I have been thinking about your proposals for devising a school curriculum.

You would assemble experts to discuss its merits, you would weigh the pros and cons, discuss whether or not it would be valuable information for students to have, heck, you might even wonder if it actually represented reality.
Then you would vote collectively with your community to see if the government that represents you collectively and the school district which represents you ought to be involved in this project. It's kind of a democratic idea. It works relatively well.

As I understand it, you are saying that a commitee in each school district would assemble these experts, and together they would go through everything that claims to be science, and decide for each one whether it is worthy of being taught in school. So your commitee and experts would gather together and consider what to teach in chemistry: the gas laws, transmutation of the elements, the laws of thermodynamics, the periodic table, the classical elements, cold fusion, phlogiston theory and so on. I wonder how long that would take? Have a flick through a physical chemistry textbook if you get the chance (mine in over a thousand pages long) and see how much there is in there in just one subsection of chemistry, just including the bits that scientists accept as science. Throw in organic chemistry, geochemistry, environmental chemistry, inorganic chemistry, polymer chemistry and who knows what fringe science there is. I suspect this would take days to weeks. Then they can assemble a new group of experts to do physics and then biology, and finally they would need to do a catchall for anything falling outside those three like UFOology and psychology.

When the commitee have decided what they will allow in science lessons, it sounds as though the whole community gets to ratify that decision. Imagine the how the commitee would feel if it is rejected, and they have to start again (I assume it is an all or nothing vote; surely you are not having the whole community vote on each and every issue).

Of course, what your school district accepted as suitable for science education will be slightly different to what all the other school disticts decided. People all have their own opinions, their own metaphysics, so every commitee will decide differently. All around the country, children will be taught different things in science. Some will be taught common descent, some will be taught creationism, some might get taught geocentrism, if only because it was the last thing the commitee discussed after 18 hours, and they were too tired to think, and none of them are trained in science, and none of the voters actually bothered to read the curriculum, they just agreed it because no one wanted to have to redo it (think of the cost of hiring those experts for another four weeks, if nothing else).

But then, may be if I was advocating a theory that was popular with he general public, but not with science, I would demand that the general public decide what was taught, rather than the people who know the subject best.

Of course your non-sequitur does not hold. There is no reason to presume that your implied syllogism has any merit.
Even IF Meyer is a creationist his stated view is that he is not impacted by universal common descent, even though he is skeptical of its findings.
You are nothing but a thought police concerning yourself with beliefs rather than actions.

That is the thing about threats. They have not yet happened. Should we wait until Mayer has acted, wait until creationism is taught in schools, or should we act now to stop it before it happens?

To consider whether ID is a threat, we have to consider what actions are likely in the future. And that means we have to consider the beliefs, motives and desires of IDists. Of course, we have to realise that we may be wrong. Sorry, but I cannot see any other way to evaluate that threat.

Let us suppose an IDist who is also a Christian creationist. I trust you will accept they exist, and exist as a large part of the ID movement. I think Meyer and Johnson, very prominent IDists, are two such people, but we are not certain. These people reject common descent on faith. Their religion tells them common descent is false, and no amount of evidence will persuade them otherwise.

Why would such a person stand for a teacher telling children in a science class that these religious beliefs were wrong? I keep asking this question, and get no answer. I can think of no such reason. I think such a person would do all they can to stop that situation, and a part of that would be to pretend that his "view is that he is not impacted by universal common descent", that he is merely "skeptical of its findings", that he merely wants ID taught in schools, or merely wants "teach the controversy" taught in schools, given numerous court ruling against his real aim of having creationism taught.

By the way, you do realize that Science does not know if there ever was a LUCA, right? And that there are theories that LUCA might actually have been a community? And that this community might have been swapping genes horizontally rather than through descent? And you know that Science does not know what the purported first life form was, right? And that it can't know how many times there was, in fact, a "first" life form?

So what? Does our ignorance disprove common descent? Does LGT disprove common descent? Does multiple "first" life forms disprove common descent?

Pix: Science says common descent happened.

Pes: Wow! Stamp stamp fan erasies"¦
Science may have a tentatively held theory subject to overhaul and amendment upon the discovery of new evidence"¦since that's what science does.
Science does not SAY.

Okay, science tentatively holds that all organisms are related by common descent, science currently takes the position that universal common descent happened. Just like it tentatively holds that relativity is true.

Of course they are degrees of how tentative a theory is. The laws of thermodynamics are so well established that, while they are technically tentative, in practice they can be accepted as fact. At the other end of the scale, string theory is hotly disputed. Common descent is much nearer to the laws of thermodynamics. Over the century and a half since Darwin proposed common descent, the amount of supoorting evidence has been huge, the amount of refuting evidence slight (I am not aware of any) and the opportunity for refuting evidence significant (eg in genetics).

In fact the only possible reason I am aware of for questioning common descent is that it contradicts your religious beliefs.

Your "no" and "no" are wrong and wrong. Sure, call Natural Selection a process if you like, that doesn't change the fact that it is a result, not a mechanism, and not a "driver" as you want to call it.
Here's that bit from Allen MacNeill. Now you may find him as inconsistent as I do on this issue, but you can't argue with him, he is a scientist, and he says this:

Of course I can argue with him!

Natural selection acts on the output (the result if you like) of variation. But nevertheless, it is an on-going process. Yes, Allen says it is a result (and I would say that is bad wording), but he does not say it is not also a process. Note where he says: "which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time". Natural selection is the "unequal survival and reproduction of individuals", and this process "results in changes in… ". So we have a result that is also a process and itself giving a result.

You make the same mistake with this analogy that Darwin did. When breeders "select" then intelligence is involved, we move beyond mechanism, we move into teleology and yes, the "selection" is a result of the intelligent design, and is not a process unto itself.
You may want to call culling a mechanism and a process, but this is only a manifestation of the design, this is not the selection per se. Nor is any act of limiting the reproductive opportunities.

I am sorry, I am not getting this. Why does involving intelligence move us "beyond" a mechanism. A mechanism is the nuts and bolts of how something works. The mechanism of writing a blog post involves intelligence, but it still counts as a mechanism.

I sometimes wonder if people are confused by how this term is used in science. In common usage, mechanism means the working of a machine, and that would indeed preclude an intelligent agent. In science, a mechanism is the steps that make up the process, the "how it works". Chemical reactions have a mechanism, but there is certainly no machinery. I also sometimes wonder if people think mechanisms cannot have intelligent agents to excuse ID's total lack of mechanisms!

Yes, let us call culling a process. But why not include the intelligent selection as a part of that process? I can see no reason to exclude it, can you? And the mechanism of culling is a description of how it happens, including the intelligent selection part, complete with the criteria used.

Having said all that, I wonder if this is really just a semantic argument about how we label things.

Follow along with his logic here. Evolution is not random because Natural Selection is guided. By what? we ask. "By which genes survive and which genes don't survive".
But that is differential reproductive success. That is natural selection.
So Natural Selection is not random, because it is guided, guided by Natural Selection.

Natural selection is guided by the needs of the organism or species in that environment.

There, that's better. But, actually, we see evidence that doesn't support the idea as well. We see mutational hot-spots, stress-phase reactions, hyper-mutability, etc.. We see some "random" (by which I mean we don't know of any teleological reason for them) mutations resulting, presumably, from copying "mistakes" (are they "mistakes" or are they a designed mechanism of variability?).

Variation is believed to random with respect to fitness. That means a specific mutation will be just as likely whether it is beneficial to the organism in its current environment or not. For example, a mutation that causes white fur will be just as likely for a rabbit living in a green environment as one living in a white ernvironment.

Hypermutation is about altering the rate of mutation. For the rabbits (hypothetically; rabbits do not hypermutate), this would mean that when times are bad, they would mutate more often. The white fur mutation would become more likely. But even then, the white fur mutation will still be as likely for hypermutating rabbits in a green environment as in a white one, because variation is random with respect to fitness.

There are considerable differences in the likelihood of a mutation at different points along DNA, with "hotspots" being particular prone. But whether the white fur mutation for the rabbits occurs on a hot spot or not, the chances of that mutation are the same whether the rabbit is in a green environment or a white one. Because variation is random with respect to fitness.

This begs the question: How do we know it is random. We do not. Scientists have proposed the hypothesis that it is random, made predictions and tested those predictions for a number of case, and they have extrapolated from there. So far, no one has offered any alternative hypothesis frm which a prediction can be made (as far as I am aware), so tentatively science holds that all mutations are random with respect to fitness. My guess is that there are many, many more Darwinist scientists investigating this than ID scientists too.

But we also see that these do little or nothing in terms of providing the complexity of raw materials which blind watch-maker evolution is supposed to account for.

What gives you that impression?

Have you noticed that I can match you assertion for assertion?

Of course I had!

However, my assertations are backed by biologists - you know, the people who know biology best - whether atheist or theist. Yours are not.

Dawkins tells us that with Darwin's theory it became possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Why is that?.

That would be because up to that point there was no theory that could explain the diversity of life on Earth that did not invoke a deity. It was the reverse of the situation that Meyer is in now. Children were taught that "kinds" were created by God, and this directly contradicts the beliefs of atheists. No wonder, then, that atheists were happy when that changed. Now children are (or should be) taught they are descended from single-celled organisms, and this directly contradicts the beliefs of a relatively small group of Christians. So why should we be surprised if they want to change that?

Because the design was evidenced, apparent, indicated, throughout nature.
It still is.

That would be apparent design. Did I mention humans have a propensity to see design where it does not exist?

The only difference is that there is a proposal on the table that attempts to explain how that apparent, indicated, evidenced design came to be.
And that proposal is incomplete and failing.

Incomplete, true. Although rather more complete than ID! Modern evolutionary theory has a lot of details to work out, but the broad outline is there. Compare to ID which has yet to decide if common descent happened, if the world is 6 000 years old or 4 000 000 000. I am sure you consider them minor details!

Failing? No (another assertion that just happens to be backed by biologists whether atheist or theist).

You would assemble experts to discuss its merits, you would weigh the pros and cons, discuss whether or not it would be valuable information for students to have, heck, you might even wonder if it actually represented reality.

In this hypothetical situation, I am a crackpot who honestly believes alchemy works. So yes, it actually represented reality in my opinion (cf the creationist who honestly think creationism represents reality).

Then you would vote collectively with your community to see if the government that represents you collectively and the school district which represents you ought to be involved in this project. It's kind of a democratic idea. It works relatively well.

So in one town, where YEC is popular, school children are taught that God created each "kind" 6000 years ago, and in another town, when modern evolutionary theory is popular they are taught about common descent. And in my town, of course, where alchemy is popular they are taught about turning lead into gold. You think this serves children best?

So where do you think education standards come from? Test-tubes? Is this another thing you want to trust to the authority of Science?

I think the science that is taught in schools is the science that is accepted by the majority of scientists in that field. I would eject astrology because virtually all physicists reject astrology, but accept astronomy because virtually all physicists. I would reject alchemy because virtually all chemists do, and reject creationism because virtually all biologists do, but accept common descent because (yes, you guessed it) virtually all biologists do.

Once you have done that, you need to consider what is suitable to be taught at what age; you may decide to leave general relativity out of the school curriculum as just too advanced, but that is another issue altogether.

What you wouldn't do is let organizations, textbooks and school districts feed you metaphysics and call it science. Provided, of course, that you aren't a hypocrite and that your worry about what becomes of science holds even when its misuse favours your own metaphysics.

I agree entirely (which I guess is a nice way to end the discussion for the time being).

What science can claim is whether there is scientific evidence of design, and whether proposed mechanisms are reasonably sufficient to account for the evidence.

What are the scientific criteria for detecting evidence of design?

The Pixie: Science can rule out specific design scenarios - YEC for example - but, no science cannot rule design out altogether.

Pez: Very good. This means it cannot claim purposeless, unguided, undirected, etc.

What science can claim is whether there is scientific evidence of design, and whether proposed mechanisms are reasonably sufficient to account for the evidence. So, planetary orbits looks exactly as if they occur due to a law of gravity, but perhaps angels push them so they look exactly like gravity. The former is a scientific claim; the latter is not.

Pez: Sure, call Natural Selection a process if you like, that doesn't change the fact that it is a result, not a mechanism, and not a "driver" as you want to call it.

Natural Selection is not the source of novelty, but a process that selects from among the novelty. Natural Selection can certainly be considered a driver or pressure on populations.

Pez: Here's that bit from Allen MacNeill. Now you may find him as inconsistent as I do on this issue, but you can't argue with him, he is a scientist, and he says this:

Allen MacNeill is an authority speaking within his area of expertise and stating an opinion that would be reasonably consistent with the consensus understanding within that field. The most important argument to a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence. So, of course you can argue with him.

Allen MacNeill: we are beginning to gain some insight into the properties of such "engines of variation" and their dynamics.

A full understanding of the "engines of variation" and their interactions with the demographic processes that produce natural selection is a long way off.

But there is no reason to argue with Allen MacNeill as his point is cogent and he makes a useful distinction.

Biology is still a rapidly developing field. However, we do know that observed evolutionary processes are sufficiently robust to explain the historical changes in biology, many times so.

Pez: When breeders "select" then intelligence is involved, we move beyond mechanism, we move into teleology and yes, the "selection" is a result of the intelligent design, and is not a process unto itself. You may want to call culling a mechanism and a process, but this is only a manifestation of the design, this is not the selection per se.

Of course it's selection.

select, to choose (as by fitness or excellence) from a number or group.

Pez: As I alluded to earlier, yours is only the same equivocating use that Dawkins employs when he tries to establish that evolution is not random

Evolution is directly observed and is clearly not random.

Pez: So Natural Selection is not random, because it is guided, guided by Natural Selection.

I understand that you are trying to claim a circularity here, but it doesn't work. Natural Selection is differential reproductive success due to heritable variations, and this can be observed both in the lab and in the wild. We *observe* evolution. We *observe* that it is non-random. When we expose bacteria to antibiotics, resistant strains tend to dominate in the population. That is called evolution by Natural Selection.

Pez: We see mutational hot-spots, stress-phase reactions, hyper-mutability, etc..

That's correct. However, it can be shown that these mutational variations are random with respect to the environment.

Pez: But we also see that these do little or nothing in terms of providing the complexity of raw materials which blind watch-maker evolution is supposed to account for.

We can observe that morphological and genetic evolution is more than robust enough to account for the historical changes in biology, many times so. You are incorrect that evolutionary algorithms, what you call blind watch-maker evolution, is not capable of creating complexity. This is a burgeoning field within mathematics, informatics, and computer science.

The Pixie: All scientists should say is that they is no indication of purpose, or a guiding hand.

Pez: No they should not.

Sure they should. There is no evidence of purpose in the evolution of life, and the natural mechanisms we observe are sufficiently robust to provide a valid scientific explanation of the historical changes.

Science can rule out specific design scenarios - YEC for example - but, no science cannot rule design out altogether.

Very good.
This means it cannot claim purposeless, unguided, undirected, etc.
It has no authority.

But if Meyer is, as I claim, a creationist, he will want common descent removed from science. He will want common descent removed from science, please note, not for any scientific reason, but because it contradicts his faith. That is the threat of creationism - the very thing you are arguing against.

IF.
Of course your non-sequitur does not hold. There is no reason to presume that your implied syllogism has any merit.
Even IF Meyer is a creationist his stated view is that he is not impacted by universal common descent, even though he is skeptical of its findings.
You are nothing but a thought police concerning yourself with beliefs rather than actions.

By the way, you do realize that Science does not know if there ever was a LUCA, right? And that there are theories that LUCA might actually have been a community? And that this community might have been swapping genes horizontally rather than through descent? And you know that Science does not know what the purported first life form was, right? And that it can't know how many times there was, in fact, a "first" life form?

Science says common descent happened.

Wow! Stamp stamp fan erasies…
Science may have a tentatively held theory subject to overhaul and amendment upon the discovery of new evidence…since that's what science does.
Science does not SAY.

I had a quick look, and will investigate further. Curiously, I have been arguing with IDists for some years, and never heard of that.[Wistar]

That is curious.

You: No, natural selection is a process. The result is a population better adapted to the environment. And of course it is non-random - at least in the sense of it being a tendency, that it has a direction, towards better adapted to the environment.
Me: No, natural selection, is the result. Variation is the mechanism.
You: No, they are two processes working in tandem.

Your "no" and "no" are wrong and wrong. Sure, call Natural Selection a process if you like, that doesn't change the fact that it is a result, not a mechanism, and not a "driver" as you want to call it.
Here's that bit from Allen MacNeill. Now you may find him as inconsistent as I do on this issue, but you can't argue with him, he is a scientist, and he says this:
http://telicthoughts.com/what-...

Massimo Pigliucci wrote:
"I think one of the greatest mysteries in biology at the moment is whether natural selection is the only process capable of generating organismal complexity"

That a prominent scientist should so badly misunderstand the role (and limitations) of natural selection is both distressing and (sadly) not particularly surprising. As I have been pointing out in recent entries in my own blog, the idea that natural selection is "capable of generating organismal complexity" has been an erroneous misinterpretation of how natural selection works since Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species in 1859.
…
Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:
Variation
Inheritance
Fecundity
which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.

The real "engine" of evolutionary change is not natural selection, but rather the "engines of variation," which include genetic mutations, but also dozens (possibly hundreds) of other processes that have the effect of producing heritable phenotypic variation. With the advent of evo-devo we are beginning to gain some insight into the properties of such "engines of variation" and their dynamics.

A full understanding of the "engines of variation" and their interactions with the demographic processes that produce natural selection is a long way off.

===

Do you think artificial selection is a result? When dog breeders select the dogs they like for breeding over numerous generations, is that an end result or a process?

You make the same mistake with this analogy that Darwin did. When breeders "select" then intelligence is involved, we move beyond mechanism, we move into teleology and yes, the "selection" is a result of the intelligent design, and is not a process unto itself.
You may want to call culling a mechanism and a process, but this is only a manifestation of the design, this is not the selection per se. Nor is any act of limiting the reproductive opportunities.

As I alluded to earlier, yours is only the same equivocating use that Dawkins employs when he tries to establish that evolution is not random(because mathematically "randomness" does not do the job).

Dawkins: That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive.

Follow along with his logic here. Evolution is not random because Natural Selection is guided. By what? we ask. "By which genes survive and which genes don't survive".
But that is differential reproductive success. That is natural selection.
So Natural Selection is not random, because it is guided, guided by Natural Selection.

No, we do not "know" it, but we do see evidence to support the idea [randomness]. That is the best science can do.

There, that's better. But, actually, we see evidence that doesn't support the idea as well. We see mutational hot-spots, stress-phase reactions, hyper-mutability, etc.. We see some "random" (by which I mean we don't know of any teleological reason for them) mutations resulting, presumably, from copying "mistakes" (are they "mistakes" or are they a designed mechanism of variability?). But we also see that these do little or nothing in terms of providing the complexity of raw materials which blind watch-maker evolution is supposed to account for. What is more befitting the evidence is some kind of punctuated equilibria, non-gradualistic, saltational mechanism. And we have no idea whether any such mechanism would be random at all.

Sure. All scientists should say is that they is no indication of purpose, or a guiding hand.

No they should not. You still can't separate philosophy from science, and yet you have these grave concerns about what will become of science. If you are limiting science as you claim to want to then science cannot tell if there is any indication or not. If science is not so limited then the indication is that there is guidance. Take a look at convergence and repetition of forms for instance.

Because they is no indication. It would not be scientific to say there is therefore no purpose, and no guiding hand. And it would not be scientif to say there is sound evidence for purpose or guiding hand.

Have you noticed that I can match you assertion for assertion?
Yes, there is an indication of design.
Dawkins tells us that with Darwin's theory it became possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Why is that?
Because the design was evidenced, apparent, indicated, throughout nature.
It still is.
The only difference is that there is a proposal on the table that attempts to explain how that apparent, indicated, evidenced design came to be.
And that proposal is incomplete and failing.

I am asking you to tell us how you think we should determine what we think will best benefit our children as persons and as citizens and what will best benefit our communities and our nations.

I told you. Consult experts, meet, discuss, vote. Try consulting your conscience and reason.

Ah, so if I want alchemy taught to my children I have to get a bunch of alchemy supports elected on to the school board, we would then ask scientists, philosophers, educators, historians what they thought of alchemy.

Yes, you would.
You would assemble experts to discuss its merits, you would weigh the pros and cons, discuss whether or not it would be valuable information for students to have, heck, you might even wonder if it actually represented reality.
Then you would vote collectively with your community to see if the government that represents you collectively and the school district which represents you ought to be involved in this project. It's kind of a democratic idea. It works relatively well.

Any that said it was nonsense, well that is just their metaphysics creeping in - their are only human afterall - so we ignore their biased opionions, and only consider the opinions of those who agree with us.

Non sequitur.
Your investigation might reveal some very good reasons why this should not be taught and would be of no value to your children - metaphysics aside.

Or I could it for astrology, or cold fusion. Or even Intelligent Design.

Hahaha. Oh wow! I didn't see where that brilliant string hanging off the end of your non-sequitur was going. That was really sweet.

But, yes, you could, as a matter of fact.
And that would be the correct thing to do.
So where do you think education standards come from? Test-tubes? Is this another thing you want to trust to the authority of Science?

What you wouldn't do is let organizations, textbooks and school districts feed you metaphysics and call it science. Provided, of course, that you aren't a hypocrite and that your worry about what becomes of science holds even when its misuse favours your own metaphysics.

But by your dismay, along with that of the archeologists and forensic scientists, you agree with design theorists that science can infer design.

Of course it can.

This would put a different spin on things on our discussion in general, except that you are about to two-face and say "oh, but not in biology, and not without explicit knowledge of who the designer is, etc." Which will be a practical agreement with the premise , "if, as IDists are told…".

Science can infer design if the inference is good. In archaeology and forensic science they start with the known existence of a designer. Hmm, maybe IDists do too?

Dembski proposed the explanatory filter (EF) some years ago, though it seems to be almost forgotten now. The problem with the EF is it only did half the job. It only assessed the non-design route. A more reasonable, fairer EF would consider the probability of design vs the probability of non-design (actually it would consider the probabilities of a range of scenarios). Archaeologists start with a high probability of design because of the proven existence of a suitable designer, i.e., man. IDists, well, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

You can't accept that both feet need shoes. If science can rule out design in biology then it can also rule it in. If science cannot approach the positive inference to design, then it cannot approach the negative inference to no-design.

Science can rule out specific design scenarios - YEC for example - but, no science cannot rule design out altogether.

Not if Meyers is, as you claim, a creationist (he is not convinced of universal common descent but it does not affect his beliefs either way).
And not if you teach science instead of metaphysics.

Science says common descent happened. The evidence is overwhelming (ask Mikes Gene, Behe and Denton). But if Meyer is, as I claim, a creationist, he will want common descent removed from science. He will want common descent removed from science, please note, not for any scientific reason, but because it contradicts his faith. That is the threat of creationism - the very thing you are arguing against.

Yes we do.

No, we do not.

You keep shifting from empiricism to metaphysics to try to salvage some standing.
Christian scientists aplenty will agree with you that science and empirical observation do not provide scientific evidence of God (and plenty will disagree).
They will not agree with you that science tells us that we are the result of a blind, purposeless, unguided process that did not have us in mind.

I do not remember arguing that evolution is purposeless, only that there is no indication of that purpose.

They also see it where it does exist.

Of course. People see design where there is design, and where there is not design. So seeing design is not a good indicator of actual design.

Google Wistar and 1966

I had a quick look, and will investigate further. Curiously, I have been arguing with IDists for some years, and never heard of that.

No, natural selection gives it nothing. Natural selection is a result. But it has been empowered by the likes of Dawkins, who calls it "non-random" to get around the obvious mathematical failing of randomness to generate the complexity of life we see (one must equivocate on "random", of course, to make this argument).

No, natural selection is a process. The result is a population better adapted to the environment. And of course it is non-random - at least in the sense of it being a tendency, that it has a direction, towards better adapted to the environment.

No, natural selection, is the result. Variation is the mechanism.

No, they are two processes working in tandem.

Do you think artificial selection is a result? When dog breeders select the dogs they like for breeding over numerous generations, is that an end result or a process?

What would follow is that if we knew that variation was unplanned, undirected, unguided, (and "random" in the sense it was originally intended) and that the resulting survival and reproductive differentials were also unguided, unplanned, undirected, then we might have more of a reason to claim that evolution itself is. But, as it is, we do not know this about variation.

No, we do not "know" it, but we do see evidence to support the idea. That is the best science can do.

Unguided, undirected, purposeless, etc. is not science - whether scientists accept it or not. If and when modern evolutionary biology ventures away from science into making metaphysical claims then it should be stopped.

Sure. All scientists should say is that they is no indication of purpose, or a guiding hand. Because they is no indication. It would not be scientific to say there is therefore no purpose, and no guiding hand. And it would not be scientif to say there is sound evidence for purpose or guiding hand.

Sure I did.
We, the people, decide.
We determine what we think will best benefit our children as persons and as citizens and what will best benefit our communities and our nations.

I am asking you to tell us how you think we should determine what we think will best benefit our children as persons and as citizens and what will best benefit our communities and our nations.

We assemble and discuss the question, we have elections, board meetings and consult experts. We ask scientists, philosophers, educators, historians, etc. what would best meet our goals. We determine what kind of knowledge is foundational and what must come later. What must be learned first and is most broadly applicable and what must be added on top. We also survey what we think the future might hold and plan for that.
But when we ask scientists what they think on these issues we do not ask them for their metaphysical positions. When they erroneously let those creep in because of human weakness, carelessness, or indoctrination, we have a right to weed those out. As we survey the future and the state of knowledge of information and the quantum world we find that students aren't well-served by having a 19th century Victorian metaphysic tacked onto their science.

Ah, so if I want alchemy taught to my children I have to get a bunch of alchemy supports elected on to the school board, we would then ask scientists, philosophers, educators, historians what they thought of alchemy. Any that said it was nonsense, well that is just their metaphysics creeping in - their are only human afterall - so we ignore their biased opionions, and only consider the opinions of those who agree with us. And beforeyou know it school children are being taught about turning lead into gold (which would, of course, be very use in their careers, and for the national economy). Or I could it for astrology, or cold fusion. Or even Intelligent Design.

That will come as a shock to archeaologist and forensic scientists. They were under the impression science could indeed infer design.

Thank you for validating the design inference. Of course you are responding to this:

But if, as IDists are told, science qua science can not "infer" that purpose or guidance is indicated then science surely can't infer that it is not indicated.

So first, grammatically you aren't even responding properly to the point - acting as though I didn't say "if".
But by your dismay, along with that of the archeologists and forensic scientists, you agree with design theorists that science can infer design. This would put a different spin on things on our discussion in general, except that you are about to two-face and say "oh, but not in biology, and not without explicit knowledge of who the designer is, etc." Which will be a practical agreement with the premise , "if, as IDists are told…".
You can't accept that both feet need shoes. If science can rule out design in biology then it can also rule it in. If science cannot approach the positive inference to design, then it cannot approach the negative inference to no-design.

Right. Because the atheist's beliefs are not contradicted by common descent, etc. but the creationist's are. That is a fundamental difference between their situations. Frankly I find it bizarre that you cannot see that.

Not if Meyers is, as you claim, a creationist (he is not convinced of universal common descent but it does not affect his beliefs either way).
And not if you teach science instead of metaphysics.

Theories and hypothesis in science are our best current understanding of the universe at the moment. Currently we have no evidence of design in the evolution of life, so the theory of evolution reflects that.

Yes we do.

I appreciate that your metaphysics tries to force design on the evidence, but as I said before, even most Christian scientists agree with me that there is no evidence for that. Did you get that? Modern evoutionary theory is accepted by atheists and by theists; it is metaphysics neutral.

You keep shifting from empiricism to metaphysics to try to salvage some standing.
Christian scientists aplenty will agree with you that science and empirical observation do not provide scientific evidence of God (and plenty will disagree).
They will not agree with you that science tells us that we are the result of a blind, purposeless, unguided process that did not have us in mind.
If and when science can start to rule on such a question then you cannot keep ID out.
On the other hand, theist and atheist alike will attest to the fact that the design is apparent.

Because people have a propensity to see design where none exists (eg, in thunder storms in ancient times). Because Darwinian evolution is a design-like process.

Question-begging.
They also see it where it does exist.

Me: They have to warn their students to keep always in their minds that what they are examining is the product of an unguided process and not the product, as would appear, of design.
You: Really? I have never heard of that.

Here's a quote I just yanked off the first site I saw when I Googled "Crick remind themselves not designed".
"Committed Darwinist Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker by stating, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Statements like this echo throughout the biological literature. In What Mad Pursuit, Francis Crick, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." "

Really? I have never heard of that either.

You could look into it.
Google Wistar and 1966.

I missed that, which thread was it? It sounds interesting.

Which thread [the MacNeill argument], I don't recall as I type this. I might get back to you on it.

I am not too clear what your argument is here. Okay, variation is the engine, giving evolution the ability to move, and natural selection is, if you like, the driver, giving it direction.

No, natural selection gives it nothing. Natural selection is a result. But it has been empowered by the likes of Dawkins, who calls it "non-random" to get around the obvious mathematical failing of randomness to generate the complexity of life we see (one must equivocate on "random", of course, to make this argument).

Are you then asking what the engine of the engine is ("science does not know the engine of this variation")? Are you saying that if we do not know what the engine of the engine is then it is a result not a mechanism ("Therefore "¦ it is a result, not a mechanism")?

No, natural selection, is the result. Variation is the mechanism.

Would it follow that if we did know the engine of the engine, then it would now be a mechanism and not a result? Or perhaps we would need to know the engine of the engine of the engine? Did I mention I was confused?

What would follow is that if we knew that variation was unplanned, undirected, unguided, (and "random" in the sense it was originally intended) and that the resulting survival and reproductive differentials were also unguided, unplanned, undirected, then we might have more of a reason to claim that evolution itself is. But, as it is, we do not know this about variation.

Great, so teach mainstream biology - including modern evolutionary theory - in biology. All I advocate is that we teach in science the science that scientists accept.

As do Meyer, Johnson and myself.
Unguided, undirected, purposeless, etc. is not science - whether scientists accept it or not. If and when modern evolutionary biology ventures away from science into making metaphysical claims then it should be stopped.
For some reason with your great concern for the well-being of science this degradation does not bother you when it is your metaphysic being imported.

But anyway, you never did answer the question (not that I am surprised). How do we decide what is to be taught as science? Should we teach string theory, relativity, alchemy, astronomy, astrology? How do you think we should choose?

Sure I did.
We, the people, decide.
We determine what we think will best benefit our children as persons and as citizens and what will best benefit our communities and our nations.

How do we decide what is to be taught as science? Should we teach string theory, relativity, alchemy, astronomy, astrology? How do you think we should choose?

We assemble and discuss the question, we have elections, board meetings and consult experts. We ask scientists, philosophers, educators, historians, etc. what would best meet our goals. We determine what kind of knowledge is foundational and what must come later. What must be learned first and is most broadly applicable and what must be added on top. We also survey what we think the future might hold and plan for that.
But when we ask scientists what they think on these issues we do not ask them for their metaphysical positions. When they erroneously let those creep in because of human weakness, carelessness, or indoctrination, we have a right to weed those out. As we survey the future and the state of knowledge of information and the quantum world we find that students aren't well-served by having a 19th century Victorian metaphysic tacked onto their science.

And a historical science is not in the business of giving us Fact, and should not present its opinions as such anyway.

The exclamation mark and your claimed intent don't change the fact since your follow-up sentence only confirms my conclusion. As I said, your qualifier did not change anything.

Thank you for informing me what I meant…

You can't think of any possible reason why a creationist would NOT want to promote his beliefs in class (except as a political ploy), and then you say you can't think of any reason that an atheist would promote his.

Right. Because the atheist's beliefs are not contradicted by common descent, etc. but the creationist's are. That is a fundamental difference between their situations. Frankly I find it bizarre that you cannot see that.

Never mind the fact that we have just explored and established the atheist metaphysic (not science) involved.

Sorry, I missed that.

The fact that it is claimed that science tells us that evolution is random, unguided, unplanned, undesigned and that man is not/was not the goal and was a mere accident.
This is not science, and it is a lie to say that it is, or that it is a finding of science. Science does not and cannot know these things. Me: There is, in fact, every indication that there is purpose and guidance behind evolution, from "apparent" design, to "evolution is anything but random", to repeatability/predictability of mutations, to the improbabilities associated with blind searches, to evolution's finding "solutions" to "problems", etc.

Theories and hypothesis in science are our best current understanding of the universe at the moment. Currently we have no evidence of design in the evolution of life, so the theory of evolution reflects that. I appreciate that your metaphysics tries to force design on the evidence, but as I said before, even most Christian scientists agree with me that there is no evidence for that. Did you get that? Modern evoutionary theory is accepted by atheists and by theists; it is metaphysics neutral.

But if, as IDists are told, science qua science can not "infer" that purpose or guidance is indicated then science surely can't infer that it is not indicated.

That will come as a shock to archeaologist and forensic scientists. They were under the impression science could indeed infer design.

Every evolutionist admits that there is an appearance of design. Even atheists like Dawkins. Now why do you think that is?

Because people have a propensity to see design where none exists (eg, in thunder storms in ancient times). Because Darwinian evolution is a design-like process.

They have to warn their students to keep always in their minds that what they are examining is the product of an unguided process and not the product, as would appear, of design.

Really? I have never heard of that.

Mathematicians for half a century have demonstrated that the requirements of life and evolution far outstrip the probabilistic resources of the mechanisms of the paradigm coupled with an unguided blind search.

Really? I have never heard of that either.

(We just had on another thread evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill confirm for us again that Natural Selection is not the engine of evolution, that variation is. At the same time he admitted that science does not know the engine of this variation. Therefore, it matters not a whit what you want to say about the randomness/non-randomness of natural selection - it is a result, not a mechanism).

I missed that, which thread was it? It sounds interesting.

I am not too clear what your argument is here. Okay, variation is the engine, giving evolution the ability to move, and natural selection is, if you like, the driver, giving it direction. Are you then asking what the engine of the engine is ("science does not know the engine of this variation")? Are you saying that if we do not know what the engine of the engine is then it is a result not a mechanism ("Therefore … it is a result, not a mechanism")? Would it follow that if we did know the engine of the engine, then it would now be a mechanism and not a result? Or perhaps we would need to know the engine of the engine of the engine? Did I mention I was confused?

Darwin's entire project was to try to explain the design (the indication of guidance and purpose) without recourse to a designer.

Darwin's project was to explain the natural world. He started thinking it was designed, yes, but the closer he looked, the further he explored, the more more convinced he became that in fact it was not designed at all; that the indication of purpose was absent. He was not explaining away purpose, he was explaining the absence of purpose.

Science classes should teach science - philosophy classes should teach philosophy.

Great, so teach mainstream biology - including modern evolutionary theory - in biology. All I advocate is that we teach in science the science that scientists accept.

Isn't that what ID critics have claimed for years?

All of them? No.

But there is another question to be asked here, and that is a little bigger. What, indeed, should we teach?

Er, that was the question I asked ("I would be curious to know what guidelines you would propose for deciding what gets taught in schools").

First, why do we teach at all? What is the purpose of educating our young. Why is the government involved and what is its responsibility? Who is the government and to whom is it accountable? How, indeed, ought we determine what our children are going to learn?
Obviously, the answer is that we teach our children what we think will make them better persons, and what we think they ought to know to lead good and productive lives, and to ensure the health and success of our communities and our country. The government is merely the agent of the citizen, formed and elected to see to it that this interest is satisfied.
When thought of as such, I doubt many would say that what we need to teach our children is that science and scientists can speak on all subjects as authorities When thought of as such I think most would agree that if we are teaching science we ought not be teaching it with a materialistic, nihilistic metaphysic which can be neither demonstrated/proven by science, nor evidenced by its methods.
We don't need to be making philosophical proclamations under the guise of science and then screaming that these are now fact, Fact, FACT with the stamped approval of "science".

When I did science at school none of my teachers screamed "fact, Fact, FACT". Is it different in the States?

But anyway, you never did answer the question (not that I am surprised). How do we decide what is to be taught as science? Should we teach string theory, relativity, alchemy, astronomy, astrology? How do you think we should choose?

Pix: Why would I fear that? It coincides with my belief!
Pez: Great. You don't care about "science" at all, science-defender.
You: It was meant humorously. That was why I ended it with an exclamation mark, and went on to qualify it: "I think science education should stick to science."

The exclamation mark and your claimed intent don't change the fact since your follow-up sentence only confirms my conclusion. As I said, your qualifier did not change anything.

I am not aware of athests trying to promote atheism in science classrooms (prhaps you know differently, and can offer some links), and I see no reason why they would want to.

I don't believe you.
You can't think of any possible reason why a creationist would NOT want to promote his beliefs in class (except as a political ploy), and then you say you can't think of any reason that an atheist would promote his.
What was that MikeGene said about stereotyping?
Never mind the fact that we have just explored and established the atheist metaphysic (not science) involved.

Speaking for myself, I am happy for modern evolutionary theory to be taught because it does not contradict my world "faith". So I do not "fear" athests promoting atheism in science classrooms because I think it is far ess likely.

Neither does it mine, nor Meyer's - provided the science is taught, sans the metaphysics.

Me: Here we have science co-opted in the name of a metaphysic with lies told about its findings - which is the exact threat to science you ought to fear.
You: I have no idea what you are talking about. What lies?

The ones I just discussed. The fact that it is claimed that science tells us that evolution is random, unguided, unplanned, undesigned and that man is not/was not the goal and was a mere accident.
This is not science, and it is a lie to say that it is, or that it is a finding of science. Science does not and cannot know these things. Me: There is, in fact, every indication that there is purpose and guidance behind evolution, from "apparent" design, to "evolution is anything but random", to repeatability/predictability of mutations, to the improbabilities associated with blind searches, to evolution's finding "solutions" to "problems", etc. But if, as IDists are told, science qua science can not "infer" that purpose or guidance is indicated then science surely can't infer that it is not indicated.
You: No there is not. There are certainly a lot of people who claim there is, but most scientists - the people who study the evidence - believe otherwise. Even those with a theistic metaphysic. Why do you think that might be?
Yes there is.
Every evolutionist admits that there is an appearance of design. Even atheists like Dawkins. Now why do you think that is?
They have to warn their students to keep always in their minds that what they are examining is the product of an unguided process and not the product, as would appear, of design.
Mathematicians for half a century have demonstrated that the requirements of life and evolution far outstrip the probabilistic resources of the mechanisms of the paradigm coupled with an unguided blind search.
(We just had on another thread evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill confirm for us again that Natural Selection is not the engine of evolution, that variation is. At the same time he admitted that science does not know the engine of this variation. Therefore, it matters not a whit what you want to say about the randomness/non-randomness of natural selection - it is a result, not a mechanism).
Darwin's entire project was to try to explain the design (the indication of guidance and purpose) without recourse to a designer.
By every indication/appearance the process required a plan and guidance - it is the job of the materialistic to explain away that indication. He is not trying explain the fact that there is no indication of purpose - quite the opposite.

Me: (On the other hand, the IDists who are involved in this matter at an education level (even the ones you want to insist are creationists) promote the teaching of science sans this metaphysic. Their position is that we ought to teach the science and not use it to support your metaphysic. "Here is the evidence, here is what we know, here is what science can properly infer, here is what it cannot"¦")

You: It is my belief that in schools you teach science as it is accepted by the majority of scientists. If a hypothesis is not accepted, you do not teach it. Once you get to college, sure, you might want to expose students to more radical ideas, but not school. I would be curious to know what guidelines you would propose for deciding what gets taught in schools. Should we teach string theory, relativity, alchemy, astronomy, astrology? How do we decided which should be taught and which should not? Do we teach it all? Or just teach the science that conforms to your metaphysic?

First, rather than respond to your last question in this paragraph I refer you to the parts I've bolded.

Next, you ask what guidlines I would suggest for determining what gets taught in schools. I just told you, didn't I?
Science classes should teach science - philosophy classes should teach philosophy. Isn't that what ID critics have claimed for years?

But there is another question to be asked here, and that is a little bigger. What, indeed, should we teach? First, why do we teach at all? What is the purpose of educating our young. Why is the government involved and what is its responsibility? Who is the government and to whom is it accountable? How, indeed, ought we determine what our children are going to learn?
Obviously, the answer is that we teach our children what we think will make them better persons, and what we think they ought to know to lead good and productive lives, and to ensure the health and success of our communities and our country. The government is merely the agent of the citizen, formed and elected to see to it that this interest is satisfied.
When thought of as such, I doubt many would say that what we need to teach our children is that science and scientists can speak on all subjects as authorities (or, as you wanted in another thread - that we ought to silence critics and bury facts to allow science to maintain this authority). When thought of as such I think most would agree that if we are teaching science we ought not be teaching it with a materialistic, nihilistic metaphysic which can be neither demonstrated/proven by science, nor evidenced by its methods.
We don't need to be making philosophical proclamations under the guise of science and then screaming that these are now fact, Fact, FACT with the stamped app