Please, won't somebody think of the children economy
by macht
I'm getting sick of seeing economic-based justification for what we should teach in high schools. If the reason we shouldn't teach ID in schools is because it will cause us to stop being "leaders in the global economy," then we might as well get rid of music, art, and P.E. too since those classes are eating into valuable time in which we could be teaching science and math.
That whole article is rather odd, though. It brings the threatiness level of ID up one notch. Teaching ID is going to decimate scientific talent, erode the US's competitive advantage in the global economy, handicap students, diminish our chance of scientific breakthroughs, endanger our health, safety and economy, distract us from learning what is scientifically testable, reduce our will to probe the natural world, turn little Sally from Topeka, KS into a cashier and little Billy in Atlanta, GA into a bum all while preventing them from inventing the vaccine that all us Americans will need when China hits us with its bioweapons.
I can speculate just as well as the next guy, of course. Teaching ID will get students interested in science again because everybody likes controversy, even if it is contrived controversy. Plus, it will foster the open-minded attitude necessary to do good science. Students will start wanting to know more about evolution in order see if ID has anything to it or whether it is just scientifically vacuous. So many people will learn so much about evolution that the idea of ID will all but be eliminated in the public discourse. Nobody will take ID seriously anymore but everybody will be interested in evolution. Test scores in biology will soar. Little Sally and little Billy will take AP biology instead of home ec or shop class because the ID debate has sparked their interest. Eventually they'll discover the cure to AIDS. This will happen a thousand times over, all over the country and the economy will boom. The generosity we showed by allowing ID into the classrooms will carry over to our wallets and Americans will share their wealth with the entire world. Poverty will end. Our open-minded, dialogue-based attitude towards education will brush off on all the leaders around the world and a new era of world peace will begin. All nations will join hands and wars will stop. All because of ID.
That was fun.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
The AAAS has been trying to make the same argument. I responded here.
Comment by johnnyb — October 2, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Actually, one could make the case that a design-based biology would be more effective at handling biological attacks given that the pathogens would be unquestionably designed!
Comment by Varenius — October 2, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Hi Macht,
I am not sure how much of your post was meant to be sarcasm and/or hypothetical in nature, so please excuse me when I go off the mark.
I believe exposing children to various, and competing, points of view is a good thing. You can pity my children, they get very frustrated with me when I continually point out the "other side" of the argument especially when they know I agree with what they are saying (and it's not easy to defend the Iraq war to teenagers).
Having an completely open policy for philosophical and scientific discussion is good up to a point. That point is when the reality of politics and law take over. You see, politics and law turn the philosophical into reality by fiat.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is both a philosophy and a reality in the United States of America.
Teaching ID in private schools is fine. In fact, I would gladly agree that private schools should be encouraged to implement and teach both sides of ALL controversies. In an ideal world, this should be good advertising for such a school; "We will explain both the positives and the negatives of such topics as religion, evolution, contraceptives, recreational drugs and homosexuality." Am I being sarcastic here? Even I don't know.
It just isn't reality.
The reality is that having a public school teacher use the Bible as a science textbook (even as just a supplemental one) violates a philosophy and a law I happen to agree with. The same goes for a proposed science textbook that proclaims "…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"
Would it help raise the abysmally low scientific education metrics in our country if we tailored our school to be friendlier towards religion? I don't think so, and I suggest historical and other data sources would confirm that.
What about a "teach the controversy" drive stimulating new-found interest? I am sorry, but I don't see how it would happen with the realities of politics and law. We can't even improve the very controversial and important subject of sex-education in this country. Just like sex-education, you will get the political drive to allow students to opt-out. In fact, once you get a religion-friendly version of science established, incoming freshmen will get to choose one of two tracks….
A) God-friendly science track your parents will approve of
B) Atheist-friendly science track that will win you a talk with your pastor
..and, oh by the way, your parents have to be informed of your choice and can override your selection since you are only a minor.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 2, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:18 pm
TP: I believe exposing children to various, and competing, points of view is a good thing. You can pity my children, they get very frustrated with me when I continually point out the "other side" of the argument especially when they know I agree with what they are saying (and it's not easy to defend the Iraq war to teenagers).
TP, you're making a mistake when you do this to your kids. People are aware of the other side of the argument most of the time. It may be the main reason for their choice. When you agree with them and nonetheless take the opposing side you appear condescending and are likely to provoke a different reaction than the one you intended. This may not happen right away if the kids are young but the resentment will grow as they age and they will become hostile to values they identify as yours. I know someone in my own family who did this and now lives with the bitter fruits of his actions.
Comment by Bradford — October 2, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
The first paragraph was serious, the second paragraph was a summary of the doom that will befall us - according to the author of that article - because of ID. The third paragraph is a bunch of equally stupid speculations about the happy, happy, joy, joy world we will live in because of ID.
In the real world it is impossible to predict what ID will bring but I imagine it will be somewhere in between the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.
Comment by macht — October 2, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Hanle's propaganda piece is full of holes.
Comment by MikeGene — October 2, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 am
macht:
What other justification does a consumer society have? School is an investment in your future "“ economics rule. If it makes you rich or gives you status (same thing nearly) it belongs in school"¦ everything else is passé. Socrates and Jesus are rolling in their graves "“ I know "“ but the past is the past"¦ no more transcending the merely human trying to reach for truth and gods "¦ a cure for Herpes now that would be something profitable and useful "“ can ID cure infectious itching? If so Teach It! If not who needs it?
Comment by de_nacisse — October 3, 2006 @ 1:25 am
October 6th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
This amusing bit of paranoid delusion appeared in the local rag this morning
http://www.denverpost.com/spen...
Since, like the majority of Americans, I have little implicit trust in anything journalists publish, I went directly to the horses mouth, http://www.evolutionarygenomic....
I was not altogether surprised to discover that the True Defenders of Science against the dark forces of anti-scientific religious recidivism have little more than bunk to offer in their own defense.
Like I've said, they are the flip sides of the same coin.
But I'm always interested in more than what each "side" has to say. (Sometimes more interested in what they don't say.)
I wondered how important is evolutionary theory to DeGregori's cancer research? (My sister is a research oncologist.)
I ask the question because DeGregori hardly ever mentions "evolution" in his published research. (Does he ever?) That's not to say that his researcher is not related to basic problems in evolutionary theory. It's just to say that those problems are not related explicitly by himself in his own research. In other words, DeGregori doesn't do any evolutionary-theoretic research. Doesn't bother to relate his research to the overarching theory of all biology (indeed all science!).
I did a little investigation on the Web and found something a bit disturbing. Cancer researchers often express a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between "evolution" and development. Evolutionary theorists assert that there is a fundamental distinction to be made between "evolution" and "development," which cancer researchers elide in their common usage of the word "evolution."
My cursory investigation indicated that the word "evolution" is incorrectly used in every single one of the first fifty, most frequently accessed (via the Web), cancer research reports. Properly speaking the "evolution" of cancer from pre-cancerous cells is development. Not evolution.
(I might add that these 50 reports are cited by more than 2000 other reports"”tending, I suspect, to reinforce the fundamental misapprehension amongst cancer researchers.)
If evolutionary theorists are to set the standards for the teaching of evolutionary theory (Any questions about that?) then cancer researchers fail the first test"”they don't meet the standards of correctly defining key terminology or understanding the key concepts so related by such fundamental terms!
An evolutionary theorist might conclude that cancer researchers are no better than "creationists" in deciding what should be the public education standards for teaching evolutionary theory.
Another interesting thing I've uncovered (which is easy enough to do) is that despite the ever-imminent, ever-present, and never quite actualized "threat" represented by "creationists" to everything from science, to freedom and democracy, to NATO (I'm not making that up), the publication of original scientific research is dominated by Americans, and scientists working in American universities and public and private corporations.
Comment by Rock — October 6, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Hi Rock,
And I thought I was the only one overly long-winded.
I suspect DeGregori hardly ever mentions "Maxwell's equations" either. But they are the overarching theory of just about everything.
Who are you trying to convince that DeGregori's gene studies aren't about evolution? Yourself?
Here are the professed goals and strategy of this advocacy group…
"We will create an email list of scientists and educators from around Colorado who are willing to occasionally respond publicly to assaults on evolutionary theory or its instruction in our schools. Responses could be in the form of letters to the editor, Op-Ed pieces, or volunteering to present a lesson to students at a public school."
Is there anything fundimentally wrong with what they are doing?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 11:13 am
October 7th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Nice post, Rock. It never ceases to amaze me how the self-appointed Defenders of Science so quickly abandon the scientific approach in order to scare other people.
Hey TP, did you catch this from the cancer researcher:
Like I said, you are unusual.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Ya know, Mike Gene, I just lack that evangelizing spirit. I don't feel the urge within me to profess, testify, witness, shout Hallelujah!, stomp my feet, clap my hands, and sing along with the choir. (Maybe I'm just a heretic. A kind of a "lapsed Darwinist.")
I don't feel threatened when people disagree with me. I don't think of it as a moral deficiency on their part. I don't demean as mental cripples people who disagree with me about evolutionary theory. And when I choose to defend evolutionary theory in arguments I attempt to be accurate in my statements and not exaggerate the importance of the subject. I don't mistake criticism of evolutionary thought as an attack on science.
And I think there are far more important issues in public education than the controversy over the teaching of evolution.
Comment by Rock — October 7, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Hi mike,
You wrote…
I think you are reaching, Mike. This was an implied accusation at best.
Who did DeGregori accuse of lying?
Do you say there is "significant support for ID in the scientific community"
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
You're way off base here.
AFAIK, when cancer researchers are talking about evolution, they aren't talking about "the "evolution" of cancer from pre-cancerous cells," they are talking about the evolution of a tumor from its clonal origin: the first cell that lost the first growth-control mechanism. Tumor cells are incredibly genetically instable, so there are a lot of different genotypes within a clonal tumor. This makes selection, and therefore evolution, highly relevant.
Also, carcinogenesis is about dedifferentiation, not development.
Comment by Smokey — October 7, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Hi TP,
You write:
Anyone who thinks/says there is "significant support for ID in the scientific community." It's a broad-brushed approach to reality, where the scientist thinks the world revolves around him, thus expects everyone to view reality as he does.
Nope. But I also recognize that those who disagree with me need not be liars.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Rock,
It takes commitment, a willingness to be ostracized, suspension of doubt, and a fevered brain. With practice, I think you'll make it to the next level with no problems, whatever your mission.
Comment by Douglas — October 7, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Hi Rock,
I understand this perfectly. Even as an IDiot who has been publicly speculating about IDiocy for years, you'll notice that I do not visit anti-ID forums/blogs in order to convince them of my IDiocy.
Well stated.
Exactly! What's funny is when the Defenders of Science complain about how poorly our students do in science while fear-mongering about the eevil creationists. I could understand the connection if creationists/IDists had been in charge of public education for the last 2-3 decades, but they are not. The people who have screwed our students are now looking for distractions and scapegoats.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Smokey:
??? Since when does what happens to somatic cells have anything to do with evolution, unless those events serve to prevent successful reproduction?
Last I checked, humans do not reproduce by means of tumors. Thus human children are not described (by most people other than their babysitters) as "cancer."
Comment by Joy — October 7, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
I asked…
Who did DeGregori accuse of lying?
MikeGene wrote…
What happened to the reasoned and reasonable MikeGene?!?!?
You now expand DeGregori's accusion to include anyone who thinks or believes something? (Degregon used the word "say" not "think").
It is dishonest for someone to declare something as fact when it is only an opinion. It doesn't make it a lie, it also doesn't make what DeGregon said an accusation of a lie.
Then you top it off with some convoluted logic that comes scarily close to what the Bush Administration aide said about not being limited by reality-based thinking.
Seriously, I am beginning to suspect there is more than one "MikeGene"
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
October 8th, 2006 at 12:16 am
You're right. I should have said, "Anyone who says there is "significant support for ID in the scientific community." It's a broad-brushed approach to reality, where the scientist thinks the world revolves around him, thus expects everyone to view reality as he does.
DeGregori used the word "say" not "declare something as fact." BTW, I noticed you did not qualify your opinion about dishonesty as an opinion. Are you being dishonest?
Let's get back to DeGregori's claim. Like you, I do not think there is "significant support for ID in the scientific community." But because someone might disagree with me, why I am supposed to accuse them of being dishonest? After all, people can have their own various interpretations of concepts such as "significant," "support," and "scientific community."
So you can say something that is dishonest without it being a lie. How does that work?
Comment by MikeGene — October 8, 2006 @ 12:16 am
October 8th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I wrote…
It is dishonest for someone to declare something as fact when it is only an opinion.
MikeGene wrote…
I wrote that just before going to bed, as my head hit the pillow, I realized that I left that opening. I was curious if you would pick up on it. Good for you. However, please note that I said "when it is only an opinion".
Yes, I believe we are all biased, predjudiced and dishonest. The best we can do is to try keeping it in check.
MikeGene asked…
Hmmm, in today's political climate it happens all the time. For a specific example, it would be dishonest of anyone to say Bush and Rove are homosexual lovers based only on an opinion. Is it a "lie" Not really, because even if the statement is incorrect it isn't knowingly saying something the speaker knows is untrue.
At a press conference, President Bush told a story about 9/11 where he said that he saw a video of the first tower being hit and that it was only after the second tower was hit that it became apparent to him that America was under attack. The story is obviously incorrect. In all likelihood even President Bush understood what he was saying might not be totally accurate. However, to an administration that isn't limited by reality-based thinking, since it was his opinion at the time means it was not a lie. Maybe inaccurate, possibily dishonest, but not a lie.
Now that I have given my explanation of the difference between dishonesty and lying. Do you hold that as long as a statement, in the opinion of the speaker, is not a lie that it is honest? What is your threshold for honest declarations? If there is at least a 1% chance of it being true, is that good enough? Does the threshold change if the speakers themselves understand what they are saying is probably untrue (but they don't know its untrue)?
Now that I have given my explanation of the difference between dishonesty and lying. What is your threshold for honest declarations? If there is at least a 1% chance of it being true, is that good enough? Does the threshold change if the speakers themselves understand what they are saying is probably untrue (but they don't know its untrue)? Finally, is the threshold the same for calling a statement a lie?
(my answers are "below 50% is dishonest", "below 0.1% is a lie if the speaker also knows it is a 1 in 1000 chance of being correct")
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 8, 2006 @ 9:56 am
October 8th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Hi TP,
I see the problem. If you have MS Word and use the thesaurus function for 'dishonest,' the top three synonyms are: 1. lying; 2. deceitful; and 3. false. The MW dictionary says:
1 obsolete : SHAMEFUL, UNCHASTE
2 : characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE
- dis"¢hon"¢est"¢ly adverb
DISHONEST implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud (a swindle usually involves two dishonest people).
You seem to favor the synonym false while I think of lying/deceitful when I hear the term dishonest. My guess is that the majority of people interpret 'dishonest' as I do. For example, if a professor were to start accusing her students of being dishonest for getting wrong answers on their exams, I bet most students would complain and think they were being accused of cheating.
You ask, "Do you hold that as long as a statement, in the opinion of the speaker, is not a lie that it is honest?" The statement is honest if the speaker really believes the statement. A speaker can be sincerely mistaken and sincerely wrong.
In the end, what matters is that the term 'dishonest' can be ambiguous and many will interpret 'dishonest' to mean 'lying.' Of course, perhaps this is what makes the term so attractive to propagandists. They can use the term as a Trojan Horse ad hominem. How? They can effectively accuse people of lying, and when called on it, pretend they were just using the 'false' synonym. Thus, why use 'dishonest' when mistaken, false, or wrong will do?
Comment by MikeGene — October 8, 2006 @ 10:30 am
October 8th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Hi Mike,
It is my opinon that you were dishonest in your last post.
I thought I made it clear that I was equating dishonesty with deceit. We are all deceitful. We all lie by omission.
For example, you chose not to post what you thought of my statement "…it would be dishonest of anyone to say Bush and Rove are homosexual lovers based only on an opinion."
What you chose to do instead was to render your opinion that "they" are using equivocation over the word "dishonest". What is the level of your confidence in your statement? Are you absolutely, 100% certain? Do you think it is probably, 75% likely to be true? Maybe you think there is a 50/50 chance it is true? Or, is it possible you think it is probably untrue but it made for a good argument anyway?
At what threshold does your statement become dishonest?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 8, 2006 @ 11:39 am
October 8th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Hi TP,
You write, "I thought I made it clear that I was equating dishonesty with deceit. We are all deceitful. We all lie by omission."
That wasn't clear to me. You seem to be using some esoteric definition of dishonesty. If we are all deceitful and all lie by omission, what is the point of pointing out dishonesty? It is my strong opinion that dishonesty and deceit come with intent and I am confident that most would agree. Without intent, you simply have error and falsehood.
And you chose to ignore my professor example. No, I do not think it would be "dishonest of anyone to say Bush and Rove are homosexual lovers based only on an opinion." It would be mistaken, wrong, even deluded. However, if I adopt your position, I would have to start accusing my opponents of rampant dishonesty over the years (something I always refrained from) given the way they misrepresent me and others. Consider, for example, the recent misrepresentations from Nick Matzke. Was it dishonest of him to accuse me of implying the NCSE was wicked? Was it dishonest of him to portray me as having a "fuss?" I don't think it was dishonest; I think that's they way Nick mistakenly perceives an ambiguous reality. It's part of his bias.
What I did was to show the thesaurus and dictionary equate dishonesty with lying and willful deception. This tells us how the word is most commonly interpreted, which in turn, tells us what is being communicated.
You are not making any sense here. If I said X was true when I didn't think it was true, then I would be dishonest.
Let's go through my thoughts:
"The statement is honest if the speaker really believes the statement. A speaker can be sincerely mistaken and sincerely wrong."
Yes, I think both of those claims are true.
"In the end, what matters is that the term 'dishonest' can be ambiguous and many will interpret 'dishonest' to mean 'lying.'"
Yep, I think this is true.
"Of course, perhaps this is what makes the term so attractive to propagandists."
Here I am speculating "“ note the word "perhaps."
"They can use the term as a Trojan Horse ad hominem. How? They can effectively accuse people of lying, and when called on it, pretend they were just using the 'false' synonym."
More speculation "“ note the words "can."
"Thus, why use 'dishonest' when mistaken, false, or wrong will do?"
A good question that has not been answered.
If I think my statement is false, yet present it as truth. Go back to the science reporter. Safely assuming that she sent the email, unless she is psychotic, she must know that she is not a student at Cornell. Yet she told someone else she was a student at Cornell. This was not only untrue, it was dishonest.
Comment by MikeGene — October 8, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
October 8th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Most of the time there is no point. Just like their is usually no point to pointing out bias. But DeGregori wasn't directly accusing anyone of lying. And yes, that was probably a biased and dishonest statement I just made.
I don't know for certain what DeGregori's intent was. But it is probable his intent was honest and he truly believed "There is, however, simply no significant support for ID in the scientific community, and to say otherwise is simply dishonest." I also suggest that if he meant to accuse people of lying, he would have said so (i.e. "… to say otherwise is a lie.")
My position on honesty in communication is everyone should strive to do have listeners understand what they mean to say. I believe intentional equivocation is a dishonest practice and so is parsing words with the intent of twisting them into something other than what the author meant to say.
Mike, you may be certain DeGregori's intent was to accuse people of lying. I don't. I think it is more likely than not DeGregori's intent was to communicate that there is no genuine argument against his statement. If he used the word "disingenuous" would that still mean he was accusing people of lying?
Hopefully, I have communicated my honest/dishonest concepts to you. Yes, if a professor uses equivocation to accuse earnest students of dishonesty that, itself, would be dishonest. I am still uncertain of your honest/dishonest concepts, but I will drop it for now. But if you have any more questions for me, please feel free to ask.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 8, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
October 8th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Gee, Joy, evolution is simply change in genotype over time.
Tumors indisputably evolve from their clonal origins.
This evolution has huge ramifications for therapy. For example, if a therapy causes huge shrinkage in the total tumor size, it will still be a failure if it fails to get the rare stem cells of the tumor. You might read this review for an introduction to the concept:
Most tissues in complex metazoans contain a rare subset of cells that, at the single-cell level, can self-renew and also give rise to mature daughter cells. Such stem cells likely in development build tissues and are retained in adult life to regenerate them. Cancers and leukemias are apparently not an exception: rare leukemia stem cells and cancer stem cells have been isolated that contain all of the tumorigenicity of the whole tumor, and it is their properties that will guide future therapies. None of this was apparent just 20 years ago, yet this kind of stem cell thinking already provides new perspectives in medical science and could usher in new therapies…
Comment by Smokey — October 8, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
October 8th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
TP:
Then the scientist better learn how to use a dictionary or thesaurus, as he comes across as someone who is accusing people of lying. I'm sure he is sincere in thinking that others who don't think as he does, or view as he does, are dishonest.
Comment by MikeGene — October 8, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Smokey:
I've got a box full of official gub'ment scientific reports describing how meltdowns "indisputably evolve" from stuck relief valves. The use of the 'E' word to describe the development of diseases or meltdowns has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed evolution of humans from pond scum [NDE].
Lots of words have generic applications. Add an 'r' and "evolution" becomes "revolution" - a word you can use to describe a planet spinning on its axis or the violent overthrow of human governments. But nobody with a lick of sense would claim the spinning of the Earth demonstrates the validity of Bolshevism.
Have you really run out of reasonable ways to defend Charlie's ghost? If so, may I be the first to suggest it's time for a funeral?
Comment by Joy — October 9, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
"The use of the 'E' word to describe the development of diseases or meltdowns has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed evolution of humans from pond scum [NDE]."
It involves:
1) Genetic variation (turbocharged in the case of tumors) and
2) Selection.
Aren't those the two main engines of evolution of organisms? If so, it has everything to do with it, the polar opposite of "absolutely nothing."
Comment by Smokey — October 9, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Is there a real "controversy" going on here? Ya know, we shouldn't be arguing in front of the children. They might think there is something controversial about evolution.
I don't know if it was a bureaucratic or journalistic illiterism, "'evolution' is a loaded phrase," (from the newspaper column I linked to), but I can certainly see why the educators wanted to avoid using a term that is controversial to the extent that apparently we can't agree upon what it should properly define or describe.
In God's Country local school districts purchase textbooks, each teacher draws up their own lesson plans (with approval), and all students must pass standardized tests. According to state standards all students must ""¦ study the scientific concept of biological evolution"¦ the ways in which natural processes produce life's diversity.. the major unifying concept in the biological sciences"¦" (Contrary to what was reported in the local paper.)
Oddly enough, it appears that this "unifying concept" is quite divisive when there is any question about what is/not properly defined or described as "evolution."
Comment by Rock — October 9, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Rock:
Silly semantics. And deliberately deceptive to boot. "Evolution" as it applies to mutation-selection over generations of organic life forms, slowly and inexorably over the course of 65 million years turning a population of proto-rodents into a population of human beings (for example) is highly specific and has been ever since Charlie Darwin's neo-Lamarckism got modified by Greg Mendel's particulate inheritance to become "Neodarwinian Orthodoxy."
Changes to somatic cell nucleic acids doesn't count. Nor does the death of any individual total organism, by any cause, at any time. ALL that counts in NDE per sexually reproducing organisms (such as rodents and human beings) is the genetic component of haploid gametes, the end result of recombination with a suitable 'other' haploid gamete to produce a viable zygote; live birth; and subsequent luck in playing reproductive roulette all over again in that generation.
Organisms that are never born don't count. Organisms that never reproduce don't count. And organisms that die (of any cause) only count in so far as their relative success at reproducing before they died. That's the facts, Jack. Playing semantic shell games doesn't change anything.
All those cancer cells Smokey wants to claim are independent evolutionarily considerable organisms have essentially the same genome as every other cell in the body of the evolutionarily considerable organism they'll eventually kill while committing Hari-Kari. With some accumulated damage from environmental hazards ubiquitous to life on planet earth, which is often what turns them from useful cells into cancer in the first place.
What makes them cancer instead of 'normal' skin cells or muscle cells or liver cells or marrow cells is expression-gone-haywire. Expression differences account for the fact that there exist skin cells and muscle cells and liver cells and marrow cells all with the same genome all in the same organism in the first place.
Diseases 'evolve' from beginning to end, just like a movie 'evolves' from start to finish, and just like a meltdown 'evolves' from transient initiation to cold shutdown. And just like our universe 'evolves' from nothing to everything. None of it having anything to do with NDE's reproduction-specific mechanisms of mutations in germline cells and subsequent lucky-to-be-born organism's relative success in the reproductive game of life.
Smokey's reaching big time, and too conceited to admit he's been called fairly on the semantic ruse he's tried to foist on us. Your pet theory in trouble lately? No problem! Just extend your definition of terms to apply to things totally unrelated, then claim the totally unrelated things 'prove' your theory correct!
Looks a lot like The Full Monty to me, and it's not particularly impressive! §;o)
Comment by Joy — October 9, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Sorry, Joy, but where did I make the claim that they were organisms?
Essentially the same? Hardly. It's DEFINED as genetically different.
Cancer is simply a genetic ("genetic" is not synonymous with "inherited," btw) disease caused by mutations (some of which can be inherited) in the genes encoding components of growth-control mechanisms. For many tumor types, the mutational progressions are stereotypical. Clinicians are starting to use them to tailor treatment.
Eventually? Are you absolutely sure that they are a dead end? Are you claiming that there are no tumors that are transmissible? That would be a fun discussion.
Yes, but the mechanism by which they change is a mutational one.
Only in some cases, Joy. Only a minority of carcinogenic mutations directly turn genes on when they should be off, but the most common ones are loss-of function, and the next most common group are those that change the activity of the protein (the 3 Ras genes, mutated in >40% of human tumors) without changing expression levels at all.
But tumors evolve in a very Darwinian way, because they are genetically unstable and constantly throwing off new mutants. The evolutionary progression of many tumors is well-characterized.
Perhaps you should read up on the work of Bert Vogelstein before you claim that I am reaching.
Comment by Smokey — October 9, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Pitiful, but predictable (and predicted).
Comment by Joy — October 9, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
October 10th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Smokey
A gene for this, a gene for that, pretty soon you're talking whole chromosomes. Funny how that [doesn't] work…
…at least, in so far as humans from rodents goes. Voles are rodents, are they not? I forget… they all look alike to me.
Comment by Joy — October 10, 2006 @ 1:59 am
October 10th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Obviously there is no real scientific controversy over teaching Weissmann's doctrine to grade school students. I looked into it a little bit myself; searched the Web, found an interesting paper by Michael Ghiselin, "The Imaginary Lamarck: A Look at Bogus "˜History' in Schoolbooks," and even disinterred my old introductory evobiology textbook out of a box in the basement to confirm that I was taught that the inheritance of acquired traits is "contradicted by the facts." (I kept some of my old textbooks with the intention of actually reading them someday. Other things kept coming up. LOL)
One of the things the Colorado state standards emphasizes is that scientific knowledge is subject to revision. Science is a self-correcting process.
I suspect that's a bit of lip-service. No doubt its true. But I seriously doubt that it is indicated in the textbooks. I seriously doubt a textbook would say either that Darwin was incorrect and Weissmann (and the other Neo-Darwinists) were correct, or that Darwin has been vindicated and the Neo-Darwinists proved wrong.
It would provide a perfect example of what is impressed upon the kids as true"”science does correct itself"¦ It may even, eventually correct textbooks. But it seems as if there remains a bit of "controversy" about that. We probably shouldn't (or can't, according to the judiciary) mention such controversies in self-correction.
IOW I don't think the kids textbooks provide many (if any) examples of science as self-correcting.
It would be difficult to do so w/o introducing some"¦ controversy!
It is a bit of grade school pabulum to say that science is self-correcting. "Self-correction" in science, as just about everywhere else, is a process in conflict and controversy. Kids, no doubt, have intuitive grasp of the obvious. They already know that. They know it from personal experience.
I didn't like being corrected by Smokey. I deny that I was corrected! I refuse to confront the reality of it. Golly, if I would just accept correction as if my mind were a tabula rasa. It's just the kid in me speaking! My brain ain't a blank slate that my teachers and correctors can write on at will. I do not passively accept or believe everything I'm told"”by way of correction or otherwise. How "scientific" of me!
I understand why cancer researchers refer to the "evolution" of cancer. I understand why Peter Green wrote the monumental (in sheer weight) "Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age," why mathematicians refer to the evolution of an system of equations, why my Buick evolved from a Model-T, etc. But does your average 8th grader understand why? Shouldn't he?
I understand joy's objections to the use of "evolution" in that context. Joy's, and not Smokey's, comments reflect more accurately what is being taught to the kids.
Kids would be perfect scientists if they had minds like blank slates! The problem is any dimwit can write on a blank slate.
We call that "public education."
Public education is popularization. We admit that tacitly when we say that it is the consensus of opinion existing in the scientific community that should be taught to school kids. (Which I questioned above.) The "consensus" right or wrong.
Comment by Rock — October 10, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
October 10th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Rock
In this particular controversy, the "consensus" has been falsified so many times it's fairly amazing they can keep asserting it as Absolute Truth [TM] with a straight face to supposedly mindless children. Maybe that's my own educational experience talking, since I remember very well when the Big Bang finally overturned Steady State, and the textbooks were finally changed.
Not every school district can afford to replace textbooks every year, you know. So I spent half of the 7th grade in New York learning about Steady State (which I already knew had been soundly falsified because my father was working on the space program), and the other half learning Big Bang in Oklahoma - which DID buy new textbooks.
The thing that seemed most humorous to me was the grim seriousness of the presentation in both 7th grade science books - this is Science, by God, and that means it's Absolute Truth [TM]! No mention in either textbook about any ongoing controversy or impending doom for Steady State (though BB had been accumulating good evidence for 30 years). The SS text never mentioned BB, the BB text never mentioned SS. So Orwellian, two decades before 1984.
That said, the word "evolution" in its generic sense actually does apply to the development of pretty much anything that has a beginning and an end separated by lapsed time. Which is why I think it would be a lot more honest if ID critics would go ahead and qualify their statements. Because the evolution of a disease, an equation, or a single life from birth to death is completely uncontroversial. These have nothing to do with Neodarwinism's RM-NS pablum.
When the distinction is NOT made, you end up with patently absurd statements like those Smokey has been making. Tumors are very strange things. Sometimes they come complete with teeth, hair, skin, fingernails, bone and even spinal cords - because those stem cells can develop into anything, just like embryonic stem cells do. Gross! This means those cells are busy switching expression profiles while proliferating out of control.
The kind of "monster tumors" [teratomas] that produce stem cells are usually benign, not cancerous. As mentioned in The New York Times back in June.
Comment by Joy — October 10, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
October 11th, 2006 at 11:57 am
That doesn't refute a thing I wrote, Joy. The voles aren't aneuploid. Their chromosomes are fusing and splitting so their number changes; the net loss of genetic material is very small, if it occurs at all.
Malignant tumor cells are overwhelmingly aneuploid.
When teachers get away from teaching from textbooks and start teaching the scientific process (something every ID proponent clearly rejects, BTW), the self-correcting nature of science becomes obvious. I'm seeing a lot of movement in that direction, but it will take a long time.
The evolution of malignancies has everything to do with RM+NS. So does the progression of HIV infection, in which one can monitor genotypic change in real time.
It's odd that you haven't attempted to refute any of them, then. Babbling about benign tumors does not address the RM+NS that occurs during carcinogenesis.
Those would be teratomas, which are very rare and usually benign. Cancerous tumors are not very strange–they are dedifferentiated, aneuploid clones of cells that evolve very rapidly by Darwinian mechanisms.
Therefore, your bringing them up does nothing to address what I wrote about cancer, does it?
If my statements are "patently absurd," why don't you simply demonstrate why? In what way is pointing out that carcinogenic Ras mutations don't affect expression of the Ras genes absurd, for example?
Mike Behe's idea of a scientific journal.
Say, Joy, if RM+NS is "pablum," why did your Intelligent Designer use RM(+random recombination)+NS as the mechanism underlying your very own immune response?
Comment by Smokey — October 11, 2006 @ 11:57 am