story of the flying spaghetti monster religion taught in schools. In fact of all the other creation stories it has the most empirical evidence backing it – the statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature comes to mind.
Despite it being the best and most convincing of all arguments of intelligent design it still, however, doesn’t belong in a science class since it doesn’t allow us to form models with predictive power regarding the natural world.
I voted for the winner! HUZZAH! This new Governor should usher in a new hope for the state of Kentucky. For one, he won on a platform of legalizing casinos in the state, so that’s 5 Billion dollars that Indiana, Ohio etc don’t get anymore :P
In other political news, my city of Lexington voted to allow liquor sales on sunday (FINALLY).
I’m also thinking about taking a field trip to the creationist museum one day for a good laugh. I’ve seen some clips, and photos of the exhibits… I really got to see this shit with my own eyes.
Hehe. Kim is deluded. Look at Kim the deluded one. Doesn’t know a logical fallacy if hit smacked her in the face with a wet fish.
evidence that kim is a troll :
1. he keeps whining about neglected alternative ways of knowing without ever mentioning one. He keeps howling about “irreducible complexities” without saying what they suppose to be and where is the evidence that they in fact do exist.
Continuing from T_U_T:
3. He/she keeps walking away to avoid listening to answers, but is obsessive enough to come back and repeat him/herself.
4. Attempts to draw comparisons to incomparable things in order to get attention.
ChemBob (#117) wrote:
Ok, I just scrolled back and reread GallileoWasADenier’s posts in this thread (the ones I could find on one quick pass anyway) and I don’t see this at all. I thought he was making excellent points on the nature of pseudoscience vs. science, the importance of teaching the distinction, and why both Intelligent Design and standard creationism fail to meet scientific criteria. His point — that nonscientific forms of thinking are common and standard to human beings in general — seems not only reasonable, but important to recognize if we’re going to properly address creationists AND other pseudoscientists. The problem is deeper than one issue.
I’ve read a lot of “teach the controversy moderates” and from what I can tell he doesn’t seem to fit the pattern. If he’s an “ID insinuator,” then either he’s damn subtle, or I’m pretty dense. Or you’re basing your assumptions on things he’s written elsewhere and I missed them.
Maybe you’ve both been misinterpreting him?
Kim, I was educated with the tenet that if something cannot be disproven, it might be possible. You cannot falsify creationism, therefore it is possible.
You are missing one important point here. If it cannot be falsified, it isn’t science. Hence, creationism and ID have no place in a science class.
Sastra, he was quite active on the “Hello, Stan Palmer!” thread and that was where I formed my opinion. Note even his moniker and what it insinuates, which was more obvious (re: global warming) on the other thread.
Then you were educated incorrectly. “Possibility”, for all practical purposes, can only apply to that for which there is at least some evidence.
I can show that creationism, where it makes testable claims, has been falsified, and even where it makes untestable claims, is self-contradictory, and therefore false for all reasonable and practical purposes, and therefore ought not be called “possible”.
ChemBob>
Ok, I didn’t bother to read the immense Stan Palmer thread — but why would someone who doesn’t accept global warming therefore be an Intelligent Design creationist? Or be into other pesudosciences? Granted, he’s dismissing the general scientific consensus, but the global warming issue itself doesn’t seem to fall into the same categories as creationism, homeopathy, or chi energy — all of which involve some sort of woo or supernaturalism.
You could still be right re the ID Insinuator label here, but I wouldn’t assume it based on what he’s said on this thread. Unless I overlooked some red flags, which is possible.
5. He/she puts a line of equals signs at the bottom of every comment.
1. Creationism is not science, therefore, it has no place in a science class.
2. Intelligent design is not science, it has no place in a science class.
3. Creationism and ID are religious doctrines, no more, no less. They have no independent life without the fundamentalist baseline that “god (pick one of many) created the world” and “the bible (or pick one of any other “holy” book) is the true word of god”.
4. Religion per se is not a subject worthy of individual lessons in any class in any school anywhere. It is, at the best, an issue that needs to be included as an understanding of the historical development of the human species.
5. In that context, by all means introduce creationism and ID as part of that historical journey. However, they are not part of science, they are not part of philosophy, they are not an “alternative” to evolution or any other scientific theory (using that word in the proper “scientific” way) – they are merely propaganda material.
6. Keep religion out of politics and out of school. There is no such thing as a christian/muslim/jewish child only religious parents with a fervour to indoctrinate.
7. Religion only survives by preying on the young, the weak and the vulnerable – we can, at least, seek to prevent the state from indoctrinating the young!
“Then you were educated incorrectly. “Possibility”, for all practical purposes, can only apply to that for which there is at least some evidence.”
Where’d you get your definition, and what makes you so certain you’re right? It doesn’t fit the dictionary definition, or my (limited) knowledge of subjuctive and epistemic possibility.
Wrt the actual post: While I am VERY glad Fletcher is gone I could’ve sworn I’ve hear Beshear say that he’d like schools to teach the controversy. I seem to remember him saying that during the primaries (I live in KY).
Sastra,
Thanks for the comment. Just in case there are any remaining doubts I’d like to make it perfectly clear – I don’t believe in intelligent design. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong. I want the theory dead. And I absolutely agree that introducing a false dichotomy by only putting up ID or one religion as an alternative, as if to say the two were in any way equivalent or the debate legitimate, is totally wrong. What I’m saying is that you can’t kill it by replacing one argument from authority with another, and that you still have to deal with it even if you refuse to debate it. You have to teach them enough of the scientific method to be able to see it for themselves.
And yes, I did come from the Stan Palmer thread, and you didn’t miss anything by not reading it. I’m against all pseudosciences and bad science generally. I’m not going to push what I think about AGW on anybody who isn’t interested, except where people make a point of being rude first. My views on it are complicated, and I don’t actually strictly speaking deny it anyway. But it’s off-topic, and nobody has been very rude yet, so its best to leave it.
Anyway, back on topic. The problem with the “tenet that if something cannot be disproven, it might be possible” is not that it isn’t possible, but that the possibility is effectively meaningless. A hypothetical entity that has no effects and no consequences could not have been the source of the concepts about it, so any such concept has to be an invention of the imagination alone. If it does have effects, then it’s measurable in principle and can be proven or disproven. The issue is methodological naturalism, that there is no point to proceeding in any other way than to assume things can be explained. It does not imply ontological naturalism, but that doesn’t matter because the latter doesn’t help the religious anyway.
Practical faith is based on reports of miracles and signs and tangible events, but these are well within the magisterium of science. If one believes because of miracles and interventions, because of evidence, then we can examine the evidence to see if the belief is well-founded, and find that it is not. The scientific method is perfectly appropriate to such a question. If one retreats to a totally silent and inactive deity, then it has to be invented because it could not have revealed itself.
Actually, GalileoWasADenier, You are wrong that shadows help. Shadows are calculated using the same ray path system that everything else is in ray tracing. The fact that they geometry is the same for different people isn’t relevant, since the path from them, to the shadow, then from the shadow to the light, is different, so it follows precise geometric rules that are identical, regardless of if its the light or the eye casting the ray. If it was otherwise, raytracing wouldn’t work. That is the fundamental problem. The math works **both** ways, so its impossible from the perspective of merely that math to derive a correct answer. The result is that you get either a anthropomorphic answer, i.e., the observer is causing a thing to be seen, or the correct one, that the observer is only seeing what came to them. To solve the problem you need some way to measure the thing that is producing the result. We can do that now, thus confirming that it must be the light producing the effect, but back then they simply wouldn’t have had the tools needed to achieve it. Put simply, even proving that there was a time difference between observations, such as if you have three people with fire pits set up, and one standing equal distance to all of them, you only prove that it takes time for the observation to be made by each person in the line, thus creating a delay when they light their fires, not that the fire(s) are the source of what is causing the vision.
Mind you, that experiment would cause some issues, since it at least would prove that time effects *when* a thing becomes observed, but it may not be sufficient to prove that the delay was caused by the *light* passing from the fire to the observer, and not from the eye, to the fire and back. Its just as possible to predict that the eye ray is twice as fast as the speed of light, and had to bounce back from the fire to let you “see”. As I said, the math works *either* direction, so you need some other means of measurement to assess if the light source is doing it, or the eye, and they simply didn’t have the tools.
The best I could think of would have been using the original experiment, then coating two screens with something phosphorescent, and placing the screens over the openings. that way, even though the light path differed, in principle they would have been measuring the *effect* on the screens, and not directly seeing the light source. It would make it harder to argue that the eye beam was simply taking longer to navigate the mirrors, but I am not sure if it would have been sufficient to prove the case, without, again, some way to measure the light itself.
Still, this is precisely the sort of experiment/thought experiment you *don’t* see from ID. Just lots of arguments about how things are impossible. lol
GalileoWasADenier wrote:
I want the theory dead.
There is no theory. ID is creationism, as has been shown over and over. Read the Dover transcript or watch the TV show.
you can’t kill it by replacing one argument from authority with another,
Evolution isn’t an argument from authority and it’s inane to suggest that it is.
you still have to deal with it even if you refuse to debate it.
Why do you have to deal with it any more than any other creation myth. All that needs to be done is to continue to keep creationism out of schools.
You have to teach them enough of the scientific method to be able to see it for themselves.
You think the scientific method isn’t taught? All that needs to be taught about ID is what a scam it is. Show them the facts and they can see for themselves.
Just because you haven’t seen the research doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You know what a bacterial flagellum is? Now go look up what the type III secretion system is. I wish you lots of fun.
The human blood-clotting mechanism is not irreducible; whales use a shorter one.
There are lots of bacteria without flagella (that’s the plural of flagellum). They are not mobile. They don’t need it.
Yes, in fact, it is.
There are lots of routes to belief, but science is the only route to knowledge. Beliefs may happen to be correct — but only science can figure out when something is wrong.
On the difference between belief and knowledge, let me quote — of all things — the Book of Mormon:
Just because you haven’t seen the research doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You know what a bacterial flagellum is? Now go look up what the type III secretion system is. I wish you lots of fun.
The human blood-clotting mechanism is not irreducible; whales use a shorter one.
There are lots of bacteria without flagella (that’s the plural of flagellum). They are not mobile. They don’t need it.
Yes, in fact, it is.
There are lots of routes to belief, but science is the only route to knowledge. Beliefs may happen to be correct — but only science can figure out when something is wrong.
On the difference between belief and knowledge, let me quote — of all things — the Book of Mormon:
Would it not be more accurate to say that they are not auto-propelled? After all, wind blows and water flows, and bacteria & their spores have been riding the currents for eons.
Owlmirror, that was downright poetic!
#160 “I could’ve sworn I’ve hear Beshear say that he’d like schools to teach the controversy.” I was curious about what you wrote and did a search. A debate with Fletcher in October came up. And an article about the debate quotes Beshear as stating that he “opposes the teaching of intelligent design in schools.” Go to:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/oct/04/fletcher-beshear-square-off-in-televised-debate/
That’s like saying “your tone is blue”. It doesn’t apply. Arguments can be unscientific; tones can’t.
the fact that you can’t see in the dark.
What have I missed?
…in the US debate about…
Why should he? Why should anyone care about who makes those arguments? They’re still wrong.
Nope. He has found the most parsimonious testable explanation for what we observe.
If something cannot be disproven even in principle, it’s a completely worthless idea, because if it’s wrong, we cannot find that out.
If you can’t answer the question “if I were wrong, how would I know?”, you aren’t doing science.
That said, how do you explain stupid design?
Nope. It’s based on the observation that the predictions deduced from the theory of evolution fit the observations.
That’s like saying “your tone is blue”. It doesn’t apply. Arguments can be unscientific; tones can’t.
the fact that you can’t see in the dark.
What have I missed?
…in the US debate about…
Why should he? Why should anyone care about who makes those arguments? They’re still wrong.
Nope. He has found the most parsimonious testable explanation for what we observe.
If something cannot be disproven even in principle, it’s a completely worthless idea, because if it’s wrong, we cannot find that out.
If you can’t answer the question “if I were wrong, how would I know?”, you aren’t doing science.
That said, how do you explain stupid design?
Nope. It’s based on the observation that the predictions deduced from the theory of evolution fit the observations.
Can I imagine life without mobility?
Nope.
Now please excuse me while I go outside and rake leaves.
It is useful for a scientist to understand the difference between belief and knowledge.
Knowledge is true justified belief (more accurately, as required by Gettier examples, properly justified true belief).
That the most complex entities in the biological world were evolved is a matter of belief, that is, faith, because the mechanism of development is not elucidated, it is not known…
It is the word ‘faith’ that you have trouble with and it is synonymous with belief
“faith” and “belief” are not synonyms, you ignorant troll. That you believe they are is not a matter of faith, but of being misinformed and too intellectually dishonest to examine your erroneous beliefs.
The theory of evolution is not based on faith, it’s based on inference to the best explanation — the epistemology of science, something you apparently know nothing of and do not understand.
Then you were educated incorrectly. “Possibility”, for all practical purposes, can only apply to that for which there is at least some evidence.
I would be wary of complaining about incorrect education when stating something so blatantly wrong. It’s possible that Lincoln’s nose itched a second before he was assassinated; there is no, and could not be any, evidence one way or the other, and the same is true of many other possibilities.
I was educated with the tenet that if something cannot be disproven, it might be possible. You cannot falsify creationism, therefore it is possible.
Yes, creationism is possible, troll; What of it? It’s also possible that every post marked as being from truth machine is actually a consequence of line noise and other data errors and that it is sheer coincidence that they appear to be in English and display common characteristics and that there is no human being producing them. Very unlikely, but possible. So effing what?
Also, you’d be glad to explain to human minds exactly why ID is incoherent, but you won’t allow it to be discussed in school.
Who won’t allow it to be discussed in school, troll? The objection is to teaching it as an alternate scientific theory, but it certainly can be discussed and often is.
The human blood-clotting mechanism is not irreducible; whales use a shorter one.
false; irrelevant. It is irreducible in the sense that no element can be removed and leave a functioning system, and the whale system is not simply the human system with removed components. The existence of irreducible systems was predicted as a consequence of the theory of evolution nearly a century ago. Irreducible doesn’t mean unevolvable — that’s Behe’s IDiotic mistake; his ridiculous strawman version of evolution as a series of additions doesn’t allow for the gene duplication/divergence/loss of redundancy that occurred in the evolution of the human blood clotting system.
The issue is methodological naturalism, that there is no point to proceeding in any other way than to assume things can be explained. It does not imply ontological naturalism, but that doesn’t matter because the latter doesn’t help the religious anyway.
Methodological naturalism is the view that the only useful causes are natural causes. It is implied by ontological naturalism, the view that the only causes are natural causes. And ontological naturalism is a tautology if “cause” and “natural” are properly understood.
Hm. You misunderstood, or I did not express myself clearly.
By “some evidence”, I don’t mean evidence of the event or thing itself (in your example, the itching of Lincoln’s nose), but rather, evidence for the precursors of the event or thing.
We do have evidence that Lincoln existed, and had a nose, and it is reasonable to infer that as a human, he occasionally itched. So the statement that it is possible Lincoln’s nose itched a second before he was assassinated does arise from something that has evidence.
Tomh,
“There is no theory. ID is creationism, as has been shown over and over. Read the Dover transcript or watch the TV show.”
“Theory” in the common English usage, not “scientific theory”. I’ll try to be more careful.
“Evolution isn’t an argument from authority and it’s inane to suggest that it is.”
I didn’t say it was. Evolution can be argued from evidence, or from authority. Doing the latter is fallacious, but people do it anyway. There are teachers who say evolution is true because a large number of scientists say it is, or that the evidence is so because many scientists say it is. It means the moment someone comes along and tells them scientists say something different, they believe it. That’s where pseudoscience comes from. Pseudoscience consists of non-scientific ideas dressed up as science in order to induce credulity amongst those taught “argument from scientific authority”. If people understood science enough to know not to trust scientists, it wouldn’t last a second.
“Why do you have to deal with it any more than any other creation myth. All that needs to be done is to continue to keep creationism out of schools.”
Exactly right. Religion is not the only issue, and you need to deal with all of them. But keeping it out of schools is not enough, because the moment they leave the school they’ll be exposed. In fact, they’ll still be exposed in school because other people’s kids will bring it in. You have to arm them with the mental tools to be able to resist it.
“You think the scientific method isn’t taught? All that needs to be taught about ID is what a scam it is. Show them the facts and they can see for themselves.”
No, it isn’t taught. People are taught the conclusions of science, a long lists of facts and techniques and explanations, but they are either not taught the method or don’t understand it. (As a number of the discussions I’ve seen here amply demonstrate.) Teaching nothing but that it is a scam is exactly the sort of argument from authority you have to avoid. That is not the scientific method! Enabling them to see it for themselves is exactly what I’m arguing for.
#167 Thanks for that! I am glad to be wrong!
False. An appeal to authority is not always fallacious.
Davis,
Nice one! That’s a very good 5 point checklist that should be followed, but I wasn’t talking about whether it was rational to rely on expert opinion, I was talking about whether it was scientific.
There are some obvious problems – how do you decide who is an expert if you don’t already know the answer, (Churchmen are often considered “experts” on God, for example), and is an apparent bias a cause or consequence of an expert’s objective opinion? (My biology teacher would lose her job if she said evolution wasn’t true, but is that a bias?)
Expert opinion and authority is valid evidence in support of a view, like correlation is of causation, but it is weak evidence. The point of the scientific method is to place experiment and observation as the only arbiters of truth. Trust in experts is a compromise that we are forced into by practicality, if we have to draw an immediate conclusion, and it is certainly rational to sometimes trust people, but it is a separate path to knowledge than science.
In my view, the preferred choice, even if an expert passes all five tests, is to still withhold judgement if one can.
Accepting arguments from authority is always a fallacy but may nevertheless be rational if you have nothing better. Accepting correlation implying causation is always a fallacy, but is sometimes better than nothing. And so on.
Unseriously, I’m wondering if the writer of that article, being an expert and authority on logic, could possibly be biased? Does (s)he pass the five-point list? :)