Many organizations should not take sides in the evolution controversy
Unfortunately, many organizations that should be neutral about the evolution controversy -- including scientific organizations and religious denominations -- have taken sides in the controversy. Of course, taking sides is OK for an organization that is dedicated to taking sides in the controversy, e.g., the so-called National Center for Science Education, but when other kinds of organizations take sides, it is unfair to members who disagree with the position taken and there is often a false impression of the extent of members' support of the position -- in fact, in some cases a majority of members could oppose the position. A recent example of an organization which IMO has improperly taken sides is the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences -- an NCSE news report says,
.
The Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences recently issued a statement on creationism, beginning, "Canadian media report growing public pressure to introduce Creationism and its equivalent Intelligent Design (ID) in school curricula, hinting that Creationism/ID is a 'theory', thus suggesting that it shares common ground with science-based theories. Such reporting ignores the fundamental difference between faith and measurable facts. . . . .
.
"Creationism and ID do not qualify as science, because the scientific method is not deployed and these ideas are therefore not theories or hypotheses in universally accepted scientific sense," the statement continues. "Hence, Creationism and ID do not belong in any K-12 science curriculum." The Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences describes itself as "the unified voice of more than 15 Canadian learned and professional earth science societies"; it represents more than 15,000 practicing earth scientists in Canada.
.
Labels: Evolution controversy (3 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/22/2008 08:26:00 AM
24 Comments:
The Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences certainl has every reason to object to people trying to thrust religion into science education.
If anyone wants to teach creationism or ID, they should be taught under the subjects of religion or mythology, where they rightly belong.
>>>>>> The Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences certainl has every reason to object to people trying to thrust religion into science education. <<<<<<
It's none of their business.
>>>>>> If anyone wants to teach creationism or ID, they should be taught under the subjects of religion or mythology, where they rightly belong. <<<<<<
Again I ask: why should scientific or pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution be taught by people who have no expertise in biology -- e.g., parents, pastors, and social studies teachers? Would it be OK to have philosophy or bible studies be taught by science teachers? And even biology teachers may have little or no knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (a fairly common challenge to evolution), which is primarily in the domain of physicists and mechanical engineers.
> It's none of their business. <
Wrong, dunghill. Science is their business.
> Again I ask: why should scientific or pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution be taught by people who have no expertise in biology -- e.g., parents, pastors, and social studies teachers? <
Why should pseudoscientific anything be taught by anyone?
> Would it be OK to have philosophy or bible studies be taught by science teachers? <
No, but you want to have creationism and ID taught by science teachers. Are you too stupid to see the inconsistency?
> And even biology teachers may have little or no knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics <
You claim to have been an engineer and you have demonstrated little or no knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I haven't read back through all of your blog posts so maybe you've covered this before, but I'm curious - what challenge does the second law of thermodynamics hold for evolution?
>>>>>> Science is their business. <<<<<<
Science teaching is not their business. And their business is geology, not biology (though there is an overlap in paleontology). Also, the organization should not presume to represent all of its members on a controversial issue.
>>>>>> Why should pseudoscientific anything be taught by anyone? <<<<<<
You Darwinists keep saying that ID should be taught by parents, pastors, social studies teachers, etc..
>>>>>> but you want to have creationism and ID taught by science teachers. Are you too stupid to see the inconsistency? <<<<<<
There is no inconsistency -- biology teachers are the best qualified people to teach those subjects as they relate to biology and evolution theory.
>>>>>> You claim to have been an engineer and you have demonstrated little or no knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. <<<<<<
Again, the troll tries to change the subject by making me the issue. I don't "claim" to be an engineer -- I am an engineer. You lousy trolls will just say anything to attack me, regardless of whether there is any truth to it or not. I have a post about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in my "non-ID criticisms of evolution" post-label group listed in the sidebar. If you have any comments to make about that post, you are welcome to leave them there or here (if you only leave them there, you should post a link or notice here if you want others to read them).
smazero said,
>>>>> I haven't read back through all of your blog posts so maybe you've covered this before, but I'm curious - what challenge does the second law of thermodynamics hold for evolution? <<<<<
IMO it is not a valid challenge to evolution -- see this post. Also, this post is listed in the "non-ID criticisms of evolution" post-label group listed in the sidebar of the home page.
The fans of the old dogma of a perfectly mechanistic or materialistic evolution of all life, and thus a perfectly mindless evolution, continue to trumpet their absurd claim that ID is based upon faith, that it is not backed by any analysis of the evidence, etc. etc. In the long run they are destroying their own position by making these false claims.
It's a legitimate question whether the analysis of the biological evidence which Behe, Dembski, quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff, and many others have produced, really establishes that ID is correct; or is even probably correct? That's a question which may properly be debated; but the idea that the ID analysis itself is faith-based or religious, is mere ignorance and/or stupidity. ID, in itself, has nothing to do with religion.
> You Darwinists keep saying that ID should be taught by parents, pastors, social studies teachers, etc.. <
We don't say that it should be taught at all, but if it is, parents and pastors would be the best choice. After all, it is religion, not science.
> There is no inconsistency -- biology teachers are the best qualified people to teach those subjects as they relate to biology and evolution theory. <
Why should math teachers give part of their time to the alternate theories that claim that 2+2=3, etc.?
> I don't "claim" to be an engineer -- I am an engineer. <
According to the California Business and Professions code, to represent yourself to the public as an engineer, you must be a licensed engineer. Since you lost your license, you are no longer an engineer.
Why are you making yourself the subject?
> I have a post about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in my "non-ID criticisms of evolution" post-label group listed in the sidebar.<
Where you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
ViU driveled,
>>>>>> We don't say that it should be taught at all, but if it is, parents and pastors would be the best choice. After all, it is religion, not science. <<<<<<<
And they are the ones who are most likely to teach it as science instead of religion.
>>>>>According to the California Business and Professions code, to represent yourself to the public as an engineer, you must be a licensed engineer. <<<<<<<
Wrong -- that restriction applies only to how people represent themselves to the public when selling engineering services directly to the public.
>>>>>> Since you lost your license, you are no longer an engineer. <<<<<<
I did not "lose" my license -- I allowed it to expire. Any questions as to why will be treated as gossip and be deleted accordingly.
>>>>> Why are you making yourself the subject? <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill -- you are the one who raised the issue of my status as an engineer. And though I am not currently licensed, I am as much an engineer as anyone can possibly be.
>>>>> Where you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. <<<<<<
Show me what's wrong with my post about the 2nd Law, dunghill. And if I cannot properly discuss the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then how could a parent with a 6th-grade education do so?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous,
I didn't say that the questions are necessarily gossip -- I said that they would be treated as gossip. And speculation about my reasons for not renewing my registration will also be treated as gossip. It is a private matter.
> I didn't say that the questions are necessarily gossip -- I said that they would be treated as gossip. <
By redefining terms, you can claim that your arbitrary censorship is not the arbitrary censorship that it is.
Replying to posts that you have censored is extreme cowardace. Then again, we expect that of you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hectoring Hector barfed,
>>>>>> P.S. The bottom line is that we now know you are not an engineer. <<<<<<
I said that I have a rule against lies about objective facts, dunghill.
> I said that I have a rule against lies about objective facts, dunghill. <
According to that rule, much of what you post should be removed.
Annoyed by trolls, I long to leave this sphere
Of blogs where "Darwins" endlessly can burn
With frenzy, clueless, driven here by fear.
And yet the Net can help me, last, to learn,
Of trolls, their habits; whence they come, and why;
What leads them all to bray, or crudely yell;
What causes make them come, to falsify?
Is there some forest where selection's Hell
Of slaughter spawns them all? So war may speed
Each Darwinist forth, in such a vicious place,
That ruthless nature causes them to breed,
And each in turn must show a brutish face?
And should I find that this is really true,
I'll sympathize with trolls: yet hate them, too.
First of all...whew...this is one contentious blog. Were this my blog (I don't have or want one) I would need to have a roll of Tums handy to maintain it.
For some reason I have an image of "some guy" in L.A. typing furiously at comments on his blog, spilling soda on his chair, pulling at his unkempt hair. I have to say voice in the urbaness you are quite the thorn-in-his-side.
Larry, do you enjoy writing this blog at all? I know you work hard at it --I respect that, but man, it seems like a headache to have everyone attack just about every word you say.
What really needs to be clarified in this "controversy" is what is being objected to: the observed and verified science of evolution, that is, natural selection acting upon genetic information present in the genetic code resulting in diversity among species, or, the unobserved and wildly speculative Theory of Evolution that says God did not create humans but that they arose from an ape-like ancestor which arose from some other mammal which arose from some glob in the sea which came to life, uh, somehow, someway.
I assume it is the latter.
"Of course, taking sides is OK for an organization that is dedicated to taking sides in the controversy, e.g., the so-called National Center for Science Education"
I disagree here, unless they change their name to "National Center for Darwinian Education."
dootland said...
>>>>>> First of all...whew...this is one contentious blog. <<<<<<
What? You call this blog contentious? You should see some other blogs that specialize in the same issues as this blog. I am actually quite moderate.
>>>>>> I have to say voice in the urbaness you are quite the thorn-in-his-side. <<<<<<
LOL -- he is sort of a thorn in my side -- he clutters up this blog with comments containing nothing but insults, ad hominem attacks, lies, and dogmatic opinions unsupported by any facts or arguments. It is hard for me to get rid of his comments because of my no-censorship policy -- I finally established a new rule of censoring comments containing lies about objective facts, and that has enabled me to get rid of a lot of his comments. An example of such a lie that he kept repeating was that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law whereas Jones actually told the newspaper that the results of the school board election would not affect his decision.
>>>>> arry, do you enjoy writing this blog at all? I know you work hard at it --I respect that, but man, it seems like a headache to have everyone attack just about every word you say. <<<<<<
Let the lousy trolls attack -- they only make themselves and their positions look foolish. I am the one with the facts and sensible, logical arguments on my side.
>>>>>>> What really needs to be clarified in this "controversy" is what is being objected to: the observed and verified science of evolution, that is, natural selection acting upon genetic information present in the genetic code resulting in diversity among species, or, the unobserved and wildly speculative Theory of Evolution that says God did not create humans but that they arose from an ape-like ancestor which arose from some other mammal which arose from some glob in the sea which came to life, uh, somehow, someway. <<<<<<
So are you saying that theories are not scientific?
Also, as for "natural selection acting upon genetic information," how did the genetic information get there in the first place? Was it just random genetic variation or was there "front loading," i.e., was the genetic information pre-existing? I believe that recent research shows that some primitive organisms contain unexpressed genetic information for more advanced organisms.
Also, the co-evolution of obligate mutualism (i.e., total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants) and the co-evolution of complex parasitisms present problems for natural selection. For example, in the co-evolution of obligate mutualism, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., air, land in its different forms, and water in its different forms, there may be nothing to adapt to, and the reason why there may be nothing to adapt to is that the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. I discuss co-evolution in articles in the "non-ID criticisms of evolution" post-label group listed in the sidebar.
So are you saying that theories are not scientific?
No, I am saying there is a difference between sound theory and speculation. Evolution is known, observed science: creatures have genetic information that is largely expressed based upon favorable conditions in the environment, i.e., these favorable traits are "selected" because organisms with that trait survive better and produce more offspring who survive. The creature "changes" but it never changes outside of its kind: amphibians never become birds, for example, not in a hundred years, not in a hundred trillion years.
The extrapolation from the science of observed variation/mutation in a species to the speculation that all creatures descended from a common ancestor and ability to vary/mutate is the reason how an amoeba became a man is simply not observed, and stringing a bunch of old bones together in a fabricated clad is imaginative perhaps but not the truth.
An example of Natural Selection resulting in adaptation would be Darwin's finches: beak size can be based upon food availability particular to gathering by a particular beak type. The finch was programmed, by God, with information to allow the finch to survive in a variable environment.
The only other option is the information popped out of nowhere (absurd) or from a source that has always existed. Either blind, mindless matter has always existed and has been in motion (as Robert Ingersoll posits) and it assembled itself into complexity or God has always existed and arranged the atoms into complexity, gave life to the lifeless.
For me, it is impossible to accept that blind, mindless, dead and dumb matter can come to life on its own and develop via random processes the ability to see, think, hear, and speak let alone accept that motionless matter can spin itself into suns and planets. Basically. it all boils down to "where did the hydrogen come from and what moved it?"
Also, the co-evolution of obligate mutualism (i.e., total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants) and the co-evolution of complex parasitisms present problems for natural selection
Natural Selection is simply a mechanism that can induce change in an organism. I think your co-dependence example is correct in showing that some organisms do not change or cannot change (a prime candidate for extinction).
> It is hard for me to get rid of his comments because of my no-censorship policy <
Which he has never observed.
> I finally established a new rule of censoring comments containing lies about objective facts <
Which he has not applied to his own comments containing lies about objective facts. He has applied this censorship to proof, in the recent case of Kevin, that he had lied about objective facts.
> An example of such a lie that he kept repeating was that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law whereas Jones actually told the newspaper that the results of the school board election would not affect his decision. <
Larry keeps lying, misrepresenting, and "interpreting" what was actually said.
Larry has also redefined "gossip" to include any truth that he finds to be inconvenient. Is it any mystery as to why he is not taken seriously?
"where did the hydrogen come from and what moved it?"
God has gas? :-}
Jim Sherwood, poet laureate of Darwin doubters, strikes again. See comment of Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:33:00 PM.
Post a Comment
<< Home