Taking False Depictions to a New Level
by BradfordIt's almost not fair to smack down someone who leads with his chin but sometimes it serves a larger purpose. Ed Darrell has valiently slain straw men, inaccurately depicted the views of others, shown himself incapable of appreciating the distinction between knowledge and analysis based on that knowledge and embarrassed ID critics. But Ed is economical. He manages to accomplish the foregoing in a single blog entry he dubbs If science facts won’t improve reasoning, don’t study science, creationists say.
So where did Ed get the inspiration for this title? Let's take a gander. Ed links to this blog entry by Tom Gilson. Ed and Tom do some sparring in the comment section. Did Tom advocate that we not study science? Did he link such an argument to the EurekAlert article? It's all there to view.
Ed also linked to the blog piece Facts and Reason. Since I wrote it I won't waste time on the don't study science charge. Many of you are already familiar with the blog item.
The short EurekAlert article is linked to here. Ed writes this:
It’s a springboard to a new creationist meme, and here’s how it will come out of the mouths of creationists, speaking to school boards and writing letters to editorial pages: “Learning a lot of science doesn’t improve critical thinking skills, so let’s teach something other than evolution.”
That’s not what the study says.
If the Discovery Institute published an absurd and inaccurate article TT's resident critics would respond with a chorus of complaints. Neurosurgeons like Michael Egnor have been villified for much less- and labeled stupid to boot. Mike Gene has remarked on occassion that when I say … critics hear (something else). Ed has taken that to a new level.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:59 am
In the comment section of Darrell's blog piece James M. wrote:
Another commenter named Mark responded with this:
So what is wrong with Mark's comment? Mark notes the argument of Paul Davies (not a creationist) to further his argument that creationists (shorthand for IDists) come to conclusions before seeing evidence. Ironically the issue he is focused on weakly supports his own beliefs and his argument that looking "for the building blocks of life in places where there are no people to control their production" is irrelevant to Davies point about RNA synthesis.
Of course Darrrell responds to Mark's attempt at cleverness with an "I stand corrected!" response. Ed allows himself to be "corrected" with error.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 12:59 am
February 11th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Slaying strawmen is a common past-time among evolanders.
Comment by William Wallace — February 11, 2009 @ 2:45 am
February 11th, 2009 at 8:33 am
I'm sure you wouldn't say that were there not at least one example, but it would be contrary to the usual flow here, were it to happen.
Was I unfair? Hey, Gilson was the one who immediately popped off with canards against NCSE — fiction of the highest order. Where are the yowls of protest from TT? Oh, Gilson's not DI, you say.
So, all creationists get a pass on wankery of all sorts, except, occasionally, DI, in order to make an appearance of fairness? Does the phrase "show trial" ring a bell with you?
And, you won't waste time on the charge here? Well, of course not! You wasted time on the charge earlier, and in a hundred other posts here! Why waste time again?
Was there any part of that study that got within a hundred miles of your complaint there?
Intelligent design, even if it had an ounce of science in it, has been a cudgel used to batter education and science in America. The words of David P. Gardner ring true: Had a foreign power done such damage to our schools, we'd have regarded it as an act of war.
What is it you fear, that kids will learn facts of science? Every creationist must shudder when they consider the possibility that would be true. And every IDist gives an added shudder when realizing why the first shudder shook them.
Comment by edarrell — February 11, 2009 @ 8:33 am
February 11th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Ed
I think you missed the point of the "Facts and Reason" post (here at TT anyway). When Bradford said:
This is a culture war, and Bradford is trying to score points. Thus he makes the claim about TT critics, with the implication that IDists at TT are great at scientific reasoning (yeah, right), even if they are low on scientific knowledge.
And quoting Gilson:
Here we see the other point. He is not saying we should not teaching scientific facts, he is saying we should not teach scientific facts that happen to contradict his own interpretion of Genesis. He has no problem with teaching the gas laws as fact, only evolution.
And if I am depicting anyone falsely, I invite him to explain exactly what his motivation really was in that choice of words.
Comment by The Pixie Again — February 11, 2009 @ 8:50 am
February 11th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Ed:
It took you a lot of words to say nothing. Instead of piling one unsupported allegation on top of another why not back up your claims, for example, with quotes showing Gilson's "canards against NCSE" or any number of other claims you have made. Link your charges to evidence for them.
Quoting from a prior blog entry of mine: My son had an unfortunate experience in an introductory course on biology. One of his professor's lectures included a digression about intelligent design. The prof described IDists in words usually reserved by ID critics for Michael Egnor and other prominent IDists.
Read the context of my comment Ed. It was a response to Tom's remark and not the referenced study. This indicates dishonesty or careless reading on your part.
What crap! Try digging for facts before you write. America's education problems preceeded Dembski, Behe et. al. by decades. ID has zero to do with the quality of public education in the USA.
Dream up more straw men Ed. We have not argued for removing evolution from public schools at TT.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 9:33 am
February 11th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Ah yes, here we see the clue revealed. Everyone at TT is apparently st00pid, or so says Pixie.
Here's an interesting query: why are many atheists condescending morons?
Comment by Jean — February 11, 2009 @ 9:38 am
February 11th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Pixie quoting Gilson:
Baloney. Gilson is pointing out the need to include critical analysis of the facts taught to students. Just memorizing facts is insufficient for scientific disciplines because it is important to analyze and think logically.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 9:38 am
February 11th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Bradford
This is trivially true, and I have no doubt that all scientists and all science educators would agree.
So why does he single out evolution? Gilson says:
Very strange that Gilson makes no mention of Newton's laws of motion, of Avogradro's number, or all the rest of science. Just evolution. Why do you think that is Bradford? Could it possibly be because Gilson has an axe to grind?
Gilson continues:
Evolution again? Out of all the countless theories and laws in science, Gilson just happened to pick, quite by chance, evolution twice? Well, no…
Actually he mentions evolution three times. Hey, maybe I am just a cynic, but this sort of suggests to me that this is a guy who has an issue specifically with evolution, and is using (even twisting) the EurekAlert article to use as ammunition in his battle against evolution. He has no problem with the laws of thermodynamics, he has no problem with Kepler's laws; they do not conflict with his faith.
And to be honest, Bradford, I suspect the same is true of you.
Comment by The Pixie Again — February 11, 2009 @ 10:34 am
February 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am
edarrell [Ed Darrell] wrote:
You should educate your minions better. I was told just yesterday by some foaming-at-the-mouth Darwinian fanboy on my satirical Youtube video that "No intelligent person 'fears' ID."
Then again, maybe Thumber McFoammouth is correct.
If by "facts of science" you mean the same lies I learned in school, like how complete the fossil record supposedly is and how well-defined the word "species" is (just as two small examples), then yes, I fear that they have been learning the "facts of science".
Thank God for the internet and some honest scientists out there making their work available for the "unwashed masses" like myself and my sons. Also, thank God my sons are smarter than the average evo fever swamp denizen.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 11, 2009 @ 10:36 am
February 11th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Poor Bradford, every time he tries to claim how ID advocates at TT support science and aren't anti-fact someone like angryoldfatman or ID Guy has to come along and post contradictory evidence. I guess Bradford could claim TT contributors aren't like that, but recent additions among the contributers weaken that claim too.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 11, 2009 @ 10:53 am
February 11th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Here is how Gilson describes himself (from here):
Gilson conveniently defines that "D1 creationism" on the same page:
Now let me check what I said: "He is not saying we should not teaching scientific facts, he is saying we should not teach scientific facts that happen to contradict his own interpretion of Genesis"
He openly bases his beliefs about the start of life on his own interpretion of Genesis (which stand in contradiction to numerous YECers and TEers). He clearly, therefore, is against evolution. His post mentions evolution three times, and no mention of any other science.
Now do you still want to maintain that that is "baloney"?
Comment by The Pixie Again — February 11, 2009 @ 10:59 am
February 11th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Pixie, of course I have an axe to grind! I don't have a problem with the way Newton's Laws of Motion are presented. When I was in school we did the analyze and evaluate thing with that–we did experiments!
(We did not count Avogadro's Number, I will admit.)
I do have a problem with people standing up before the Texas Board of Education, and saying it's going to harm our children to be taught how to analyze and evaluate different claims associated with evolution.
Why does my saying that bother you? Do you have an axe to grind, perhaps?
Comment by TomG — February 11, 2009 @ 10:59 am
February 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I'll take angryoldfatman on my team any day.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 11:41 am
February 11th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Pixie:
Physics courses I'm familiar with are loaded with problem solving. Should be if the teacher is doing his job right. The teaching of evolution should be patterned after this. What's the problem Pixie?
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 11:46 am
February 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Why should he have problems with Kepler and thermodynamics? There are no promos attached to them. Scientists in these other fields do not freak out at expressions of disbelief.
Forces we describe as laws are the handiwork of God. I suspect you and others are incapable of objectivity. That's what drives you to perceive illusions like cells arising from soups.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 11:52 am
February 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
BTW, has anyone noticed that neither Ed nor Pixie has backed up Ed's assertion that "If science facts won’t improve reasoning, don’t study science, creationists say"? Where did Tom or I advocate that anyone not study science?
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
That remind me. What were you advocating Bradford?
Comment by The Pixie Again — February 11, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
"… was the one who immediately popped off with canards against NCSE"
It is hard to imagine canards being necessary to disparage the national center for Darwinian education.
Comment by William Wallace — February 11, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
I love science and facts. I love them so much that I believe a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, as opposed to, I don't know, making stuff up?
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 11, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Oh, and thanks Bradford!
And don't worry about Ed and Pixie, I think they've beaten all the straw out of those "Bradford" effigies they've constructed. Pixie's already bewildered enough to grasp at the straws on the floor for a new pile to punch.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 11, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
edarrell:
??? Surely you can do better than to lob complete and easily refuted lies, Ed. Exactly where has education and science in America been battered? What justifies your repetition of Gardener's outrageous hyperbole about an act of war?
And before you answer, do try to bear in mind that my generation was taught Neodarwinism in high school 40 years ago, an elective rather than a requisite. By the time our children were in high school 20 years ago, the course had become requisite – every student had to pass the test on Neodarwinism in order to graduate. Two of my grandchildren took the course a couple of years ago, two more are taking it now. It is still requisite for graduation, it is still Neodarwinism, but these days they do offer access to more recent and incoming 'challenges' if the students are interested. They must access it on their own time, because the course itself is still rote factoids to be regurgitated on the test.
These are public school and systems in 4 different states over 40 years. There are many things wrong with our educational system, but none of it's about what gets taught in high school biology. Telling and repeating lies doesn't make your case stronger.
Comment by Joy — February 11, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
And that pertains to a study on knowledge of physics among Chinese and U.S. freshman college students exactly how?
It doesn't relate at all. You took advantage of the hook to slam science teachers. That was one of my points.
Comment by edarrell — February 11, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
So, are you totally divorced from reality? Science achievement among U.S. high school students has been in the tank for at least 30 years. When I was at the Department of Education, in the Bill Bennett era, trying to improve that performance was a priority. Bennett proposed, among other things, that we teach evolution, but teach it for real.
That was then, this is now. U.S. performance is still in the tank, and both India and China have far surpassed us in graduate college degrees in science.
You don't think U.S. science is battered?
Whose army did you serve with, again?
Comment by edarrell — February 11, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Ed Darrell:
Already answered Ed.
Read the context of my comment Ed. It was a response to Tom's remark and not the referenced study. This indicates dishonesty or careless reading on your part.
Ed, do you have a reading deficiency or do you see only what you want to see? My comment was about one individual professor. That's singular, not plural. And that individual merited the criticism.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
There it is Joy. Convicted by his own words. At least 30 years would take us back to 1979, well before Intelligent Design made its entry on the scene. So ID had nothing to do with education problems after all.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Bradford:
Don't be absurd. ID is another branch of creationism under a new name. Just look at your fellow IDist TomG's bizarre claim that
Creationism has been an enemy of science a lot longer than 30 years.
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Do you have a reasoning problem too or just wearing the blinders again? The claim was that ID caused our education woes. That is a non-sequitur even if you presume the logic that ID=creation. America's education system compared favorably to other nations for more than the first half of the 20th century when church attendance and other indicators of how religious a society is were greater than the present. So education did well when creation influences were at their peak. Refuted again. Some advice Raevmo. Don't try and defend Ed. It's a losing cause.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Raevmo reinforces the title of this blog post by making this:
Tom G's claim.
Not much truth-telling by Darwinists these days.
Comment by Pez — February 11, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Bradford:
That is not my claim, although the relentless efforts to have ID or other flavors of creationism taught as science do harm science education. I'm just disputing your extremely disingenuous claim that ID can't be responsible because it's so young.
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Yeah Pez. Tom was defining creationism.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Bradford wrote:
Wow! Who said that? Linky?
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I'm pointing out your lies. I've read DBB and much of Dembski. I've read the OT and NT. They are not the same and the conflation of creation with ID is disingenuous.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
That is exactly what TomG claims, Pez.
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Raevmo,
So your defence of your dishonest representation is to point to your problem in comprehension? Accepted.
Comment by Pez — February 11, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Pez:
Would you care to explain, rather than insult?
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I see it didn't post last time.
Sure, Raevmo.
Your representation of TomG's claim was not honest, as per the title of this thread, it was a false depiction.
Then you linked to the blog as though you had read TomG's claim again and as though your representation was fine as it stood. This meant you were not properly reading what you were linking to.
Thus, the false depiction and the defence by poor comprehension.
Comment by Pez — February 11, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Raevmo:
Don't bother Pez. You're done Raevmo. You can claim FLE, anthropic arguments and more are the same as creation and another can claim that atheism is the same as naturalism yada yada… Say it in another forum. And don't whine. It's unbecoming.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Pez you in essence called Raevmo a liar here:
When Raevmo provided the link where he obtained the information you said:
I must have the same reading comprehension problem as Raevmo then, because when I read TomG’s post, I see the following:
When we go see what D1 creationism entails earlier in the blog post we see the following (my bolding):
So what is your and Bradford’s interpretation of what TomG is saying?
Comment by Joe T — February 11, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Sorry, didn't know your browser and Google are down.
After complaining about teaching facts of biology and, I suppose, facts of evolution as fact, Gilson said:
Completely unsupported, and wrong. Here's the link to Gilson's blog, go get him:
http://www.thinkingchristian.n...
Gilson commented later:
We must be talking about Texas, I would presume, since that's the only state where this issue is hot right now. And Gilson's just out to lunch. Creationists in Texas are doing everything they can to fog up the teaching of evolution. Caught with their pants down and hand in the till with their complaints, caught quote mining shamelessly, creationists really cannot claim to be pushing science any longer, not with such unethical tactics.
So, when are you going to join the fray and call them on the carpet, any of them?
Comment by edarrell — February 11, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
and then:
You criticized Tom's argument as "completely unsupported" and then go on to make unsupported assertions of your own about what takes place in Texas.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Hey, here's a chance for all TT contributors to strike a blow for accuracy and decency: Creation/Evolution Headlines has a quite insulting post up about Michael Majerus — which would be sort of de rigeur for creationism — except that it's talking about Majerus's untimely death.
I'm sure that in the world of creationism Majerus's death is hailed as a great indication that God exists. But it's still tasteless.
And scientifically in error.
Go get 'em. Ding 'em on taste, at least.
Comment by edarrell — February 11, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Well, Darwin on a crutch, Brad. I didn't realize how completely uninformed and helpless you guys are.
Here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.co...
http://www.tfn.org/site/News2?...
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageSe...
http://www.texscience.org/repo...
http://www.anevolvingcreation....
Tomorrow is Abraham Lincoln's birthday, the 200th anniversary of his birth. Strike a blow for reason, sanity and science (Lincoln was the first to turn to science organizations for advice on science issues), and write a letter defending hard science standards and not ID to the Texas State Board of Education.
Comment by edarrell — February 11, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Ed, you don't post regularly here so I'm just letting you know that this type of comment belongs in an open thead. Open threads are for off-topic stuff. There is one on the main page and as a rule open threads are usually marked by pictures of animals- rabbits, cats etc.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
My apologies for violating your decorum standards. I must say that I am disappointed that, in a thread devoted to claiming I've maligned someone and the issue is accuracy in science, we're worried about which thread the comment goes into, instead of worrying about getting the science right.
Michael Majerus worried about getting things right, and spent much time in his last 8 years of life vindicating the reputation of a dead colleague, going way beyond the call of duty. That's an example we could all follow.
Comment by edarrell — February 11, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
edarrell:
No. I described 40 years' worth of the teaching of evolution in high school, in several systems across 4 states that I have personal experience with. Some of the teachers were better than others, but the material remained essentially the same across the board, as did the tests to which the subject was taught.
Are you trying to say that the teaching of evolution has led to lousy scores among US and Chinese students in scientific reasoning? Beware of scarecrows, Ed. They can always be turned and used against you because they have no brains.
Are you saying none of the students in the US or China have been taught evolution "for real?" What is it they've been teaching?
I am certainly inclined to agree that high school graduates in the US (and apparently in China too) are indeed unskilled in critical thinking. But that's across the board, and comes as a result of teaching isolated answers on tests, rather than instilling necessary skill sets. I've long advocated that scientific methodology is more important than any set of isolated facts, and instruction should begin in first grade, reinforced through grade 12. I've also advocated that critical thinking be included in all other subjects for which the skill is necessary or useful. But I know that's never going to happen because critical thinking (and adjunct scientific methodology for finding answers to questions) would not produce the generations of good little automaton worker/consumers that buy $200 sneakers and are willing to work for peanuts 60+ hours a week so someone else can get rich.
That's a system-wide problem, speaking to the sociopolitical purposes of public education, not to the 1-2% of the nation's children who go on to be highly skilled professionals after an additional 8 or more years of education beyond high school. Those kids are always out there, will take what they need and go looking for more. Perhaps the shortages being whined about so often lately speak more to the obvious waste of time and talent – not to mention great expense – involved in getting the sheepskins it takes to eat HotPockets and sleep on the concrete floor of some accelerator for the rest of their lives. There's no real pay-off, they'll do better getting their MBA.
Volunteers of Amerika, First Revolutionary Brigade. Gracie Slick was my commandant… §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 11, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Joy:
Too funny.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Ed, the theme of your post has nothing to do with getting science right. The bone of contention is not science. You titled your post:
The issue is your integrity. Neither Tom nor I have advocated not studying science. A simple acknowledgement of that truth is called for. It's not complicated. Admit the error and we can move on.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2009 @ 6:20 am
February 12th, 2009 at 6:56 am
As Tom explained he was detailing definitions of creationism put forth by creationists:
But Tom did more than that. He also wrote this:
Raevmo engaged in quote mining. Tom's definitions of creationism and ID clearly differ yet Raevmo used Tom to further this argument of his:
the first three chapters of Genesis, understood literally, are a reliable guide to the science and the proper understanding of the history of life, the universe and (pardon the allusion) everything.
Tom's actual blog entry clearly distinguishes creationism from ID yet Reavmo selectively quotes Tom to argue that ID is a branch of creationism. Tom Gilson also wrote this:
This thread, like so many others at TT, has witnessed rhetorical games on the part of ID critics. Misrepresentation, quote mining and hidden agendas are sadly all too prominent among ID critics.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2009 @ 6:56 am
February 12th, 2009 at 8:16 am
TomG
Why are these people? Can you quote them? I ask because your side has an appalling history of misrepresenting scientists. Which leads us to…
Do you have a problem with the Board’s Chairman, Dr. Donald McLeroy, D.D.S., standing up and presenting
a whole bunch of quote-mines?
Do you think that is an honest thing to do? How about blogging about that? You will not because you are a culture warrior, and you selectively blog about issues that help your side, and turn a blind eye to the dishonest antics of your own side.
Of course I do! I am a culture warrior too.
And by the way, Joy, you went way up in my estimation for your earlier comment to Pez and Bradford.
Comment by The Pixie Again — February 12, 2009 @ 8:16 am
February 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Bradford, I read the entirety of Tom G's comprehensive post (and responses) describing the variations on ID and creationism. My point is very narrow and does not address any other parts of the debate other than to clarify that Tom G stated in the post very clearly what his beliefs are. Raevmo stated what those beliefs are in a snarky way which may have set people off, but he was not lying. I do not think that it is a quote mine to point out (for the third time in this thread) what Tom G said. Maybe you can point out something I missed in Tom G's post that contradicts his clear statement about his beliefs:
Comment by Joe T — February 12, 2009 @ 10:30 am
February 12th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I probably disagree with Bradford more than I agree with him, but in this case, in at least as much as it applies to Tom’s Post, I wholeheartedly do agree. Darrell misrepresented Tom’s post with malice aforethought.
If evolution is taught this way: what we are about to teach is fact followed by and here it is then it is taught poorly. All science should be taught bottom-up not top-down. Here are the data. Let’s first understand the data. What are the relevant questions about data? Now here is a theory that claims to explain the data. How do we put it to the test? What does it predict?
Tom is absolutely right that evolution can be taught in a manner that is detrimental to the student’s education. It can be taught so that the student can pass a multiple choice exam and yet have no real grounding in critical thinking that he can bring to bear on other problems in or out of the scientific domain.
Darrell wrote of his newly discovered creationist meme:
He politely pointed out that that was not what the study said. He impolitely implied that it was what Tom said, when in fact Tom wrote:
Tom never, ever suggested that teaching science doesn’t improve critical thinking skills, but teaching science as it is commonly done in this country, especially at the high school level, often doesn’t improve critical thinking skills. Anyone who teaches at the college level and has students who have received AP credit for biology can attest to the fact that Tom is generally correct.
Comment by David Heddle — February 12, 2009 @ 10:54 am
February 12th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hi JoeT,
In essence.
Raevmo said
He claimed ID as creationism, listed TomG as a fellow IDist (and then showed that he is a creationist as well, in order to conflate the two) and in that context stated that TomG claimed "the first three chapters of Genesis, understood literally, are a reliable guide to the science and the proper understanding of the history of life, the universe and (pardon the allusion) everything."
When I responded he answered with the link.
Not only did he present it all as a single package, IC/Creation/literal interpretion of Genesis, etc., he left out all context and qualification to this point as held by TomG. As we well know from science defenders, this is called quote-mining and it is dishonest.
I'd ask you to tell me what a literal interpretation of Genesis is but that will take too long so I will do it myself. Heddle is here, and knows that when critics want to debunk the Bible they insist on it being taken literally (as they see it), such that God created the world in 6 days, made man out of dust, and that there was a global flood wiping out the entire planet.
The Pixie's here as well and provides another great example of what the claim means to science defenders. An IDist, to the Pixie, is a Creationist is a Young Earth Creationist by default, and is assumed so until proven otherwise. This is what Raevmo was reinforcing with this quote-mine.
So what did TomG actually say, and what did he espouse?
They generally agree, but with qualifications, such as taking the book figuratively. Raevmo left out this all-important point as well as the following.
As a "guide to science" we find out that TomG also says that the Bible is inconclusive on the Flood (according to this group as he is defining them). In the claim that the Bible is literally a guide to science saying that the Flood is not to be taken necessarily as global, or reflected in or responsible for the fossil record or the geology is a huge qualification cut out of the quote-mine. The Flood need not be taken into consideration nor used as a guide in science whatsoever. Instead of using Genesis as a literal guide to science, as one would interpret this statement in isolation, he says it is taken (by him?) in a figurative sense where paleontology and geology can be studied and interpreted, as they are, without concern for events in the Bible.
This is not what Raevmo depicted.
Comment by Pez — February 12, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
It is clear from the study that is causing all this back and forth that high school graduates have poor critical thinking skills despite a dozen years of mandatory schooling.
Tom Gilson says it seems apparent that simply imparting isolated facts that will appear on the test (memorize-regurgitate) may not be the best way to teach science if critical thinking skills are left out.
Ed Darrell maintains that Tom – and by association, Telic Thoughts – doesn't think science should be taught at all. Ed insists that the existence of people who don't believe-in evolution has savaged public education. He claims that evolution is no longer being taught. He further claimed evolution hasn't been taught for "more than 30 years." He claimed that this amounts to "an act of war" against the nation itself. None of these assertions are true.
And Ed has refused to correct his hyperbolic pants explosions despite being informed of what's true.
Science is taught the way it is taught because the textbooks and lesson plans are written/designed by scientists, promoted by general/special education lobbyists with agendas (overt or hidden), and policed by Grand Inquisitors who remain ever-vigilant against questions, criticisms or disclaimers. Thus students get no exposure to critical thinking about the material.
My daughter corrected her 9th grade science teacher decades ago after the teacher informed the students that there were a total of nine planets in the universe. "Don't you mean nine planets in our solar system?" The teacher promptly had her suspended, the reason given was short and simple – she "asks too many questions," thus intimidated the teacher. When I sarcastically asked the principal on our way out if that's how his school treated all their gifted students, he dropped his jaw.
"She's gifted?" he asked, revealing that he hadn't even looked at her file (or the designation of the class) before calling me in to tell me she was suspended for questioning the teacher's false information. That's how I learned that critical thinking is verboten in public school science classes, even for the smartest students most likely to go on to further education and careers in something like, say, science.
That is not religion's fault. It is public education's fault, along with the 'experts' and lobbyists and turf-guarders who have insisted for so many decades that critical thinking has no place in public science education, and students who think critically must not be allowed to corrupt the other students.
So get off your high horse, Ed. Attend to the dysfunction in your own house before blaming critical thinkers for thinking critically. If your science can't take it, maybe it's not really science that's being taught. Slapping people down for asking questions is a whole lot more likely to make them reject your charade than believe-in the pablum you're feeding them.
Comment by Joy — February 12, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Too late to edit.
I lost a phrase early on.
Comment by Pez — February 12, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Reading comprehension error. I said that the next claim out of creationists before school boards would be that, since teaching facts doesn't teach reasoning, we should abandon facts in favor of teaching creationism.
In fact, that's already happened in Texas. I didn't say Tom would argue for that — he's just a bit too clever. He'll only offer the justification. Folks on Telic Thoughts? Who knows?
In any case, Tom was the one who went off-road, trying to claim that teaching evolution is dogmatic and wrong. Read his post. I made no claim on what he said beyond that.
Read Tom's earlier stuff. He defends Weikart's incredible distortions of history and claims that evolution led to the Holocaust, though the evidence won't support such a claim. Heck, on Godwin's Law alone, we win. (Telic Thoughts only makes warm mentions of Wiekart, which only calls into question the judgment and discernment here.)
I can't say how Joy's daughter was treated. We don't do that sort of stuff at our school. I've never found a science teacher that insists on muzzling kids who ask serious questions. But I've seen classes — I've taught classes — where a dozen kids come in with question sheets they got from their nominally Christian ministers on Sunday, with foolish and stupid questions that they ask belligerently, demonstrating a rather total lack of respect for science, for their schools, for education, and for serious questions.
Texas standards stepped away from dogma when the creationist language was dropped. That was good. I regret you're disappointed, and I regret you fail to understand why the First Amendment keeps us from teaching your dogma to innocent children, but that's the law. It works well, on the whole, and when followed, it tends to produce good scientists. Those states where creationism holds sway produce fewer scientists and, according to testimony in Texas, chase away businesses that need workers well educated in biology, like cancer treatment centers and pharmaceutical development companies.
But please don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. Don't get suckered in by anecdotes uncorroborated by wider-based data. Get the real story. If you can name any place in America where evolution is taught well, I'd love to hear about it. In the interim, the attack on our schools and our science by creationists is, indeed, a major factor in the hobbling of our national educational achievement.
Comment by edarrell — February 12, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Heddle, why should we not teach fact as fact? Get thee to a school of education, try to find anyone who argues that teaching the wrong stuff makes good critical thinkers, or that it improves education at all. Only if you assume that black is white, that teaching falsehoods is the same as teaching truth, does Tom's argument stand up at all.
Quit propping it up and let it collapse as it should.
If Tom can't make a case for his teaching before a conservative, Christian judge, maybe he doesn't have a case. I haven't argued for not challenging or questioning evolution — but I think using proven falsehoods as fodder for children is a sin.
Comment by edarrell — February 12, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
My integrity? I'm not the one claiming Darwin pointed the path to Hitler, as Tom defended earlier (that's why he banned me from his site — I kept demonstrating the evidence was quite contrary to that claim). I'm not the one who gleefully jumped on a serious study of physics teaching to use it as a cudgel against biologists.
Nor did I say that you or Tom ever advocated not studying science (though, I think a fair reading of Tom's rants against evolution would make it clear he's doesn't advocate studying it, either, so far as the science includes any discussion of natural selection or sexual selection or DNA or evolution in any guise). What I said was that you are the vanguard, and the next step will be creationists citing the study as justification for their war on education and their war on science.
I'd love to be wrong, but if I am, it would be because I pointed out the attack was coming more than integrity of creationists refusing to make such a scurrilous claim.
Have you looked at what the creationists are saying in Texas? No, I didn't think so.
Comment by edarrell — February 12, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
We identified the failure to teach evolution straight as a major problem, in our studies of how to improve education in the U.S. I'm sure there are a few teachers somewhere who teach it straight and well — I had one such guy in my school, and I was fortunate to have him as a teacher. But polls of teachers, studies of the local regulations, and the achievement of students on national and international tests, show that evolution is not taught well. Mostly that's because it's under attack. Teachers don't like it when parents, even creationist parents, ask the school superintendent for the teacher's head. Faith didn't save John the Baptist, and teachers have learned it's unwise to rely on faith saving a good, Christian teacher when the creationists get out their long-knives, veils and cymbals.
Comment by edarrell — February 12, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Ed Darrell,
So you want to misrepresent me as well? Nobody is saying not to teach facts as facts. The objection is to a style of teaching that is utterly boring and pedagogically unsound. Science is best learned in historic context, and the context often includes discussions of concurrent bad science and requires philosophical rabbit trails. It is more interesting to learn about Kepler if you first learn the cosmology of Ptolemy. And it is easier to understand critical thinking when you understand why Newton receives so much more acclaim than Kepler even though to first order they explain the data of planetary motion equally well. I have biology students and physics students—and although there are many exceptions, the physics students in general are better critical thinkers. They are better problem solvers. I blame the biology teachers.
Comment by David Heddle — February 12, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
The issue is your integrity. Neither Tom nor I have advocated not studying science. A simple acknowledgement of that truth is called for. It's not complicated. Admit the error and we can move on.
A pattern is evident in your comments. In response to the comments of others about your blog entry you react, not by addressing the issues head-on but, rather by attempting to shift attention away from the topic so that you can do more of the same i.e. irresponsibly link target people to one of your villified concepts. I gave you the opportunity to amend your statements and instead you try to change the subject.
Your paranoid slippery slope arguments do not get you off the hook. That article had nothing to do with a war on science.
You're inflating your sense of importance.
This has nothing to do with your failure to apologize for misrepresenting others. Noone advocated not studying science, contrary to your blog title.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
edarrell:
Um… nope. The title of your blog post iterates clearly what you assert "creationists say."
You cited both Tom and Telic Thoughts to assert our support for "a springboard to a new creationist meme." Yet neither Tom nor Telic Thoughts have said any such thing. Gross misrepresentation repeatedly brought to your attention. Are you incapable of admitting error?
I did read it. It doesn't say what you claim.
I have no need at this point to read his earlier stuff. I can safely presume your charges on that are just as false as your current false charges. It's a credibility thing, you see. You've lost yours (if you ever had any) by asserting falsehoods.
How silly. The issue here is your falsehoods about Tom's post about the study in question, and your inclusion of TT in your false indictment.
??? I've gotta say this admission doesn't support your dismissal of what happened to my daughter. It sounds like you're just the kind of teacher she had, willing to project your personal insult that kids ask questions by blaming the students for asking questions.
I'm not disappointed in anything Texas does, and I have no dogma to teach or not teach. You've once again asserted a falsehood, this one about my position and likely attributable to your ignorance of what my position might be. You really ought to consider not digging this hole any deeper.
And how long has it been, exactly, that Texas schools have been teaching creationism instead of evolution in public school science classes? Last I heard, it's unconstitutional in all states to teach creationism instead of evolution in public school science classes. Where's the ACLU?
Oh… and since when are scientists confined to jobs (or colleges) in their home states? That's something I never heard of. I have heard that approximately 2.5% of the population works in science and engineering, excluding medicine. Do they all get their degrees and jobs in Texas? Does Texas have immigration quotas on scientists from, say, Oklahoma?
This just gets curiouser and curiouser.
I'd like to. But I don't get the feeling that you're telling it.
You say you've taught evolution classes. I don't, so you tell me. In my experience evolution is taught with fair uniformity in every school district in the nation, same way now as it was taught 40 years ago. Same way it was taught 20 years ago.
This of course doesn't mean evolution is taught well, but that's certainly not the fault of the students. If there's a problem it's a problem with the textbooks, lesson plans and teachers. That would be your area of expertise, not mine.
Bullshit. That's the lamest excuse for utter incompetence I ever saw. Creationists are not responsible for the failures of public education in this country (or any other country). Their kids can pass the stupid test just like everybody else's. The test is what you're teaching to, that's the only measure of success that counts. If your students are failing on the test it's your fault, not theirs.
If they pass the test, what they choose to believe about any of it is none of your damned business.
Comment by Joy — February 12, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Awh, what a nice thing to say!
Desipite your feelings about ID, people like you and Dave Snoke helped inspire me study physics.
Yup. First day in modern physics we studied Maxwell's Aether. The rest of the semester was devoted to the "failures" of classical physics in certain domains.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 12, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
February 12th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
edarrell:
What does it mean to teach evolution "straight?" And what is crooked about it now? The answers on the test aren't that hard – Charles Darwin, RM, NS, common ancestry. What more do future hairdressers, call center operators, accountants and convenience store clerks need to know about it?
I was fortunate as well, my teacher (biology and chemistry) was excellent. He was youth minister at the First Baptist Church on Sundays, never taught us anything but the 'straight dope'. Remember with particular fondness spending many a Saturday digging fossils out of the cliffs at Tenkiller Dam, fitting them into the proper table to assign a date, then discussing the fascinating geology of the area related to that. Bio-II was elective then, so we could talk about whatever we liked, questions weren't forbidden.
When bio-II (evolution and its extrapolations) became a requirement for graduation, there could be no time or place for the kind of exploration a teacher can encourage in students who are there because they want to be there.
This is what happens with a technical and culturally/religiously controversial subject is made a graduation requirement for all students across the board. Kids are just like grown-ups in that not everyone has the same interests or capabilities or career paths. The subject must be "dumbed down" to the least common denominator, so that less capable students' futures aren't materially harmed because they couldn't pass advanced biology in high school. An intellectually challenging course in those circumstances is the stupidest idea any educator could ever come up with. If you're really an educator, you'd know this.
Um… the test is standardized, as are the textbooks and the lesson plans. What teachers like or don't like is irrelevant. All they have to do is make the students memorize the answers to the test.
Comment by Joy — February 12, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 12:07 am
David Heddle wrote:
David, I often agree with you, but this is not even wrong. Everyone is against "a style of teaching that is utterly boring and pedagogically unsound." Trouble is, very few people know how to hold every student's attention and effectively transfer knowledge, even among university faculty. And we're talking about teachers in the public-school system.
Learning science in a historical context is nice, but do you really spend any time on the epicycles? Phlogiston? The four elements? I think this is good stuff for a history-of-science class, but I'd only mention them in passing in a physics lecture.
Lastly, students not majoring in your field are less interested in it than are majors, so perhaps that explains why they perform less well. Just a thought.
Comment by olegt — February 13, 2009 @ 12:07 am
February 13th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Bradford-
Comment by terrycvn — February 13, 2009 @ 3:11 am
February 13th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Comment by terrycvn — February 13, 2009 @ 3:40 am
February 13th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Olegt,
Depends. Epicycles get more than a mention in passing, for it is tailor made for explaining what is different about modern science. Epicycles explain the data and make predictions. A case can be made that the theory of epicycles maps nicely onto the scientific method. Yet the students know intuitively it is not science, even if they don’t not why. It is well worth taking the time to explain the why. Ensuing discussions about mechanism and Ockham’s razor go well beyond “facts” and yet are extremely valuable. And even when discussions, as directed by students, venture way down a rabbit trail it can still be useful, if for no other reason than to generate some excitement. As long as the teacher can maintain control and bring the conversation back.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating “teach the controversy.” And I am 100% against so-called “Academic Freedom” bills. I have, however, long held the position that the worst science classes are science-only science classes. This is especially true at the general-ed level—but it remains true to a lesser extent even in graduate classes.
As for biology students I am talking high school pedagogy and basing it on limited experience. And of course I sometimes get amazing students in my physics or astronomy classes from the life sciences or pre-med. However, the most common complaint I get from such students who don’t perform well is this: I understand the material when you lecture or when I read the book, but I just hate word problems.
But my position, defensible or not, is irrelevant. The point is that Ed Darrell misrepresented Tom in a rather cheap manner, extrapolating Tom’s post to a ridiculous end-of-the-world conclusion.
Comment by David Heddle — February 13, 2009 @ 6:48 am
February 13th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Terrycvn, please direct me to the part of the OT or the NT which mentions information theory. If you could negate theories about the physical world, based on their associations to metaphysical positions, mainstream evolution would have to go. Richard Dawkins would be exhibit A.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2009 @ 8:04 am
February 13th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Oleg to David:
It's a culture war, Oleg. You know this, you're right here on the line. At some point a few decades ago it became 'important' to make evolution mandatory rather than a college prep academic elective. Sure, maybe everybody does need to know the answers to the questions asked – Charles Darwin, RM, NS, common descent. And let's face it – they're not that hard, many 3rd graders could give them correctly just fine. As a practical matter given the range of ability in the public school population, these were deemed the salient concepts to impart, and they've been imparted to every student since who got that far.
What did not happen – and given reality, could not have been expected to happen – was that every high school graduate who managed to regurgitate the correct test responses would actually believe-in evolution. Some do. Some don't. Most simply don't care. Heck, nearly half of high school graduates in this country can't find California on a map! People retain only what they want or need to retain. The rest is just time spent off the streets and out of trouble.
Ed's issue, maybe yours as well, is that so many people who know the correct test answers don't believe-in evolution. Maybe advanced biology could be taught better or 'straighter', but then you'd lose John who needs that diploma so he can hope someday to be the boss of his own auto shop and not just a grease monkey all his life. He worked as hard as any other student to get through all those years of schooling, and should not have his future compromised after 10 or 11 years just because he can't negotiate the difference between Lepidoptera and Coleoptera.
Labeling him stupid isn't what we allow public schoolteachers to do to their students. Flunking him because he's less able to master technical academic material than Jane who wants to be a gene-splicer (and probably will be) would be unfair. There are way more Johns than Janes in public school classes. Demanding that students swear faith-in evolution over anything else they may believe about the nature of who and what they are, is unacceptable.
You guys want the first amendment to protect your scientific hegemony, and it has consistently done so. Thus you must respect the fact that the same amendment guarantees John's freedom of conscience and belief as well.
That's just the way things are. You can't force anyone to recant their traditional faiths in or out of public school. All you can do is make an offer of science's current knowledge. They're the ones who have to run with it if they choose to. If not, their choice is none of your business.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2009 @ 11:50 am
February 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Joy,
Not sure why you want to single out biology. Most high-school students have a poor grasp of math, physics, and chemistry as well. No one is required to profess a faith in science, just demonstrate its knowledge. I'm sure very few students `believe' in quantum physics after just reading a textbook.
You should point out examples of scientists using the first amendment to protect their `hegemony'. It wasn't the scientists who sued the school board in Dover, parents did. Scientists testified, on both sides I might note.
And you're right, my students' faith is none of my business.
Comment by olegt — February 13, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
oleg:
Of course they have a poor grasp of higher maths, physics and chemistry. Those are still elective subjects in high school, taken by students who not only have high scores and aptitude in the prerequisites, but are likely to go on to major in those or related subject areas in post-secondary education.
IOW, the list of requisite high school courses doesn't include calculus, physics or chemistry, but those courses are offered as elective choices just like drama and orchestra and art history and debate and auto mechanics are elective choices. Students must fulfill certain requirements in math (through algebra-I and geometry), language, history, social studies. They get a couple of electives per year as well, with the intent that they will get apprentice training in a trade or an academic direction toward their future career goals.
High school students aren't required to take quantum physics. It's not offered at any high school I know of, even as elective for college-bound students, though the subject is no doubt discussed a bit in elective physics just like SR and GR are. Interested students can always look it up on their own, of course. Since there are a plethora of popular books on the bookstore shelves that specifically tie quantum physics to metaphysical beliefs, a student could most definitely come away with some amount of faith that quantum physics confirms their metaphysical beliefs. S/he just won't be getting a grade on that from the high school physics teacher.
As for the required evolutionary biology course, they must indeed demonstrate their knowledge of the correct test responses. Charles Darwin, RM, NS, common descent. That's not so hard, all graduates have done it. They need not believe it or even know anything except that these are the correct answers. And most don't.
I'm just pointing out that the turf-guardians – such as NCSE, et al. – are tireless in their efforts to bar mention of religious origin beliefs in public school science classes. I say "mention" rather than "teaching," because no public high schools are teaching creationism or ID instead of evolution. The first amendment issue has been firmly decided, repeatedly, in their favor.
Of course evolutionary biology could be taught better, more information could be imparted, linkages between concepts could be much better drawn in ways students could understand. But not in a requisite course, and not in a system that is forced to teach to tests dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator. And no matter what, the individual students still have a first amendment right to believe as they choose regardless of what their science teacher says.
It's a throw-back to the Enlightenment ideal that all ignorance and religion can be eliminated with universal education. That ideal is as absurd as the belief that if all people could be made to read the Bible, they'll all become Christians. Both ignore human nature and reality.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Bradford-
According to Dembski the gospel of John mentions information theory, in a different "idiom."
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
On the contrary, Dembski conflates them. And it was proven in a court of law that they are conflated.
Comment by terrycvn — February 13, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Terrycvn, please direct me to the part of the OT or the NT which mentions information theory.
Dembski is stating his theological position that information theory supplies physical evidence of John's very eloquent description of God's relation to creation. He is entitled to that view which is distinctive from both information theory itself and its relationship to the origin of life. Not surprisingly you ignored my reference to Dawkins who does essentially the same thing as Dembski but uses physical evidence to assert an opposing metaphysical viewpoint. Both men are entitled to their respective views. In neither case do their metaphysical linkages impact scientific debates about origins.
I've read DBB and much of Dembski. I've read the OT and NT. They are not the same and the conflation of creation with ID is disingenuous.
It was not proven that they are conflated except to those lacking the analytical abilities to see beyond talking points.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
This is Dembski's scientific position on intelligent design as opposed to his theological inference:
To that question Dembski gives an affirmative answer. So the next logical question for him would be what are the features signaling the action of an intelligent cause? ID opponents are being intellectually dishonest (and cowardly) when they attempt to use the U.S. constitution to truncate Dembski's answers with a Gospel of John canard. Why not instead identify Dembski's answers and show that either a non-intelligent cause is implicated or answers are unknown.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Applying David Heddle's bad argument identifiers to the claim that ID and creation are the same thing, based on Dembski's Gospel of John quote, there are the following:
BA2: Begging the Question. ID is a Trojan Horse for the Bible and religion. William Dembski thinks that intelligent design is the physical implementation of the Book of John. So ID is sneaking religion in through the back door.
BA4: Red Herring. The ruling of a U.S. District Court judge on a school board case shows that ID is religion.
BA6: Correlation is not causation. The theological inferences of one prominent IDist signifies an identity between ID and religion.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The ruling in Dover was quite explicit. It ruled that the effort to teach ID in science class was religiously motivated based on not just Dembski reading the Bible, but on a wide range of evidence. And it also ruled that ID really wasn't science in order to rule out the possibility the people opposing ID were, themselves, religiously motivated to claim it wasn't science. In other words, it ruled for the claim that ID was the establishment of religion and also against the counter claim that keeping ID out was the establishment of religion.
I don't mind you contesting the Dover decision, but don't waste my time pretending is was limited or that it was based on a single person's single quote of a single Biblical passage.
Comment by don provan — February 13, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Since the ancient Greeks and probably before that great minds have wrestled with issues like religion, design and nature. Are you under the impression that a judge in PA settled those matters by judicial edict?
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 12:51 am
dp:
I am not clear on something here. I didn't follow closely because the Dover school board had made no secret of their religious motivations, and deserved to lose on that score to the parents who filed suit. But…
It was my understanding that the offense was not teaching ID in science class, but including a disclaimer and information that the ID textbook – the one Behe contributed to and testified about – was to be found in the school library for students to access on their own time. In fact, this is about the most that could be done, since it's a fact that evolution (standard form) must be taught in public schools, and the students must pass the requisite test. The Dover school district didn't make that go away or they couldn't have been accredited as a public system.
How am I misinformed on this?
Comment by Joy — February 14, 2009 @ 12:51 am
February 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Bradford-
Nonetheless they are clearly linked together in Dembski's mind. And the reams of evidence from the Dover trial also demonstrates the link. This is sufficient to counter your claim that holding this viewpoint amounts to being disingenuous:
Comment by terrycvn — February 14, 2009 @ 10:53 am
February 14th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I've read DBB and much of Dembski. I've read the OT and NT. They are not the same and the conflation of creation with ID is disingenuous.
Why did you ignore the Dembski quote indicating his belief that physical objects can signal an intelligent cause?
That's the crux of intelligent design. Dembski's linkage of that belief to his religious beliefs is no more relevant to ID (a concept bigger than one individual) than is Dawkins' linkage of mainstream evolution to atheism. You're not contending that we withhold the teaching of evolution based on those who tie it to atheism are you?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2009 @ 11:04 am
February 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Bradford-
You are bringing in the kitchen sink again. Please review my brief posts. They have only been to counter your claim that pointing out this linkage is somehow being disingenuous.
Raevmo is not being disingenuous, just like thousands of scientists and a federal judge are not being disingenuous. In your opinion they may be mislead, but that is different than lying or being disingenuous, cowardly, or dishonest (all terms you have used here to describe critics).
It is also not disingenuous to point out that Dawkins links his atheism to evolution.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Comment by terrycvn — February 14, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Terrycvn, your position comes down to an endorsement of the tactic of cherry picking a single quote from one individual (Dembski) to characterize a belief system held by many. The fact that Dawkins and others can openly link mainstream evolution to their pet cause (atheism) without repercussions and one individual doing so with respect to ID carries legal implications, amply illustrates a double standard. Worse yet noone has even asked whether Dembski's quote is applicable to IDists as a group. But Orwellians do not need to know such things for at heart they despise freedom of thought for those not thinking like themselves.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Terrycvn:
I should point out the standard by which disingenuous is measured. Arguments from authority are not immune to being disingenuous. The judge sez so is not the final word. Logic and consistent reasoning patterns are the standard and by that standard the painting of ID by a cherry picked quote is disingenuous.
One thing needs to be stressed. Many of the same people who like to use judicial decisions to settle non-judicial issues do so only when the relevant court favors their opinions. The same people who applauded Jones' broad characterization technique and followed up with rightous law of the land stances, howled at the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. Law of the land indeed.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Bradford-
You have introduced at least ten new issues. I have only signed on to address my original point.
Um no, that is not my position. It is basically: if you are claiming Raevmo is being disingenuous, then the same would have to apply to 99% of scientists. (The exact percentage is not particularly relevant, but here is one study: http://blogs.dallasobserver.co...)
I had thought the implication was clear: that scientists are not part of a secret cabal which purposefully lies about intelligent design for their own devious ends. But now I see that you may actually believe that:
Comment by terrycvn — February 14, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Bait and switch Terry? The initial claim was that ID was a religion. Whether ID is science is a different question. If x is not science x does not thereby become religion.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Which part of this is unclear:
Where is the bait-and-switch?
Comment by terrycvn — February 14, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Is ID a religion? Yes or no.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
As before, I am not obliged to respond to any new issue you introduce. I never said that ID is a religion. If you wish to avoid my point, which I have repeated several times now, then either say so or ignore it.
Comment by terrycvn — February 14, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
February 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I have addressed your point. You are dodging. How are the views of Dembski relevant to the claim that ID is a religion. If they are not relevant then why bring them up?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
February 15th, 2009 at 5:42 am
At the request of the defense (the district) and the plaintiffs, the judge was also asked to make a determination of whether intelligent design is science. Depositions and testimony on this point were extensive. I'm not sure there was any need for expert testimony apart from this point. Discovery Institute had been seeking exactly that trial in several places around the nation; you can probably still find a few references to their attempt to bring the case in Darby, Montana, for example.
So the contest was not just over the actions of the school board, but also over the content of intelligent design, whether under any circumstances it would fall into the "science" category and not be counter to the establishment clause just by itself, if mandated by a school board which genuinely thought it was acting in the interests of science, with no religious animus of its own.
This is why the testimony of Dr. Barbara Forrest was so important that the creationist side tried nearly everything they could to keep her off the stand. Historically, it's quite clear what went on, right down to the religious conference sponsored by Christian Dallas where Dembski, Behe, Johnson and the other usual suspects planned out the revision of Of Pandas and People to substiute "intelligent design" every place the word "creationism" had appeared, and where they plotted out how to win a public relations war to expunge Darwin and materialism from textbooks.
Here's the relevant part of the Kitzmiller decision.
And,
A lot of the propaganda out of Casey Luskin's propaganda shop has been directed at trying to make people forget that ID itself was on trial in Pennsylvania. Good news for Christians: Put on trial, it was discovered to have more than enough evidence that it is wholly a religious, Christian concept! Bad news for creationists: That religious origin, and the inability to emancipate ID from its religious origins, makes ID an inherently religious doctrine, and therefore inherently contrary to the establishment clause for teaching in public schools, at least until someone from the ID side deigns to go into a lab and do some work on the idea, finish the work and publish it.
Part of the offense was the disclaimer, designed to undermine Pennsylvania education standards in science; the greater part of the offense was the religious nature of ID itself.
Judge Jones said in the decision:
Comment by edarrell — February 15, 2009 @ 5:42 am
February 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
edarrell:
Well Ed, I am not one of those scientists who believes it's the job of the government's judicial system to determine what is science and what is not. That this position would make me unpopular with the Guardians of Scientific Orthodoxy whose life's work is more about suckling at the government teat than doing anything approaching real science is… somewhat gratifying. Leeches, the lot of 'em.
Your cut and pastes also mean nothing to the question I asked about what the actual issues were. Which I looked up and found were just as I thought. A disclaimer and some books in the school library. Lord knows library books are dangerously subversive things to make available to impressionable children! Book-Burners of the World, Unite!!! Blah, blah, blah.
It's a shame the book-burners were so anxious, because while it's true that the DI and the Dover school board were illegally motivated by religious considerations (and would lose on that fact alone), the idea that there may be teleological design in evolution isn't a tenet of anybody's organized religion. Certainly not mine.
I can almost see Harlow Shapely spinning in his grave, wishing he'd thought of getting the government to turn his prejudices into law so he wouldn't have been forced to lose to the scientific Truth Brigade back when the evidence neared tipping point in favor of the Big Bang. If he'd just insisted the courts back him up, his erroneous model of the universe would still be spoon-fed to the public's children today, safely preventing any of those dangerous religious people from equating a creation ex nihilo with "Let there be light."
The corruption of science, which was once such a progressive ideal and endeavor, nears completion. When it is finally reduced to nothing more than an authoritarian arm of government-sponsored religion its ultimately needless death will be mourned by the few of us who remember what it was intelligently designed to be, and might have been. Very sad.
What religion was ID back when the ancient Greeks were debating the same ideas? I forget…
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
February 16th, 2009 at 12:27 am
It seems to me that such a view shows contempt for our nation, for the Constitution, and the legal institutions that protect freedom. It doesn't make me happy, but I'm not surprised.
The courts are quite skilled at separating crankery from science. They've been doing it rather well for about a century, and they have it down almost to a science, you might say. That it displeases you doesn't change the outcome.
One of the key issues was whether ID is science by any definition. Since you bear contempt for any regular determination of such issues and contempt for the legal system that makes such determinations, should we be surprised that, once you lose the question, you refuse to offer any respect?
The other issues are rather similar to what you said: Can a school district force religious dogma on children. The court said no. Had there been science, the ID stuff would have been in the curriculum. Since it was religion, however, the disclaimer and putting the book in the library were simply religious actions, almost religious rites. No one proposed to burn books, but only because the board knew in advance that had they proposed to burn the books they disliked, it would be too obvious. So they chose a disclaimer instead, a condemnation of the books they could not burn.
You're welcome for the reference to the actual court case, which is where you found the issues you sought. Nothing like looking at the actual documents.
Comment by edarrell — February 16, 2009 @ 12:27 am
February 16th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Joy,
Oops. I posted this before I saw that someone finally answered you, but here's my simplified answer. The Dover school board required that science teachers read a brief passage, four paragraphs long, that introduced and pointed students to the Creationist/IDist book, Of Pandas and People. I say "Creationists" because the plantiffs showed that Of Pandas and People was originally written as a Creationist book, and then transformed into an IDist book using search and replace after a legal ruling against Creationism in science classes.
You can read the actual statement in the Wikipedia background of the case. You might argue that this statement should not be considered "teaching ID in science class", but the decision on the matter was
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2009 @ 7:54 am
February 16th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Polytheism.
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2009 @ 8:05 am
February 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Ed Darrell:
It looks as if you have contempt for scientists and philosophers who spent years studying both their craft and the issue of scientific boundaries and emerged believing that they were not cut and dry. Courtrooms are not an ideal place to address the issue. Judge Jones is not an ideal man to adjudicate that matter. Although I agree with his decision his scientific and philosophical acumen did not impress. Neither did his need to copy verbatim vast portions of his written judgement. Add to that the fact that a district court judge took it upon himself to adjudcate an international concern and you have before you no small amount of hubris.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2009 @ 10:00 am
February 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am
edarrell:
Gee. I can almost hear George Bush's fake Texas drawl saying something about some little old Quaker ladies and their terrorist cell with their terrorist chocolate chip cookies and how the nation should be thankful that he's designated them 'unlicensed combatants' or whatever the title was that let him target US citizens who spoke out against his wars of convenience, revenge and oil…
The nation's in trouble, but that has nothing to do with Pennsylvania high schoolers. I didn't cause the trouble, I won't be fixing the trouble. Neither will Jones. The Constitution will hopefully be restored in coming months to its former glory. Or, some of it. I don't expect we'll ever get amendment #4 back, but that's not about Pennsylvania high schoolers either. No, I am not fond of the judicial system – avoid it whenever possible because in my experience it's not about freedom at all. It's about who's got the deepest pockets and most expensive lawyers. YMMV.
As for what makes YOU happy… frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Were that so, Jones would have written his own decision instead of letting the ACLU do it. That's kind of like letting the food processors' lobby write FDA regulations, or Goldman-Sachs write banking law. Before you know it we've got melamine in our baby formula, salmonella in our peanut butter, and a worldwide total economic collapse. The sort of thing that makes you happy, right?
I haven't lost anything, Ed. The Dover defendants deserved to lose, that was my position all along. FWIW, which isn't much. I don't live in Pennsylvania, I don't go to high school there, and neither do my children or grandchildren. I'm a little dismayed by Jones' overreaching, but he probably took lessons from another PA federal judge named Rambo. She's a real piece of work.
Actually, I just Googled my way to Wikipedia.
Comment by Joy — February 16, 2009 @ 11:41 am
February 16th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Not at all. ID is no where near any of those boundaries.
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
February 16th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
If you don't know the facts, don't pretend you do. Jones didn't "let" the ACLU write the decision. The plaintiffs presented a brief at the beginning of the trial. Through the due process of the trial, Judge Jones found the brief to be, for the most part, correct, so he used it heavily as part of his decision.
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
February 16th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Bradford-
On the contrary, you have avoided my point each time. It is you who are dodging by asking questions instead of owning up to your claim.
Your claim is that anyone linking ID with religion is being disingenuous (you also used the terms dishonest and cowardly). I have repeated stated that I entered this discussion only to refute this claim.
Dembski was an example of a clear-cut statement linking ID to religion, in his mind. The second example is the voluminous evidence in the Dover trial linking ID to religion (cdesign proponentsists). The third example is the opinion of thousands of scientists and educators who both reject ID and see it is as religiously motivated.
Whether ID is "true" or not, or whether ID is "truly" linked to religion or not, is rather beside the point. There are substantial reasons behind the conclusion that they are linked. Whether you agree or not is also beside the point. There still is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that one may at least reach such a conclusion without being dishonest. Mislead, in your view, but not dishonest.
In other words, you are falsely demonizing your opponents.
If you wholeheartedly believe that the thousands or millions of people who link ID to religion are being dishonest, or cowardly, or disingenuous, then you may be too far gone. Such a vast global conspiracy against ID would be incredible.
Incredible indeed.
Comment by terrycvn — February 16, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
February 16th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Terrycvn:
Terry, if you wish to argue with yourself then go ahead but within this thread the ID/religion issue stems from this comment:
Raevmo: Don't be absurd. ID is another branch of creationism under a new name. Just look at your fellow IDist TomG's bizarre claim that
Raevmo: Creationism has been an enemy of science a lot longer than 30 years.
We're not noting a simple linkage or relationship. The claim is much stronger. Raevmo was staking a claim to ID being a branch of creationism and traces this all the way back to Genesis. For him religion and ID were the same at the outset. That's what I took issue with. ID can be related to many things that are not ID. But ID is not those things. Telic Thoughts is a blog. It shares some commonalities with other blogs but is not those other blogs.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 12:32 am
I've reviewed the comments and I do not see a statement by Raevmo saying that ID equals religion, or that they were the "same from the outset." Only that ID can be traced back to creationism, i.e., it is a branch of creationism.
That is an understandable position. It is held by thousands or millions of scientists and educators throughout the world. It is the finding of the Dover trial. Here is a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson which illustrates it.
http://video.google.com/videop...
Do you believe deGrasse Tyson along with thousands or millions of scientists and educators are dishonest, or cowardly, or disingenuous? Will you back away from that claim, or will you tell us more about this Orwellian cabal that despises freedom of thought?
Comment by terrycvn — February 17, 2009 @ 12:32 am
February 17th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Terrycvn:
If x is ID and y creationism then Raevmo's claim was that x is a subset of y. Branch arguments argue that specific point. ID is not a branch of creationism. Creationism is based directly in religious claims. ID rests on the contention that objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 11:01 am
February 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Bradford-
You dodged my point again. As I just said,
I await to see what new device you will employ to dodge it. We both know you will not answer it, but out of curiosity I ask again since I find your ducking prowess strangely interesting.
Comment by terrycvn — February 17, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
February 18th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Man, I never should have let this discussion get off my radar screen. Too much fun was had by all, I can see…
Comment by TomG — February 18, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
February 18th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Terrycvn:
You're making something out of nothing since I've already repeatedly answered the only question you posed in your two comments. So let me be bold so as you will not miss this:
Anyone who claims that ID is the same as creation or a subset of it is dishonest, cowardly, disingenuous or (I'll add one more possibility) just plain ignorant. Fill in the blanks as you wish. This includes you if you wish to make that claim.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
February 19th, 2009 at 3:32 am
OK, so you are backing away from your original claim. An accusation of ignorance is very different than one of dishonesty or cowardice.
I did wonder which way it would go, though. Your statements suggest strong conspiratorial thinking. The "they" in "at heart they despise freedom" and such. Perhaps there is a story behind this "they."
Comment by terrycvn — February 19, 2009 @ 3:32 am
February 20th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I do think there is a story behind it, myself. Look at Forrest and Gross, and Robert Pennock, who all falsely depict ID as creationism. It's clearly a rhetorical ploy; and since Forrest and Pennock both testified at Dover, there is at least a smidgen of a chance they've talked about it between the two of them.
Comment by TomG — February 20, 2009 @ 5:19 pm