Lying to Advance a Cause
by BradfordWhy teaching evolution is dangerous is the title of an unheroic blog entry. From the blog:
Ed Darrell points out the competitive advantage this gives the rest of the world and how local the problem of Creationism is.
I rarely label a statement as a lie even though I might believe it is and rarely use the term liar but will make an exception in this case. Many have peddled the lie linking increasing adherents to Intelligent Design to a loss of competitive advantage for America vis a vis the rest of the world- in the educational, scientific and economic spheres. In the past I've gently corrected these misapprehensions by pointing out some simple facts.
Michael Behe's landmark book Darwin's Black Box was published in 1996. The Dover PA case took place after the twentieth century was history. Most papers published, which argue for intelligent design, were published within the last decade. The decline in objective test scores among American students began decades ago. The relative academic and economic performance of the United States was much higher in the middle of the 20th century than it became during the final half of that century. If you're into spin you can try to link those believing in Intelligent Design to a decline. But you have to rely on the ignorance of readers to do so. That leads me to another option- stupidity. Perhaps it is not really mendacity but stupidity and ignorance which embolden people to link a relatively obscure belief system, that has come about within the last few years, to a long term decline in America's academic and economic standing. It naturally couldn't have anything to do with the alarming rise of single parent families and the consequent poverty that often brings. And surely Obama and McCain and their considerably talented teams of analytical advisors would have noticed the link between Intelligent Design and America's woes and raised the political stakes accordingly. Readers beware. Your position on Intelligent Design- pro or con- does not really matter much to the larger world where impactful causes and effects are a concern.
And there are other quotes:
You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust.
In other words you have to manipulate others.
You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.
You not only manipulate, you must lie too.
If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don't you think?
What I think is that teaching integrity is more important than teaching biology or anything else for that matter. Short term lies have a tendency to backfire and surely do when students discover you are deliberately misleading them.
But there is one human trait where the two ideologies differ. That is Obedience. For conservatives, this is a positive human trait. For liberals, it is viewed quite negatively. Why?
Because the two ideologies view time and history differently.
Another self-indulgent fantasy. I can predict arguments and behavior of politicos with uncanny accuracy- both liberals and conservatives. It does not take much study. Most march lock-step with the prevailing ideological norms within their camps. They also obediantly make ideological adjustments when required. A brief review of history suffices to make the case.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
You could try to take it up with Coturnix on his own blog. Call him a liar in his face.
Some lies to kids are apparently OK. Like stories about Santa Claus. Or about cdesignproponentsists. Where should one draw the line?
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 11:59 am
August 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Raevmo said:
Are you seriously comparing teaching evolution with Santa Claus???
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — August 29, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Raevmo has a tendecy to trivialize issues that mitigate against his prejudices.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
If he were physically present before me I would not hesitate. I noticed years ago when I first started commenting in internet forums that there was a distinct difference betweeen them and personal communication. I almost never am on the receiving end of verbal abuse when the person I'm communicating with is right in front of me. Yet it is commonplace on the net.
As for lying, he acknowledges it as a tool to promote his goal. The end justifies the means for him.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Bradford:
It's uncanny! I predicted you would say that.
In addition to being brave, you must also be a rather scary guy. Praise the Lord for the Atlantic Ocean.
What did he really acknowledge?
Is that really so bad? We're talking about a country here where some teachers do not teach evolution out of fear.
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Yes. It's called lying. Why would the pro-science crowd endorse lying about science?
A grotesque exageration. Teach in a detached manner the technical aspects of evolution and stay away from gratuitous remarks about "creationists." It's a strategy that works.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
This is hilarious!
What the heck is "cdesignproponentsists"?! just typing it out makes me giggle. Is it one of them names like "IDiot"?
On a more serious note…
This is a more serious problem as the backfiring of the lies might lead the student to an extreme position which the teacher most certainly wants to avoid. When a student discovers that teachers had presented simplistic accounts of natural history with purposefully misleading presentations, he/she is more likely to go into an emotional state becoming susceptible to the arguments of "Creationists". And thus, more likely to become what Coturnix doesn't want him/her to become.
This is one of those curious phenomena of the interwebs I have seen time and time again. People are more polite and considerate in person. Some of the lashings of the "science" crowd in the 'nets leads me to suppose that it might be a stress release mechanism: to let go of inhibitions online.
Comment by samsen — August 29, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
samsen:
Close but I think it is more like the flying spaghetti monster in that ID critics use it to show how outragously clever they can be.
Exactly. The type of manipulative teaching methods he advocates incur the possibility of sending the students in an intended direction. That's the danger behind manipulation. If the one manipulated catches on to what is happening, resentment is sure to follow. Simple honesty is best.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I think you're wrong, Bradford. My parents taught me that perfectly honest people repeat lies because they don’t know they are lies. To be a lie it has to be knowingly told. You have to know it’s a lie. From your link its obvious that many of these individuals don’t know anything, so they can’t be knowingly telling a lie. You'd have a tough time convincing me, Bradford, that some of these people even have the imagination to come up with a lie!
To tell a lie you have to have some contact with reality, and anyone who believes that ID has had any impact on anything (positive or negative) is obviously out of touch with reality. LOL
Comment by Rock — August 29, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Rock:
You have a point Rock but I did mention the ignorance/stupidity alternative hypothesis.
Another good point but a sad one.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
"But there is one human trait where the two ideologies differ. That is Obedience. For conservatives, this is a positive human trait. For liberals, it is viewed quite negatively. Why?"
What a load of bull on so many levels – and coming from a teacher no less! Yes – teachers just hate obedience, don't they? They just love it when students correct them in class or tell them they're wrong, or generally react against them. Shows initiative!
Yes, liberals and teachers dislike obedience. Talk about delusions on par with believing in Santa Claus. Add in some cognitive dissonance, since the article expressly relies on the authority figure status of teachers to 'undo' students' religious and political leanings. Let me guess: It's not obedience when it's directed towards their views and authority. It's just, er, right and proper.
Anyway, I'll see Bradford's 'liar' and raise 'idiot' as well. Coturnix just handed everyone who disagrees with him on science, philosophy, religion and politics a bludgeon to knock him and others around with for the next few years. "Coturnix thinks it's okay to lie and mislead students – not just people in general, but students in his trust – so long as it gets them to come around to his point of view." "Coturnix thinks a science teacher's job isn't only to teach science, but to covertly attack religious and political views." "Coturnix thought it was a bright idea to post this idiocy on his public blog, apparently unaware that people who disagree with him have also mastered the fine art of getting online and reading blogs." And finally, "Coturnix just spelled out what many others have always suspected about 'pro-science' types anyway – that the 'science' is at best a distant second concern."
And I say this as someone who's fully at home with evolution. But hey, I'm thankful – I favor self-learning and a healthy distrust of authority figures in general, and Coturnix's smug little error just advanced both causes. What a guy!
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Bradford:
Aren't you on your high horse today. The author speaks of temporary inaccuracies. In my experience that applies to a lot of the stuff being taught to children. First they get told some simplified versions that are easy to understand, to be replaced later by more difficult and more accurate material. Wouldn't you say? Or give an example of a lie being taught that you find outrageous.
samsen:
http://cdesignproponentsists.com/
Talk about lying.
Bradford:
Oh yeah? So it's not true that some teachers who teach evolution and stay away from such gratuitous remarks are harassed by fundamentalist bullies?
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Cdesign proponentsists a very rare transitional fossil between creationism and “intelligent design”.
Here's a video concerning the discovery of the direct physical evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Yes. It's called lying. Why would the pro-science crowd endorse lying about science?
Oh no. The author phrased it "some inaccuracies temporarily" meaning lies were to be told for a limited period of time. The ether theory of the 19th century was a temporary inaccuracy. Replaced by a better scientific understanding. No, these are deliberate lies. Inaccuracies deliberately conveyed by those with knowledge of the truth and in a position of trust.
Don't confuse simplified with false. Mommy and daddy make babies may be simplified but it is not false.
Bradford:
A grotesque exageration. Teach in a detached manner the technical aspects of evolution and stay away from gratuitous remarks about "creationists." It's a strategy that works.
Some is not a broad sweeping depiction and calling your assertion an exageration is not lying.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Cotournix:
Oh, that's the biggest, stinkiest pile of excrement I've encountered in ages! Who *is* this bigot? Oh… online community manager for PLoS-ONE. Too bad. I've been very supportive of PLoS.
Bleeech!
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
nullasalus:
The whole blog entry is such BS. It is revealing that some critics not only cannot condemn it- they defend it.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
PLOS was a great idea. I hope he is not indicative of the quality of their employees.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Hey Zach and Raevmo,
Thanks for the info. I hope you realise that I did not know about that and my original question was due to ignorance. I don't know much about those trials. Seeing that word "cdesignproponentsists", the first thought that came to my mind was some ID critic might have made it up. But now I see.
Comment by samsen — August 29, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Bradford:
Oh no? How is "some inaccuracies temporarily" so different from "temporary inaccuracies"?
But the ether theory isn't taught in school as being accurate. We are taught that a compass points north, only later to be told that, more accurately, it actually points to the magnetic north pole. I suppose it's a terrible lie to teach children a compass points north.
What lies? Give an example.
By the way, my "talk about lying" didn't refer to your "grotesque exaggeration", but to the work of the cdesignproponentsists creators.
Finally, why was my question to nullasalus holed? Perhaps you assumed I was insultingly calling him Nobody Important, but that was in reference to a commenter by that name on Coturnix' blog.
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Raevmo:
One is an accurate quote and the other your paraphrase. The deliberate teaching of inaccuracies is lying.
The ether theory of the 19th century was a temporary inaccuracy. Replaced by a better scientific understanding.
The magnetic north pole is north. It is not teaching that it is south for the purpose of attacking creationists.
There were may commenters at that blog with uninsulting monikers. There are many possible identities of the one you singled out. What made you choose to link it to nullasalus?
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Bradford:
That is rubbish. Children are taught rough approximations to more accurate knowledge (and without them being told so) all the time. You are calling every teacher a liar.
Once again, please give an example of a lie being taught, one that you find especially appaling. I've asked this several times already. I wonder why you are so reluctant to answer.
Magnetic north and true north (along the axis of the earth' rotation) are not the same but inaccurately taught as the same. The rest of your comment is hard to understand. I thought the blog's point of being somewhat economical with accuracy (such as not mentioning human evolution for a while) was to NOT attack and offend creationists.
It was this remark:
Nullasalus said almost exactly the same to me once, and then he suddenly shows up on this thread. You do the math.
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The deliberate teaching of inaccuracies is lying.
Your reaction is rubbish. The blog author advocated teaching inaccuracies, not rough approximations. His view not mine.
The request is stupid. The blogger advocates lying. It indicates a proposal or intent even if it exists only in the demented mind of the advocate. Nobody is claiming teachers are currently lying, only that the blogger wishes they were.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Raevmo, my words stuck in your craw for so long? Flattering. Too bad I hold you in such low esteem, or I'd bother with an answer. It sounds like you made up your mind anyway.
As for the lies Cortunix advocates:
"You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step."
So, let's see. He thinks NOMA is wrong, but who cares? Use it as a tool, offer it up as accurate so you can 'gain their trust' and 'bring them over to your side'. Rather qualifies as advocating lying and deception.
Science has sides? Disagreements, sure, but sides to the point where you need to not only be polite, but deceptive?
"Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in the case of Campbell's school, and many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture."
Oh, so, this isn't just about science. It's about culture, political and religious. So Cortunix doesn't see a science teacher's role as, well. Teaching science. It's about getting them in line philosophically, religiously, and politically. But you can't -tell- them that – makes it harder to gain their trust, you know.
Then there's that interesting slight about how the conservative golden age may be a number of times, including 1930s Germany. Yeah, that's subtle. Cortunix is worse than deceptive – he's bad at it, cringe-worthy to see in action. Like the guy with a completely unconvincing hairpiece thinking about how everyone around him is a fool – they don't know he's bald! Meanwhile, most people are just wincing, trying to be polite and not notice how he looks like a damn fool.
Anyway, the whole screed is a laugh. "Progress = What comes next", to quote CS Lewis. Liberals good, conservatives bad. Conservatives defend authority and obedience, liberals merely enjoy teaching people to believe the correct things and see agreement as positive development. Why, the two positions couldn't be further apart!
Ah well. He's useful, at least. I look forward to seeing this post referenced and quoted ad nausea as a mixed example of deception, smugness, and narrow-mindedness in academia. I see the DI hurried up and placed a link to it as quickly as possible.
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
You can't really blame him as this is not a new strategy.
http://telicthoughts.com/the-end-justifies-the-means/
Don't worry, with practice numbness of conscience will set in and you won't feel so badly about violating your integrity.
Besides which, even if it were accidental, the practice has a long and useful history, including misleading scientists:
Fear not Defenders, authors Doolittle and Bapteste mean to offer no comfort to dissenters with their toppling of the tree:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.full
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
You're not really suggesting that the phylogenetic tree is a deception rather than an approximation? That would be like suggesting that teaching Newtonian physics is a deception.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The point is when deception is endorsed as a legitimate tool to "teach science" distrust is embedded in the system. That makes it more difficult to affirm legitimate scientific concepts.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Bradford,
Not only that, but really – this guy is only barely concerned with 'teaching science', judging by the content of his post. He obviously views teaching science as a means towards another end – getting people closer to the Right View on political, social, and religious topics. And it's worth wondering – if that's what's important to him, and he's already on record as seeing deception (telling them what they want to hear, just so he can gain their trust and get further with them, etc) as an a-okay means towards an end… what are the odds he's going to present an honest picture of science if he thinks it would harm his other aims?
Could it be that, for many people – and I'm not just talking about YECs here – this whole debate has never really been about the science at all?
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Hi Zach,
The remark about the numbing of the consciousness is a paraphrase from the first quote.
As you can see, when referencing the second quote, on ToL, I implied that the provision of inaccurate material is accidental. Depending upon your definition of "deception" the lack of intent might mitigate against its being the appropriate label. However, I don't think the tree metaphor can be called more of an approximation than misinformation anymore, considering that, given Doolittle's position, it is inapplicable, at best, to 2/3 of the earth's biomass and the majority of its geological time.
The greater point there is that Doolittle is saying the ToL has done its work, its gotten science on board, and now it can be abandoned.
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
nullasalus:
You're right. This is the anti-ID wedge strategy. The author and his defenders have a socio-political agenda and are not reluctant to use science as a cover to advance that agenda.
Good point. What concerns are driving a view of education witnessed here? Clearly they are not focused on a dispassionate overview of science. I recently posted on discoveries impacting our view of cosmology- more specifically the solar system formation. If a trend developed, making privilaged planet concepts much more strongly supported by scientific data, would this blogger be likely to support the objective teaching of such cosmological data or would he argue for its suppression to further socio-political aims? The latter looks more likely based on the blogger's admissions.
I became convinced of that years ago. Cortunix's blog is more evidence for the metaphysical sideshow which in reality is center stage for many.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Social agenda?
Weinberg already told us that destroying religious belief is the most important contribution that the teaching of science can make.
http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=43
If it's so important then a little mis-teaching of science couldn't hurt, either, if it forwards the agenda.
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:30 am
nullasalus:
That is too bad. Not that your esteem counts for much.
I don't read that as advocating lies. It seems to me Cortunix advocates a very careful and slow process of teaching children about evolution — children that have been brainwashed for years with creationist propaganda and that might get upset easily when confronted with the falsehood of their cherished anti-evolution beliefs.
And I still haven't seen a single example of a lie that Cortunix allegedly advocates. In contrast, I could offer many explicit examples of creationist lies and fabrication that children are spoon-fed. Adam walking with the dinosaurs, anyone? Where's the outrage about that? It smells here of hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Comment by Raevmo — August 30, 2008 @ 5:30 am
August 30th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Raevmo,
Of course you wouldn't, Raevmo. Because you're engaging in the kind of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics that would make Jack Chick look at you in awe and envy. The fact that Cortunix spends the vast amount of his article talking about how the purpose of education (science education, even!) isn't to learn and understand science, but to deprogram students – not only correct their views on evolution, but socially and politically as well – is lost to you. Or you're hoping that if you just refuse to accept it, it won't be true, in some weird Hitchhikers Guide tortured logic. No deception, no duplicity going on here, no sir! Cortunix says he thinks NOMA is a lie, but it's a useful tool and something he'll offer as truth in order to get at students – why, that's not a lie! It's just a method of educating! And he's not an authority figure either. He's your Big Brother.
And here's what you're reduced to. "Don't attack the guy I sympathize with! Attack people I dislike!" Stunning defense. You can practically taste the desperation.
Face it: Cortunix blew it, and wrote a stupid article that exposes him as being a pretty shallow individual and an untrustworthy authority figure (Yes, that's exactly what he is – he's not anti-authority, he's a competing authority.) Just suck it up, admit he made a mistake, and get on with being a good little atheist. I regularly point out when I think IDs, TEs, or otherwise make dumb or inexcusable moves. Clench your jaw, take a deep breath, and admit that even people you agree with can be wrong at times. It'll do you some good.
Comment by nullasalus — August 30, 2008 @ 6:52 am
August 30th, 2008 at 7:27 am
In my view, this is hyperbole, and does not tally with my reading of the article. Anyway, why don't you (and Bradford for that matter) take your concerns directly to Coturnix's blog? There does not seem to be any problem with posting comments there.
I will freely admit that people I generally disagree with can be right at times. Some of your comment at UD is to be commended for its independent thinking. You sometimes try harder than others to be open-minded. (You don't always succeed
)
Comment by Alan Fox — August 30, 2008 @ 7:27 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am
nullasalus, it's amusing to see you resort to insults and distortions of the facts. It tells me you know you have overplayed your hand.
That isn't lost to me, it simply isn't there. You want to see something that isn't there and presto, you see it.
Here's the quote that summarizes Cortunix approach best in my opinion:
I asked for an example of a lie advocated by Cortunix, and this is the best you could come up with:
Note that Cortunix doesn't say that NOMA is a lie. He says it is wrong, he disagrees with it. In other words, he seems to believe that science does disprove some religious beliefs (which it does. Adam walking with dinosaurs, anyone?) But he doesn't say that out loud in the classroom in order not to offend some students. You insist this is lying. At best a very inaccurate assessment of what was written, at worst a desperate lie.
Comment by Raevmo — August 30, 2008 @ 8:09 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Yes, I agree. We must give respect to the Earthling Overlords, the Bacteria. The phylogenetic tree only applies to oak trees, jellyfish, the male descendents of Genghis Khan, lions and tigers and bears, jalapeños, maiasaura, frogs, hominids, and ladybugs (not to mention many of the biological components of Bacteria). Hardly worth mentioning, but the Overlords think it's important to recognize the little peeps.
That would be contrary to the concept of "pattern pluralism". In any case, the phylogenetic tree applies to many of the taxa of primary interest to humans, such as, well, humans. Considering that life is an insignificant speck of the total matter in the universe, perhaps you would suggest that the study of biology should just be abandoned. But humans find humans interesting. Humans are funny that way.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 8:15 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Raevmo:
Why would we expect to find Coutunix citing specific lies to tell? His role is an advocate and in that role he clearly advocates manipulation and lying when used to neutallize conservative values. That should be a concern to anyone who values objective teaching of science. Of course if you are filled with hatred for people holding differing views then by all means become Nazi-like and follow a program laid out by Goebbels over half a century ago. Manipulate and lie to attain your ends.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:16 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Why would he even contemplate going there? Of course you don't say it aloud but that's simply because it is irrelevant to the teaching of biology. If you're talking about Adam instead of properties of DNA and mutations and other matters along these lines then you are going beyond your charge as a teacher.
When your best defense of someone is he does not think it is a lie but advocates using what he believes is wrong you are defending a manipulator and one who conceals his motives under the guise of science. Simply put, politics and religion are not concerns of biology teachers.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:20 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Cortunix devotes a good part of his blog to non-scientific issues like liberalism and conservatism and religion as well. Anyone who can't see that is either idelogically blinded or in need of remedial reading skills.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:24 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I've published my concerns about manipulative teaching methods here. The issue is bigger and more important than Coturnix. If your point is simply a matter of macho then internet exchanges are a poor forum to address that.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:40 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I've noticed that noone has supported the popular anti-ID meme that the decline of America's relative academic and economic competitiveness is attributable to ID. Who would contend that in the first place except one disinterested in facts that correlate two events and arrogant enough to think that educational and economic experts have missed such an "obvious linkage."
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:55 am
August 30th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Here is another quote indicating that the blog is more about socio-political issues than evolution:
A statement full of strawmen, stereotypes and inaccuracies. No conservatives of any standing cite Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany is symbols of a "Golden Age." State control of business is socialism in any case. Neither is there a desire to suppress women. Make them vice-presidents or presidents instead. There are the usual cherry picked facts though. Most women work not because they have some highly paid prestigious job that is preferable to caring for their kids. They work out of economic necessity. One bread winner was the norm in the USA in times past. That's not a myth. It is an unplesant reflection of where America has gone and is not analytically reducible to simplistic stereotyping like the type in evidence at the linked blog.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 9:14 am
August 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I assume the "lie" that Bradford is referring to relates to NOMA, not the phylogenetic tree. So let me address that issue.
NOMA is not just a philosophical position, but a political and scholastic position. Theology is down the hall. And the chapel is off the public school campus.
A teacher might discuss the flightpath of Santa Claus, and might direct students to watch on the official government NORAD Tracks Santa website. Is that a lie? Should a teacher be responsible for telling young children that Santa Claus does or does not exist? I thought that was already established in the affirmative by the New York Supreme Court.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 9:32 am
August 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Zachriel:
It has legal implications as well. Public school teachers are government employees. If they are responsible for teaching biology then let them do so without becoming entangled in political and religious matters. If it is illegal for the government to favor a religion it is also illegal to oppose religion or specific doctrines pertaining to it. You do not need to discuss Adam and Eve or Allah to teach students what DNA is or what mutations to DNA signify. You likewise do not need to endorse or debunk liberalism or conservatism. As a biology teacher all that is none of your business and meddling in those matters is not what you are paid to do.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 10:16 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Bradford:
Exactly, except for one quibble – theirs is the original wedge. The Fabian and Marxist movements have been working on this wedge for an entire century before the Discovery Institute Wedge document was written. If anything, the DI Wedge is the anti-wedge, a reactionary document declaring that the ground taken by the aforementioned subversive movements be reclaimed – a Reconquista, if you will.
Theirs is a Utopian vision that has undergone so many revisions that it now advocates Dystopia. Traditional Western society must be destroyed to make way for a new peaceful, "progressive" society.
The goal is peace.
To bring about peace, one must eliminate argument, one of the sources from which discord and strife originate. Arguments come from individuals thinking differently about what is right and what is wrong, what is the truth and what is not the truth. So "right", "wrong", and "truth" must be eliminated to bring about peace.
Strife also comes from the desire of individuals to possess things. So private ownership must be eliminated to bring about peace.
Conflict arises from jealousy as well. So all strong interpersonal relationships, particularly sexual relationships, must be diluted for jealousy to be eliminated. Celibacy is unnatural, so the only effective way to eliminate strong sexual bonds is to promote promiscuity, making sex as casual as shaking hands.
All of these things cannot be eliminated if most individuals are taught from their formative years that eliminating these things is unacceptable. So the three institutions responsible for educating children – family, religion, and school – must either be eliminated or seized.
So far, only one of these institutions is almost completely under control of the "progressives" – school. As you can read in the blogging professor's post (and other sources long before him), it is the instrument to undo the other two institutions.
That is why the current educational hegemony is scared as hell of the ID movement. It is an attack on their only stronghold.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 30, 2008 @ 11:29 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Here is another quote and a non-scientific one at that:
The reason each generation has an easier life is summed up in one word- technology. It is technological advances that have made life "better." When the larger picture is viewed we have not succeeded in eliminating wars, pestilance, violence or other behavioral ills that afflict humanity.
Why break with a prior worldview? Why not keep what works and discard what does not instead? The technological trend is not contingent on worldviews. The author's thinking is muddled.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 11:50 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Zach to Bradford:
What Cotournix said:
"You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust."
Surely this opinion by Cotournix bears some examination. How, exactly, does "truth" become a bludgeon, and why would it need the support of insults to any student's religion, parents or friends? This betrays a high degree of prejudice in the teacher, a ridiculous amount of disrespect for both his subject and his students, and a gross misconception by the teacher as to the difference between science and metaphysics.
It is clear (having spent some time in these debates) that borderline PDs, likely autistic spectrum cognitive disorders, narcissism, bigotry and serious metaphysical corruption are present in varying degrees in a lot of college level biology teachers. High school science teachers, on the other hand, are generally not specialists, generally don't hold Ph.D.s that could get them real work in the fields of science, and generally don't care more for the subject they're covering this year than for the speech or literature courses they taught last year. They've got approved textbooks and a lesson plan dictated from on high, and so long as they stick with what's on the test they'll still have a job next year.
Cotournix obviously doesn't know much about how the public education system in this country works. It is not the job of any public high school teacher to substitute his or her own metaphysics [religion] for the material his/her students must master in order to graduate. What he "bludgeons" his adult students with once they get to college is between him, his students, his department chair and the administration. Students are paying a lot of money for the privilege, so if they don't like being bludgeoned by a professor's religion and politics instead of the subject they've paid to be taught, they can lodge formal complaint.
NOMA isn't wrong. Metaphysics is not science, and science is not metaphysics. Looks like poor Cotournix had some very lousy brainwashers… er, teachers when he went to school if they never explained this to him. It's well past time he learned the truth, because he's corrupting the great advance that PLoS is and represents.
Seems to me that someone whose professional goal is to get his students to switch their loyalty and obedience responses from parents/society to himself – by means of deception – is just another wannabe mind-tyrant. He's not trying to 'free' anybody's mind, he's seeking converts to his religion. Thus in his own mind all dishonest tactics are justified.
Heck, I can see from his ridiculous exposition on liberalism that he has himself been brainwashed by someone who didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Maybe he's a recent immigrant. That would at least explain his abject ignorance of basic civics, sociopsychology and political science.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 11:50 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
angryoldfatman:
By linking evolution teaching strategies to social change the author has unwittingly reminded us of original wedges. But shhhh. Don't link them publicly. Conceal real intent behind a facade of concern for science.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 11:57 am
August 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Incidentally, using a man made symbol like Mickey Mouse to depict evolution really teaches a discerning student that intelligent input is linked to change. Is that the kind of message you want to send students Zachriel?
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi Joy,
As you know, I embrace NOMA and, therefore, disagree with Coturnix's opinion that it is wrong.
I am saddened that once again a thread about dueling metaphysics is more popular than threads about science. Unfortunately, it appears to be the way of things.
As for your question…
Simple facts can often be hurtful and insulting. People don't like to be reminded that 50% of them are below average. Teachers often use ""some inaccuracies temporarily" because the goal of teachers is to teach and promote self esteem in young minds.
If teachers were required to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth teaching gravity would be a very short "we don't know" or a very long and complicated discussion on curvature in four-dimensional space-time geometries. Attempting the latter would convince most adults they are stupid, much less middle-school children.
The insulting truth is that society promotes lying all the time for the greater good. Whether it is claiming a special status due to being "one nation, under God" or telling kids "Santa Claus is coming to town" the truth is intentionally rationalized or exaggerated.
The insulting truth is that it is obvious Bradford is more interested scoring Culture war points by complaining than trying to earnestly argue a point. An earnest argument would have, at a minimum, required inviting Coturnix to participate in the discussion of this thread.
The insulting truth is that people, myself included, tend to have more things to say in dueling metaphysics because opinions are like [vulgar part of buttocks], everyone has one.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
TP:
Bullshit. The subject is the teaching of high school biology in a mandatory, government controlled situation, not youthful self-esteem. Cotournix knows zip about teaching high school biology, but says it's perfectly okay to do that by means of deliberate deception to promote his political and metaphysical agenda. He also says it's fine if people go through the rest of their whole lives believing the lies they were taught, so long as they are "obedient" to the top-down authority of people who look and think a whole lot like him instead of believing anything he doesn't approve of or knowing what's true.
This is not someone out to promote independent thought, you know. This is someone who thinks science should be corrupted toward sociopolitical ends with lies, half-truths and other deceptive tactics to PREVENT them from thinking for themselves. No amount of lip service to "critical thinking" excuses deliberate deception.
Truth: He does not care that people believe falsehoods, he cares that they not believe what he personally doesn't want them to believe.
Given the sheer number of overgrown delinquents pretending to be scientists all over the internet spreading the simplistic, deceptive crap they were taught in high school as if it were Absolute Truth, I'd say Cotournix's game plan has had plenty of time to work its magic, and Americans still self-identify as religious rather than atheist 9-1. Obviously they don't believe the pablum and lies they were taught in high school, or simply reject it because it effects their lives not one whit.
Just another wannabe mind-tyrant who doesn't even understand the most basic of ideologies present in our system of government. If he wants to come here and explain himself he can. No one is stopping him. I expect he's smart enough to see that PZ gets the hits not for posts about science, but for posts railing on his personal offense that other people are free to believe what they choose to believe. Cotournix is bidding for the Culture War hits, he's not doing science. Yet here you are complaining about TT noticing. Go figure.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Why trivialize this with a reference to SC? What is the problem with teaching that DNA is part dioxyribose sugar, part phosphate group and part nitrogenous base? What is the problem with teaching that codons code for amino acids and that amino acids are the stuff of which proteins are composed? Why is it necessary to use deception to teach that changes we call mutations sometimes occur within DNA which alter proteins? Claiming that lies are needed is itself a lie. But it is a lie that is put forth by those claiming to represent scientific truth. Very sad indeed.
I'm earnestly arguing that the wedgies on your side of the fence de-link their classroom manipulations from their religious and political beliefs. I'm earnestly arguing that science be protected from those who would use it to introduce political Trojan Horses into classrooms. In short I'm pointing out that your failure to recognize the linked blog as a shot in the culture war indicates your own blindness.
He is as free as anyone to participate.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
In order to understand biology, you would have to discuss Common Descent, natural selection, divergence, adaptation, genetics, fossils, dinosaurs, millions of years, etc.
Some insist that Adam and Eve belong in biology classes. Some think you should discuss God. But these are not scientifically supported, so these discussions should be moved down the hall to the Theology or Philosophy departments.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Zachriel:
Right. Unfortunately Cotournix and others of his ilk would like to address those issues obliquely. Go with a counter-culture agenda thinly disguised as science. Smart biology teachers know how to teach biology without the culture war sideshow. I don't support bringing religion into classrooms. I'm hardly going to ignore those who bring anti-religious, politically loaded messages into classrooms.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hi Bradford and Joy,
I invited Coturnix to join the discussion.
Personally, I think it is more significant that our current president lied to get our nation into a preemptive war than the opinion of one controversial blogger who I didn't know existed before now.
No one worries about teaching "some inaccuracies temporarily" when it comes to gravity. OTOH, how evolution is taught in public schools is very much on a lot of people’s radar. Its not very likely extreme actions (in either direction) by biology teachers will go unnoticed for very long. I suggest that was a main point of Coturnix's thread titled Why teaching evolution is dangerous.
For the record, I'm not complaining about this thread. I am just saddened by its popularity. By all means, I hope you all enjoy the continuing discussion, especially if Coturnix decides to join in.
Meanwhile, I will try making more positive arguments in other TT threads.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Zach:
Public high schools don't have theology or philosophy departments. But that's okay, they don't need 'em. Adam, Eve and God aren't part of the mandated curriculum, and should not appear anywhere in the textbook. There was an issue with that some years ago, it's mostly been fixed by the textbook publishers excising entire theological arguments O-U-T.
So all a science teacher has to do is tell his students at the start of class that the US Constitution doesn't allow the teaching of religion in his classroom, so no theological discussions will be allowed. Here's the book, here's what you have to regurgitate to the test if you want to graduate. Now, let's get started…
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Why is it necessary to teach DNA and mutations inaccurately TP? What is the inaccurate BS all about?
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Simplifications are inevitable when teaching introductory genetics. A proper understanding of basic biology would also include Common Descent, natural selection, divergence, adaptation, fossils, dinosaurs, millions of years, etc.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Simplications and inaccuracies are not the same thing. I know. It's the spin.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Simplifications used in teaching are often inaccurate. For instance, two different weight stones dropped from the Tower of Pisa do not fall at the same rate, nor is the acceleration constant. Most of genetics doesn't work like Mendel's peas. Planets do not travel in elliptical orbits. And electrons are not like little planets circling the nucleus.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
FYI, I posted this on Coturnix's blog.
Hi Coturnix,
I am disappointed by not overly surprised you chose not to participate in an earnest discussion of your ideas. I notice Zachriel also told you about it. I suggest you would count him among the good guys. Your sweeping dismissal of debate tactics and what "they" will or won't do is inaccurate. While Telic Thoughts would generally be considered pro-ID, it isn't a safe haven for either side.
For example, my moniker is an announcement my agenda is to provoke independent thinking on both sides. I am a very vocal critic of the ID MOVEMENT yet I have a positive ID hypothesis fashioned after the Orch OR model of consciousness offered by Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Hameroff.
I am a frequent Telic Thoughts' contributer.
Since you won't come to Telic Thoughts, I'm compelled to come here (my compliments to you for having an open commenter policy).
While you stated some things I agree with, there are a few points of contention starting with your view that NOMA is wrong.
Western philosophy 101, is that the wise man knows he doesn't know (see Socrates 400BC). NOMA is about recognizing this. Those that embrace NOMA recognize and accept the existence of multiple Truths. I explain my version of NOMA as “Philosophy is about the search for Truth, science is about the search for usable knowledge.”
Embracing NOMA is a person choice. Most Young Earth Creationists and Dr. Myers choose to reject NOMA. Theistic evolutionist and earnest proponents of ID SCIENCE (e.g. myself) choose to embrace NOMA. I view it to be a hypocritical position to embrace NOMA only when it is convenient to do so. I disapprove when this is done be senior fellows of a certain “brain trust” based in Seattle. I also disapprove of it when a blogger promote others to do it too.
History is full of “mind tyrants” (a term TT’s Joy uses) who think they know the one and only Truth for all. Students deserve to be respected. Lying to them (even for their own good) isn’t showing respect. The truth isn’t hard because the truth is that no one knows the truth. Meanwhile, they can be given useful knowledge even if its use is limited to passing the next test.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
TP,
Are you sure? Maybe you can ask Cortunix if he considers you a useful idiot. You know, since you personally defend and offer NOMA, which he clearly believes is bunk, yet a useful way to gain students' trust and help divest them of any religious, social, or political beliefs he finds distasteful. Which, apparently, is what "let's do science!" is all about.
Raevmo,
If Cortunix believes that NOMA is wrong – yet he offers it up as truth, as a reason to regard science and metaphysics as distinct considerations, using it (in his own words) as a tool – then guess what? He's lying.
But hey, let's turn it around.
Let's say I was a biology teacher in a state where teaching ID was legal. There are some students raised by atheists in my class. When the lesson begins, I tell them that merely detecting design in nature has nothing to do with religion. I bring up NOMA to put them at ease, showing how science and metaphysics are distinct topics. I even mention that ID is merely an idea, a possible explanation for what we see.
Then I post on my blog how I think NOMA is utter nonsense, but it's a useful tool for getting students to let their intellectual guard down. What's more, I mention how I'm teaching ID because I view my role as a teacher as one that's meant to counter the backwards, deluded culture of their parents – and I go on to mention how my primary hope is that what I and others teach lessens the grasp their parents' beliefs hold on the students, leading them not only to Christianity, but politically and socially conservative beliefs. But hey, even if they don't go that far, it's better to have theism-friendly agnostics and quasi-deists than atheists.
Would I be lying? Would I be deceptive?
Comment by nullasalus — August 30, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
TP:
Yeah. That's happened before too. Think Gulf of Tonkin. Someday we might learn something, you never know.
I disapprove of all lies told for sociopolitical reasons. I have found in the course of my life that serious sociopolitical evil starts by ignoring, overlooking or tacitly approving a lot of "little" sociopolitical lies. This soon allows big sociopolitical lies that everybody will be sorry for.
Why should anybody teach "temporary inaccuracies" about gravity? Everyone from squirrels to polar bears knows gravity – we live right smack dab on a shell around a gravity well, for goodness' sake!
You teach that something we call "mass" – a property of matter, but not one that we can quantify definitively – attracts other mass to itself. Mass is observed to attract mass in certain ways we can formulate with some nifty mathematics [f=ma, inverse square], and this explains why we don't 'fall' off the planet into space and why our planet orbits the sun and why stars aggregate into galaxies and why there are gigantuan black hole 'engines' providing the center of mass for most galaxies we've examined – including ours. What We Think We Know, It Works. FAPP.
No lies here, no little untruths, no deceptions. Such things are completely unnecessary to science, and can only be considered corruptions of science. If your hypotheses are tentative and untested, just present them as tentative and untested. That doesn't change any hypothesis into something it's not. No one need present any hypothesis with lies.
I call foul. Teaching evolution isn't the least bit dangerous. I, my brother and my sisters were all taught evolution in high school. All our children were taught evolution in high school, my grandchildren were taught evolution in high school. We all passed the course without problem. We haven't launched any revolutions, murdered any of our fellow citizens, burned or bombed a single church, started any wars, or guillotined even one scientist (or preacher). This is, in short, just one of Coturnix's "little" lies.
It's NOT science that needs to be dishonestly presented wrapped in a lot of "little lies" (or any big ones). It's Coturnix's personal politics and anti-religious prejudice. He can keep that to himself, rant about it on his blog or at his workplace all he likes (if they don't fire him for it). He can't teach his personal politics and anti-religious prejudice to conscripted public school children on state time without running afoul of the US Constitution. THAT nefarious, illegal agenda is what needs lies and deception to shield itself from the light of truth and law.
Oddly enough, I have noticed that your arguments often tend to promote your personal politics and anti-religious prejudice too. We've all got political issues and personal prejudices, nothing unusual there. I have learned that one cannot earn liberty or respect by disrespecting others or abrogating their rights. I guess that's the good part of not spending my life in some ivory tower country club where lies and deceptions are not very cleverly crafted to serve sociopolitical goals We The People wouldn't support democratically. That has nothing to do with science, everything to do with the very authoritarianism Coturnix pretends he dislikes. My evolutionary bullshit detector is pegged, his deception isn't getting past me.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Zachriel:
The simplifications you cite are posed to advance understanding of conceptually difficult concepts. That was not the idea behind inaccuracies. The inaccuracies cited in the blog were to be used to counter religious and cultural norms the writer found odious. There is a huge difference in intent. I don't want teachers appointing themselves gods able to determine what cultural values are to be uprooted and which ones are OK.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Coturnix responded:
"I have no intention to waste my time "debating" Creationists over on Telic Thoughts – it is a useless activity because they do not debate honestly. There is really no debate to be had – they are plainly wrong on every point, but will NEVER acknowledge it (too weak egos for that)."
Hahahaha!!!!! [wipes eyes] That's truly a knee-slapper. Um… who was the one posting about lies and deceptions to sneak his sociopolitical agenda and anti-religious prejudice into high school science classes? LOL!!!
As I explained before, TP, this is not someone out to promote independent thought. If you stepped back a moment and pretended you were an disinterested observer, you'd have long ago noticed that about the Swamp denizens as well. Who had (last I checked) a total of 42 posts to "science" and tens of thousands to… um… whatever.
Coturnix does much better than that usually. Something recent must have hackled his haunches a bit.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. « Lying to Advance a Cause [...]
Pingback by 14 Important Science Questions - Telic Thoughts — August 30, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 1:27 am
I posted this on Coturnix's blog…
Hi Coturnix,
You asked…
The hypothesis that there is no such thing as true randomness because the universe, and the life in it, is the result of orchestrated quantum effects interconnected via four-dimensional space-time.
I would be disappointed if you used the "Creationist" label to describe me. I prefer "Quantum Quack". Feel free to use it if it strokes your ego to do so.
For your information I am copying and pasting my comments from here to Telic Thoughts. You might notice a slight increase in hits as people read your responses.
Yet you promote the "sneaky" and dishonest tactic of embracing it for your political agenda. If my previous comment was too subtle, this is no better than what the Discovery Institute is doing. Only pretending to embrace NOMA to achieve a desired end.
Dr. Myers' stand is the more ethical one. But what is a little lapse in ethics in the face of a moral imperative, right?
I disagree religion is about ethics, it is about morals. Ethics is something that can be scientifically studied and weighed (and has been). Morals, on the other hand, is a philosophical issue requiring a special and distinct toolset. Sound familiar? It would if you had read Gould's argument for NOMA.
Do you claim there is a single, absolute moral code for us all? Or, better yet, that no such moral code exists and Right and Wrong have no basis in reality?
My moral code is that encouraging ethical behavior is the Right thing to do. However, I do have some flexibility in that and recognize that others have more and/or less flexibility based on their moral codes.
Dr. Myers' moral code is apparently less flexible than yours. Does that make him "Right" and you "Wrong"? Or is it just possible that more than one code of "Right and Wrong" can exist allowing for multiple Truths?
By my standards, your position is hypocritical. I tend to put hypocritical actions in the "Wrong" category.
But I don't know the Truth, do you?
Apparently your version of "reality" is what can be scientifically determined. What if it can be mathematically and scientifically shown reality can't be known? What if there is a detectable NOMA wall separating science from Truth? Of course it can only be indirectly detected and only from the science side.
I hypothesize that in Quantum Mechanics (QM) there is just such a detectable wall. The quantum ERP paradox isn't a paradox, it is reality. Heisenberg observed a reality that can never be resolved completely. The quantum observation problem shows that consciousness DOES have a role in quantum outcomes.
This isn't a God-in-the-Gaps argument taking advantage of temporary ignorance. The ignorance is permanent. Sir Roger Penrose has used the same mathematical prowess he employed to model Black Holes to show Godel's incompleteness theorems applies to QM and consciousness.
But before I go too much deeper into the details of my "Truth" I hope I have provoked some independent thinking. At least in others if not you.
Finally, you state…
It HAS to be subversive because your version of Truth allows a moral imperative to override ethical concerns.
Funny, that is what the Dover school board defendents thought too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2008 @ 1:27 am
August 31st, 2008 at 2:24 am
TP,
While even I consider the exchange impressive – and I say this as someone who, of course, has gotten into quite some arguments with you in the past – I hope you're not intending to actually get anywhere. Mister Subversive there lives in as tidy a world as any religious zealot. There is no live possibility for him that he's wrong, partly or wholly, about these core things, much less that he doesn't understand NOMA (Philosophy and metaphysics are 'unreailty'?), or certainly religion (Every tenet disproved? That do unto others thing was falsified? God was falsified?).
But if you persist there, I hope you've got some thick skin. I'm not going to follow the thread, but I'm going to guess they've started calling you far worse than 'quack' at this point. And frankly, even if I disagree with a lot of your tacts, you deserve a better audience than a guy who is – let's face it – a low-rent PZ Myers.
Comment by nullasalus — August 31, 2008 @ 2:24 am
August 31st, 2008 at 2:41 am
True that, Null.
Surprising to me TP, I offer my congratulations. The admissions you got from what's-his-name in one exchange were breath-taking. Quite the ego that he would play those cards so freely and shamelessly.
Comment by Pez — August 31, 2008 @ 2:41 am
August 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
TP, it's alittle late…. but Happy Birthday!!
Comment by Doug — August 31, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Hi TP.
I echo the sentiments expressed by Pez and nullasalus. I also salute your clever smack down of Smokey at the swamp.
Comment by Bradford — August 31, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
Thank you for your comment. I find it amuzing that you would question the thickness of my skin. I have argued pro-ID positions on After the Bar Closes, Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. Coturnix overreached. I don't expect a direct admission from him, but I suspect the exchange might cause a slight re-evaluation of his presumptions. It not his, maybe some of his readers.
I doubt I am going to press on much further because I suspect Coturnix wasn't expecting a challenge from someone willing to actually defend NOMA. His post appeared to be mostly about preaching to the choir. If my suspicions are correct, he will be looking for a fast exit. The most likely exit is to declare a lack of interest in arguing with a "creationist" or "quantum quack".
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Hi Pez,
I appreciate your comment. It is further evidence of your status as an honest and worthy opponent.
You wrote…
If I know anything, it is the thought processes of an arrogant persona.
For the record, for some time I have regretted how I treated you in our initial debate over Behe's book. I underestimated you and shouldn't have.
Please except this very belated apology for my lapse in judgement.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the birthday greeting (from Facebook?).
This birthday had an unpleasant aspect to it. My license expired but I didn't notice until I was out of town on a business trip trying to rent a car.
It was a mess.
But to more pleasant thoughts, it was nice to hear from you again.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hi Bradford,
Thank you for your positive comment.
I am still saddened culture war fighting generates more interest than science, but this feeling is probably like wishing children wouldn't want candy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Hi TP,
Comment by Pez — August 31, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
August 31st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Hi Bradford,
I just noticed this topic was addressed by the Discovery Institute two days prior to you posting it. I am going to presume it wasn't your intent to use TT to simply amplify DI's voice.
Meanwhile, it looks like Cortunix has politely dropped our thread of discussion and has suggested it was due to a difference in definition of "subversive". I will be curious as to how you react to this response of mine….
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
September 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Pez: "“arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.” "
A telling statement of what he's really concerned about.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 1, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 am
I am coming to this discussion a bit late, but nevertheless thought I would add my comments to the OP.
It is odd that you seem to ignore what Ed Darrell said to support his claim:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/read-this-teaching-science-is-hard-made-harder-by-religious-claptrap/
It might alaso have been appropriate to link to the NY Times article that Darrell had, in turn, based his own argument on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Of course, if you are a creationist yourself, you start from the positiopn that evolution is just plain wrong, so it does not matter a jot if students ignore the lessons.
It is ironic – and not a little sad – that you accuse coturnix of dishonesty, and yet you attempt to refute him in this underhand manner. Coturnix specifically says "the problem of Creationism", and you counter that intelligent design has not been around more than a decade or so. I guess you are relying on the stupidity of the readers, eh?
As I said, ironic.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 2, 2008 @ 7:50 am
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 am
Excellent, my previous post has appeared – thanks.
Is this really true? I am none too familiar with US politics, so correct me if I am wrong here. I thought a huge slice of the US population reject evolution (is it something like 50%?). Any presidential candidate who goes on record as rejecting creationism (and it was creationism that Coturnix was talking about remember, not ID), he risks alienating a lot of voters. Is it possible that those talented teams of analytical advisors are advising the candidates to keep it quiet, to avoid commiting to one side or the other?
This is about persuading people to change their minds, and to see the truth. You can call that manipulation if you want, I suppose, if you want a debate based on emotions.
Is pretending that Coturnix is talking about ID when he specifically says creationism a lie or a temporary inaccuracy or what?
As others have pointed out, simplifications are common in science education. And indeed in science. If a chemist wants to know the outcome of a process, he is not going to work out the wavefunction of all the particles involved. Children are taught aboit Newton's laws of motion, because they are a good approximation, but that is a temportary inaccuracy until they can handle relativity.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 3, 2008 @ 7:23 am
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The Pixie citing Ed Darrell:
The US has less than a quarter of China's population. And while I agree that Americans don't tend to put as much importance on science education these days as it did when I was a kid and there was a "Moon Race" going on, neither are we the world's most up-and-coming superpower anymore. My father lost his excellent scientific/engineering job when the Apollo program shut down, as did thousands of other scientists and engineers. I've known more than a handful of excellent scientists and engineers who spent the rest of their lives tending bar or driving shuttle buses. If we've nothing for them to do, they'll be going elsewhere to find work, so what good does that do us?
China is the world's most up-and-coming superpower, and their emphasis on science and engineering reflects this. Thus I'm not surprised that they've more science students – they've a lot more people – nor am I scared by the fact that they come to the US to learn their craft.
Obviously, we still have some expertise to offer or they wouldn't be coming here to study, would they? And do you know how many of those who do come here from elsewhere end up staying here the rest of their careers/lives? You seem to forget this is a nation of immigrants. We don't care if the engineer on this project or that is ethnically Asian (or Indian, or African, or South American). No big deal, even like it's no big deal if our next door neighbors are ethnically Russian or African or Asian or Cuban or…
If there were truly a National Security issue involved with the number of foreign students accepted to our universities every year, our universities would not be accepting foreign students. If our universities were so lousy at science and engineering, no foreign students would bother.
It's really easy to twist numbers to bolster whatever weak point you want to make, but Ed's is downright lame right out of the starting block. Yes, we need to focus more attention on stimulating kids who grow up here to go into the fields, but there is no shortage of scientists or engineers. If the xenophobes want more WHITE, MALE scientists and engineers, well… good luck. Rich white folks have always been a minority among humans, and they didn't get all the brains.
Comment by Joy — September 3, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Do you think Ed honestly believes that creationism has had a major negative impact on science education in the US or do you side with Bradford, that Ed is being deliberately deceitful? Personally, I would be surprised if creationism had not had any effect, but I am sure there are numerous other factors too. Further, I believe that Ed and Coturnix honestly believe what they posted, whether it is right or wrong (but then, I expect Bradford honestly believes they are lying…).
This sounds very much like you are trying to imply they are racists without actually saying so. I really hope you will clarify what you were thinking when you wrote that. I saw nothing in Ed's or Coturnix's posts to suggest racism, and I find your attempt to associate them with racism to be in very bad taste.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 3, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Pixie:
Oh, I don't know if it's "deliberately deceitful" or just the usual fun with statistics used to bolster a weak point. Could be either one, really. After all, it was Coturnix who claimed it was okay to be deliberately deceitful in order to advance one's ideological cause.
As for creationism having a "major negative impact" on science education in the US, that's certainly bull. As I've mentioned repeatedly, I was taught evolution in high school 40 years ago, my children were taught evolution in high school 20 years ago, and my grandsons were taught evolution in school just last year and the year before. High schoolers don't qualify as "scientists and engineers" you know. That's why Coturnix says it's okay to lie to them and not worry if they believe those lies all their lives. Any issues with science and engineering with actual impact are on undergrad and graduate levels of ADULT education in colleges and universities. There are no shortage of science and engineering departments at any of the universities in my neck of the woods, I sure haven't seen any shortages elsewhere either.
Creationists generally don't become scientists or engineers, though they can if they want, so long as they take the courses and pass the tests and do the work. We don't have religious or ideological testing for college-level programs here any more than we have for registering to vote. What you believe on your own time is your own business, hardly anybody else cares. That said, even at the height of our scientific and technological prowess during the "Moon Race," scientists and engineers never represented more than 2.5% of the population. And as I've also said, being a specialist in rocket science (whatever) won't pay the bills if nobody's launching rockets. To spend 60 to 100,000 dollars on a Ph.D. education in a field with no jobs is dumb if you're going to earn your living flipping burgers at McD's or greeting customers at Walmart. It just is.
Their panic is economic, not educational. Better they should be more concerned about creating actual jobs for scientists and engineers than whining about how few students are paying dearly for their useless classes. We desperately need infrastructure overhaul, and we need a massive "Moon Race" type program to develop alternative energy technologies. We could always use some cool medical technologies, but those are just as useless if the citizens have no access. Problem is we've been robbed blind. Again. Whining about it won't change things.
Every time I see them whining about how Asians or Indians or somebody else of some other ethnicity is providing more scientists and engineers that "we" supposedly are, I like to remind them that their "we" is a serious minority and they'd just better get used to it. It's true. And whining about how other nations are spending more on their own modernization, technologies, scientific pursuits and great medical dreams than we are won't cut it either. OF COURSE they are. We've been robbed blind. Again.
Better they and their buddies all get out the vote this year and hope like hell science can dig us out of this rut. I believe it can, but only if the nation determines we're in need of rescue more than we're in need of more robber barons taking us all to the cleaners so there can be a "One World Government" where everybody's a Third World country.
IOW, they're scapegoating the wrong parties. If the nation isn't pursuing science and technology toward the future, we don't need scientists and technologists. That puts their precious tenure positions in some jeopardy. If they want to change things, they need to aim at what's wrong, not at the rock that impoverished and frightened everyday people are holding onto because they don't have anything else.
[sheesh!] These guys think they're so danged smart, too. Ha! Culture warriors, that's all. They're PART of the problem, they are not the solution.
Comment by Joy — September 3, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Really? So Coturnix isn't worried about any IDers or their arguments and/or beliefs in his class? He's concerned with creationists only? With all due respect, this isn't my first day (nor Bradford's) and I think it's clear what Courtnix means by "creationism"
I wonder who are these court-case-changed-language-diluted-message-wedging-creationists (Behe was their expert witness if memory serves)? What was the religious instruction they wanted in the science classes (don't remember that one?) Of course, sure it happened though, just like that, this guy's obviously an honest trustworthy fellow. The exact kind of authoritative science figure you'd hope for. All reason and logic, all the time. No fear and obfuscation coming from this guy. No sir. He wouldn't be deliberately deceptive,… unless of course it's for our own good.
At the end of the page he links to another of his blogs ( Creationism Is Just One Symptom Of Conservative Pathology which says:
See ID is just one of creationism's stripes.
There's yet another link to one of his blogs (Why Creationists Need To Be) which states:
(emphasis mine)ID, the sophisticated creationism. Cool.
He further list IDC(as he calls it) ideas under the heading of Arguments Put Forward By Creationists and also under the Arguments Put Forward By Critics Of Creationists that follows. Then there's even a graph which shows ID as a subset of Old Earth Creationism.
If you ask me, that whole page is much worse than the one Bradford posted in the OP. From that page's conclusion, I give you the anti-wedge stategy:
What Can Be Done?
Be afraid… be very afraid.
Wow!
Comment by Rob R. — September 3, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Who, Braford or Coturnix?
The 'smart' people he's agreeing with are linked to at the page.
Comment by Rob R. — September 3, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
My edit time-window hath passeth by.
Two posts up I wrote, "I give you the anti-wedge stategy[sic]" which should have read "I give you the anti-wedge wedge strategy." Because of course, it to is a wedge strategy in the same way the 'original' is.
Comment by Rob R. — September 3, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Rob R. says:
Of blowhards? On the Internet?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 3, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
'twas being facetious, Roger. I ain't skeered.
Comment by Rob R. — September 3, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Hi Rob,
Interesting choice of phrasing about being afraid. Here is a quote from Discovery Institute's Jonathan Wells…
"This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.
If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid." link
I am presuming your reference to Behe testifying was an indication of the Dover trial. The focus of that trial concerned a book titled Of Pandas and People which included….
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing. " page 99-100.
and, of course, there is also the infamous "cdesign proponentsists" showing up in a draft in response to the Edwards v Aguillard decision that made the open embracement of creationism a legal liability.
This is all unfortunate baggage that comes with the political/religious movement aspect of ID. That doesn't make earnest ID hypotheses and explorations by people like Mike Gene and others (including myself) invalid. It is my suggestion that trying to shield-bash ID critics for having their opinions is a distraction. A more constructive approach would be to present positive hypotheses and models (like the Orch OR model of consciousness).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
The Pixie Again says:
TP, I hate to say this, but you missed your cue.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 3, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I occasionally post on TheologyWeb, and curiously someone there recently posted on why he became and they abandoned YEC.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2431051
That last bit seems to tie in with Joy's "Creationists generally don't become scientists or engineers". By the way, Joy, you did not explain about your racism comment. I wonder why…
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 3, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Rob R
So he is talking about creationism and ID. Remember, Bradford says Coturnix is wrong because science education has been in decline since before ID started. Bradford's argument fails whether he is talking exclusively about creationism or creationism and ID. Think about it.
People like the DI, whose message has now been diluted to "teach the controversy".
That would be Genesis I.
Right. So when Coturnix is talking about creationism, he is including ID. And when he talks about the damage creationism has done to science education, he is talking about creationism, which for him includes ID. So the fact that the decline started before the advent of ID really has no bearing on his argument, does it?
Joy, actually. So Coturnix sees a link between racism and creationism. Are you saying he is just as bad as Joy? Coturnix links to a site that attempts to support the claim. Has Joy tried to support the claim at all? I object to baseless accusations of racism. If Joy supports her claim (if that is what it was) then I will applaud her for pointing it out for us. I have no idea if Coturnix is a racist or not, I had not come across him until this thread. However, I find the unsupported insinuation to be a pretty nasty way to debate, and I still hope Joy will explain that I have simply misunderstood her.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 3, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Hi Roger,
You're right, I missed it. Shame on me.
However, I don't remember if Pixie is a NOMA embracer or a NOMA rejector.
Pixie, do you think you know the one and only Truth for us all?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
'twas being facetious, TP. I ain't skeered.
Yes. My point being that the expert witness for ID was not a creationist. Nor would he agree with that quote from 'Pandas'. Do you disagree? Does that quote represent ID? I wasn't defending Dover nor 'Pandas' just pointing out that they didn't choose a creationist to represent ID.
For what it's worth, and along that same line: "Discovery Institute has long-opposed mandating ID in public schools, and adamantly opposed Dover's desire to pass a policy using Of Pandas and People and requiring the teaching of ID." {source} Also see: Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy
You mention, Of Pandas and People/Dover and cdesignproponentsists as examples (I assume) of an ID religious/political movement and that's not shield-bashing? Why doesn't Coturnix' wedge strategy offend you as much as the DI's.
PS,
You mention MikeGene and yourself but who are the "other earnest" ID hypothesizers you mention?
Comment by Rob R. — September 3, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Coturnix has just become my new favorite Pinheaded Culture Warrior! I love him and I never want him to shut up, ever!!!
Interestingly, a peek at the PLoS site says he teaches at, of all places, Wesleyan in North Carolina (A Methodist University!).
Single handedly destroying religious culture, and doing it while on God's payroll! You've just got to admire the chutzpah!
Comment by chunkdz — September 3, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Hi Rob,
You asked…
Did you read the comments I posted on his blog? (I copied them here)
Another example would be Dr. Behe in Darwin's Black Box. However, I found his followup EoE too much a negative attack. Punching holes in other hypotheses is a lot easier than defending one.
As for current. I think Joy has some good ideas. Mike Turner (EAM) might be another candidate, but I don't know how active he is. I also believe Dr. Walt Brown (www.creationscience.com) is in earnest, but people reasonably suspect my motives for mentioning him. However, Salvador Cordova thinks highly of his ideas and is recognised as an ID proponent.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
WRT cdesignproponentsists:
Same "{source}" listed in my last post.
Is mentioning the term "cdesignproponentsists" but not the explanation shield-bashing? If not, what is shield-bashing, and who's doing it.
Comment by Rob R. — September 3, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hi Rob,
You asked…
From a previous comment…
What I mean by "shield bashing" is posturing to be on the defensive side of the argument and painting the other side as the aggressor. A common example is to publicly declare a status of being a victim while suing. Militarily it is a very effective tactic. If you can force your opponent to attack you when you are in a defensive position, it usually goes badly for the attacker if it would otherwise be an even match. In debates, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Sometimes it gets to the point that the shield bashing opponents will try to force the other side to present both sides of the arguments (including definitions) so they can yell "Red Herring" or "Strawman". It is very easy to throw stones and make up arguments from a defensive position.
Picture a "fair" fight between a guy with a knife and someone with a buckler (medium sized shield held/attached to one arm). As they approach each other to start fighting the guy with the shield says "no fair, I am unarmed". In the moment of confusion, the shield-wielder lifts up his shield obscuring the vision of the other while protecting chest, neck and other vital areas and hits the knife-wielder with the shield/forearm combination. If the shield-wielder is appropriately experienced, he will know how to put his entire weight behind it while not exposing himself. The force of such a blow will likely cause the knife-wielder to be knocked off-balanced and maybe even knocked off his feet. This will inevitably lead to the knife-wielder moving his arms to regain balance or getting to his feet which would allow the shield-wielder to apply a devastating blow to the head. Even if the first blow isn't fatal, it would cause disorientation. Eventually, the fight will be over and the "unarmed" participant the winner.
BTW, bucklers were sometimes made with sharp edges and a spike.
I have engaged in shieldbashing in debates but I try to avoid it. A lot of people do it even if they are unconscious of it. It is too effective a tactic. Counter-attacks and counter-spin is generally viewed as acceptable behavior. However, counter-attacks are still attacks and counter-spin is still spin.
Am I shield-bashing now? I'm not sure. My main point was that it is distracting. See how distracting it is?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Hi Rob,
P.S. I was fascinated by the Dover case. I would be more than happy to discuss, in detail, what happened and why the outcome was a given.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Okay, I get what you mean now. And, yeah, it is distracting. Apologies for de-railing (we were off topic right?) the blog but….
:slowly pulls out his shield:
Hey TP, look over there! Is that Dembski?
*BASH*
… TP started it
Regards.
ETA: crossposted with ya TP, but sure If you want to I'll read what you've got.
Comment by Rob R. — September 3, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
September 4th, 2008 at 4:28 am
TP
I think it depends on what religion (or subset thereof) you are talking about. I can readily see how a Christian could embrace NOMA, but a YEC Christian certainly cannot. For me personally as an atheist, it is kind of like asking me if God is male: a non-question. I will argue against specific religious beliefs where they contradict science, without worrying about whether I embrace or reject NOMA.
I am far too modest to admit that around here!
If you look back at the context, I had just quoted Coturnix, "You cannot bludgeon kids with truth". When I said truth, I meant the truth as Coturnix believes it to be. I would guess that I agree with that truth, but that is the tentative truth of science, certainly not the Absolute Truth of religion.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 4, 2008 @ 4:28 am
September 4th, 2008 at 4:51 am
"True and False are attributes of speech, not of things. And where speech is not, there is neither Truth nor Falsehood." – Thomas Hobbes.
Surely the point of NOMA is it is unnecessary to address religious issues at all, when discussing things scientific. Reality and imagination need not impinge.
Add imaginary to real and things get complex.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 4, 2008 @ 4:51 am
September 4th, 2008 at 5:08 am
No sightings since he was expelled from ARN. But Turner was possibly more erascible than John Davison with his PEH when it came to answering queries on his EAM, which appeared to be just another "front loading" variation. If you think the EAM had legs, you might offer an answer to:
substituting EAM for front loading if you think there are significant differences between the two ideas.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 4, 2008 @ 5:08 am
September 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Alan Fox:
Front loading is compatible with EAM, but is not EAM. EAM postulates that adaptation in life forms arises first in the phenome, and only encoded in the genome (via epigenetic mechanisms primarily) after it has proved successful. IOW, it's an expression-related situation. The front loaded genome could be considered to contain the 'toolkit' from which all information is drawn, but it's the system itself that creatively organizes expression suites that serve its own survival and reproductive successes.
As the adaptive suites spread in the population, the various mechanisms of genome change can be put to use to "hardwire" the traits. Gene duplication, rearranging some transposable elements, moving genes from here to there to better allow for chromatin presentations of the entire multi-element suites, etc. Accidental/random SNPs are not one of the primary mechanisms, though they do occur via ionization, error, etc. These are retained if useful or neutral, selected out over time from the pool if harmful. EAM considers "random mutations" – primarily caused by what goes wrong with the processes of replication or exposure to mutagens – as the cause of diseases.
For the practical purposes of evolution (but not life itself in any individual organism), any disease-causing or contributing peculiarities of accumulated genetic damage that do not serve to hinder the reproductive success of the organism may persist in the population. IOW, if your genetic inheritance predisposes you to die of heart disease when you're 50 or 60, those genetic factors are not likely to be selected out of the population readily because they have no effect whatsoever on the number of children you produce.
Thus EAM postulates a genome that is, after 3.5 billion years of existence and evolution, a mixed bag of creative development and expansion serving telic purposes for the organism (any organism), plus accumulated damage and errors that serve evolution's telic purpose of limiting the life span of any individual member of any given population. After all, it's entirely obvious that if life were immortal, there would be no purpose in reproduction or evolution.
Evolution absolutely relies upon mortality. Life, on the other hand, strives mightily (and in vain) against it. The dynamic tension explains what we observe about these phenomena, but does not explain the actual nature of life itself. That's a different question altogether.
Comment by Joy — September 4, 2008 @ 10:44 am
September 4th, 2008 at 11:44 am
By phenome, do you mean the suite of phenotypes for a particular organism? "Phenome" does not seem to have established itself as a scientific term. You seem to be proposing violation of Crick's central Dogma, in that an existing attribute can be incorporated into genetic code. Would this not be commonly describes as Lamarkism?
You omit to mention what is the source of the new "phenome". ToE postulates mutations (plus HGT etc) as the source of new information. Is there a similar process with your "phenome"?
Evolution is impossible without death and reproduction, sure. So?
You omit to mention what mechanism matches the "phenomes" to the right organism in its particular environment. ToE postulates that natural selection results in differential survivability and inheritance so that adaptations are driven by an organism's* immediate environment.
(*breeding group of organisms)
Comment by Alan Fox — September 4, 2008 @ 11:44 am
September 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Alan Fox:
Yes, EAM is neo-Lamarckian in that it does propose that adaptations are not primarily accidental gene mutations, but epigenetic gene expression suiting organized by the system in response to selection pressures, or work-arounds (against damage) as the organism struggles for survival. These aren't always useful over time and can even become harmful, so can revert to original patterns if they don't work out. They get encoded only if they prove adaptive over time.
EAM is, unlike NDS, not gene-centric, and doesn't view organisms as passive vehicles for 'selfish' genes accidentally constructed and weeded mercilessly by exterior forces. Selection, in terms of evolution, is just differential rates of survival and reproductive prowess over generational time. Life is the struggle to survive and reproduce. Genes don't get selected, whole organisms do. NDS die-hards often can't see the forest for the trees.
We already know that epigenetic mechanisms are or can be heritable. We know they can change in response to stress. We know they're often reversible. And we know they can sometimes produce rather spectacular results in everything from coloring (camoflauge) to disease resistance to full-life developmental traits.
We might find dozens of individual genes in which SNPs, missing pieces, inverted elements and aa substitutions make them risks for developing cancer. Even though I am fairly convinced cancer is mostly an environmental issue per triggers. But if you stepped back for a moment and put theoretical loyalty aside for the sake of a larger, less deterministic view, you could consider an apparently epigenetic phenomenon like spontaneous remission of advanced cancer. It happens, doctors have seen it happen, they've no explanation at all for it. Whatever mutations may have contributed to its type, development, and course are immaterial at that point (though might show up again 20 years later if the same triggers are encountered).
I'd suggest it's a complex, rarely initiated (may need some specific genetic and epigenetic history) expression suite capable of literally eliminating cancerous cells overnight. If we could identify and understand it we could cure cancer. That certainly seems like reason enough to look with fresh eyes.
NDS is all about what goes wrong. Then it asserts as some sort of absolute that what goes wrong rarely produces something that just happens to go right for a specific individual organism in a certain environment with certain selective stresses. EAM is about what goes right – how the system is designed to work. I think that if our focus were on what goes right, we'd better understand what goes wrong. The primary, most useful and most lucrative application of this part of biological science is all about medicine. A better understanding would also help techno-applications in bioengineering, but medicine and pharmaceuticals are where the action is. The #1 reason we want to know what we are, where we came from, and how we work.
The current theoretical situation has scientists busy defending their 'orthodox' turf, central dogmas and ideological faith against heretics – often in their own ranks. They've turned the noble human quest for knowledge into a Culture War about whether or not God/gods exist! Obviously, this is a corruption. One that serves no scientific purpose at all.
Just the view of an EAMer. It made sense to me when I first heard about it, and it makes sense more and more as we learn more and more about life on the sub-cellular level. Something Charlie Darwin and Gregor Mendel never conceived of and would be completely amazed by. A design approach doesn't threaten Richard Dawkins' atheism one bit unless he's incredibly insecure in his faith. But it might prove immensely useful to humanity in terms of expanded knowledge, understanding and ability to shape or control.
FAPP. For All Practical Purposes. The job description of the collective endeavor we call "Science."
Comment by Joy — September 4, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
September 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Hi Joy,
Thanks for picking up the EAM discussion. I couldn't come close to giving it the justice you have.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
September 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
[...] Thought Provoker mentioned EAM while talking about FLE in another thread. [...]
Pingback by Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis - Telic Thoughts — September 4, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
September 9th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Responding to comments by Pixie:
Bradford: I rarely label a statement as a lie even though I might believe it is and rarely use the term liar but will make an exception in this case.
Not a shred of evidence making causal linkages between trade and education issues and trade and education data causally linked to creation beliefs. Not surprising since that type of supporting evidence is hard to come by, so Ed simply assumes it. Look at another Darrell quote:
Hmmm. So a better understanding of genomic dynamics like mutations and natural selection would yield a larger crop of trained engineers? There are many holes in these arguments. Can you identify them?
Nothing is said about China's vast pool of very cheap labor which has drawn manufacturers to relocate there. Nothing about China's lax environmental regulations which allow manufacturers considerable leeway and fewer expenses compared to what they would encounter if factories were U.S. based. Ed employs a simplistic analysis devoid even of scholarly statistical studies.
Bradford: In other words you have to manipulate others.
This is about refraining from honest teaching in favor of manipulation. Coturnix is willing to do something he acknowledges is wrong. The end justifies the means for him. Unfortunately this is all unnecessary because a straight forward presentation of scientific facts is what is called for.
Many have peddled the lie linking increasing adherents to Intelligent Design to a loss of competitive advantage for America vis a vis the rest of the world- in the educational, scientific and economic spheres. In the past I've gently corrected these misapprehensions by pointing out some simple facts. Michael Behe's landmark book Darwin's Black Box was published in 1996. The Dover PA case took place after the twentieth century was history. Most papers published, which argue for intelligent design, were published within the last decade. The decline in objective test scores among American students began decades ago. The relative academic and economic performance of the United States was much higher in the middle of the 20th century than it became during the final half of that century. If you're into spin you can try to link those believing in Intelligent Design to a decline.
No. It is you who is relying on the stupidity of readers. In the minds of most critics intelligent design is creationism. Creationism is used as a synonym for intelligent design. See how clever you critics are. And dishonest too. Creationism is a byword for ID but when push comes to shove you dishonestly pretend that the "clever" substitution is not really what you obviously intended it to be. Now creationism and ID are distinct and separate. Baloney. Own up to your own juvenile debating tactics. But don't take my word for it. In the words of Coturnix:
And, as Archy reminds us, Intelligent Design Creationism is just one form, the slickest and most dishonest, of Creationism.
ID is a form of creationism for these dolts.
And as I have pointed out: The simplifications you cite are posed to advance understanding of conceptually difficult concepts. That was not the idea behind inaccuracies. The inaccuracies cited in the blog were to be used to counter religious and cultural norms the writer found odious. There is a huge difference in intent. I don't want teachers appointing themselves gods able to determine what cultural values are to be uprooted and which ones are OK.
And surely Obama and McCain and their considerably talented teams of analytical advisors would have noticed the link between Intelligent Design and America's woes and raised the political stakes accordingly.
It is certain that the smart advisors surrounding Obama are aware that claims that America's economic woes are attributable to creationists is hogwash. Educated people know that America's educational and economic woes began decades ago. Long before current controversies got traction.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
September 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Pixie:
Yes, think about it. Creation was taught openly in the USA since before independence was attained. America's relative educational and economic fortunes were on the rise during this historic era. After the teaching of evolution in public schools became institutionalized America peaked and then began a slow relative decline that continues today. Only within the last two decades have creation organizations (for example, Answers in Genesis and other standard bearing organizations) and ID come into their own. To claim that a vastly significant historic trend, impacting America's fortunes in the world, is attributable to Ken Ham, William Dembski… is worse than silly. It's stupid… or for those with a few ounces of brains- dishonest.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2008 @ 6:26 pm