The Kansas Department of Education (KSDE) recently posted a complete transcript of the public hearing on the science standards held on February 1 at Schwagle High School in Kansas City, Kansas. If you are interesting in seeing for yourself the kinds of concerns and arguments the public has about evolution and Intelligent Design creationism, you might want to read some of the transcript (here).
Also, as I reported in the post Creationist Power Play in Kansas, this week the state Board of Education created a special Science Hearings committee, comprised of three creationist Board members, to hear testimony from “scientific experts” concerned the two “opposing views” (evolution and Intelligent Design creationism-based anti-evolution) - essentially giving the Intelligent Design creationists the “equal-time” platform they desire to try to give Intelligent Design creationism credibility as science and to deflect criticism that it is really disguised religion.
These two events, the public hearings that are an established part of the standards development process and the creation of this kangaroo-court Science Hearings committee, are related in an interesting way, I think. Let me explain.
The Kansas City public hearings
It was obvious that much of the support at the hearing for the Intelligent Design creationists’ proposal was really anti-evolutionism fueled by religious concerns. For example, one man got a large round of applause (even though the audience had been asked to not applaud), when he ended his speech by stating,
It [Darwin’s theory] is not scientific. Why do you waste time teaching something in the science class that is not scientific? We must, by no means, get rid of science. I don’t think the argument is between maintaining scientific approach and inquiry and study and not doing so, but I think truth needs to get a hearing, along with scientific theory. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Thank you.
On the other hand, there were no scientists supporting the Intelligent Design creationist proposal, nor were there people trying to defend Intelligent Design creationism with even nominally “scientific” arguments.
And last, there were a number of people who spoke about their religious faith and its lack of conflict with evolution. For instance, one biology teacher at a Catholic high school said,
The Catholic schools teach evolution. They always have. There is no conflict in our religion. Evolution is not a belief system. We believe God created us, but how is open to the discovery through scientific processes and inquiry.
John Calvert’s response
John Calvert, leader of the Intelligent Design creationist group, wrote an article for the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, Media Complaints Department, here. Calvert made it clear that he was not happy with certain parts of the overall impression left by the hearings. Here’s some of what Calvert wrote:
One thing is obvious. This is not the proper process for deciding this issue. Focused hearings from experts are desperately needed to cut through the misinformation, ridicule and half truths.
It would have helped to have more scientists on our side. If that had been the case we would have won the debate hands down. As it was, the objective observer would leave scratching his head.
We also need theologians who can rebut the argument of the Christian biology teacher that there is no conflict between evolution or naturalism and Christianity. We need someone to explain the two logical conflicts that allow Dawkins to claim to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and that precludes a Christian from making the same claim.
We see here the seed of the ideas that blossomed just one week later - “focused hearings from experts … to cut through the misinformation, ridicule, and half-truths,” which are needed because the public hearings are “not the proper process for deciding this issue.”
And why aren’t the public hearings the right process? Well, because the vast bulk of the supporters for Intelligent Design creationism are there for religious reasons, and they are not shy about making that clear. They know very little about what Intelligent Design creationism claims scientifically, but they know it’s their best bet against evolution.
And why do we need an “expert panel”? Because there are very few scientists who will and can speak for Intelligent Design creationism in a way that can superficially pass for science, and most of them work for the Discovery Institute. Without a protected forum for the “scientific experts” in Intelligent Design creationism (with expenses paid for by the state, by the way), there is no way for them to get an opportunity to have the floor.
And so now we have this Science Hearing Committee, which is what Calvert said we needed; and this is no coincidence. The state Board will do what they have to to try to give an air of legitimacy to their eventual decision (which is almost certain) to insert Intelligent Design creationism into the standards. Having hearings which supposedly focus on the “science” of Intelligent Design creationism is meant to blunt, or even negate, the effect of the public hearings and the work of the writing committee, which is, we might remember, the body with the official responsibility to consider all input in revising the standards.
But the Intelligent Design creationists didn’t like what the committee has done (voting down their proposals) and they didn’t like what the public hearings did (showcasing the religious issues), so they manufactured a third option - their own personal showcase, playing by their rules and with them in control.
As KCFS wrote in a commentary last week (KCFS Update 2-10-05,
For a movement that often talks of “fairness,” the Intelligent Design and Young-Earth creationists on the Board and the Writing Committee don’t seem willing to be fair when trying to advance their ideas. Failing to have their ideas compete successfully in the marketplace of ideas in the world’s science community, they want to inject these ideas directly into the public school science curriculum. That amounts to asking for a government subsidy to teach non-scientific ideas in public schools, and in this case, the government (the creationist majority on the State Board of Education) is apparently willing to let them.
Theology
And what about these theologians who are needed to “rebut the argument of the Christian biology teacher that there is no conflict between evolution or naturalism and Christianity?”
Well, first note the conflation of evolution and naturalism - it is exactly the point of the Catholic science teacher that these are not the same. However, this insistence that the Catholic position is wrong (as is that of all theistic evolutionists - a position that runs strongly throughout the Intelligent Design creationist movement), highlights the fact that the Intelligent Design creationism movement is primarily a theological movement; and even more importantly, one that sets itself against much of mainstream Christianity. That is what Calvert didn’t like seeing come out in the public hearings.
Mainstream Christians, as well of those of other religious and a-religious perspectives, should be concerned about Intelligent Design creationism, for its efforts to insert its concepts into public education aim to advance those religious perspectives that do not accept evolution, and to inhibit those that do. The religious stakes here are as significant as the scientific and educational stakes.
72 Comments
RBH · 13 February 2005
Given the reasoning in the Federal Court's ruling on the Cobb County, GA, stickers, the record of the Feb 1 public meeting is a valuable resource.
RBH
Les Lane · 13 February 2005
"eminent scientists" - Discovery Institute idealogues
Glossary definition for those unfamiliar with Calvert
Great White Wonder · 13 February 2005
Joshua Rosenau · 14 February 2005
I like how they ignore the fact that Kansas has lots of great evolution experts, like Ed Wiley, and of course, Jack Krebs and the rest of the Science standards committee, and the fact that the scientific community has offered a clear statement in favor of evolution science and against intelligent design.
These expert hearings, and the illegal meetings on stickers, are particularly rich coming from a movement that uses "hearing all voices" as their most compelling argument for IDC in schools.
Colin · 14 February 2005
RBH has an excellent point. It always behooves anyone in a position to do so to record these meetings, or better yet to make sure that a transcript is entered into whatever official record exists. Such records can be extremely important in legal actions later; courts need to be able to see into the motives of the authors of creationist laws and regulations, and the more information is available as a public record or otherwise entered into evidence, the better.
Ed Darrell · 14 February 2005
Again I wonder: Is there no legal process to follow? The addition of committees in the approval proces -- is that legal? There are at least two legal issues I see: Authorization and appropriation. Unless the process of the extra committees has a clear legal basis, it's simply not allowed. And either way, from where does this agency get the extra money to finance these operations? Who appropriated it?
And, to the extent that any of these hearings are to be used for official decision-making, the agency is responsible for created complete transcripts, in most states, and certainly in the federal government.
It's also interesting to note that there is no science agency asking for these ultra vires operations. Heck, for that matter, there doesn't appear to be any religious agency asking, either.
There's a whiff of scandal here. Do Kansas state agencies have inspectors general?
FL · 14 February 2005
FL · 14 February 2005
ts · 14 February 2005
Jack Krebs · 14 February 2005
Keanus · 14 February 2005
Lurker · 14 February 2005
It's a real problem for you KCFS people... These Christian adults that are anti-science, anti-evolution have a weekly continuing education program for training conformity to an ideological base. And you are not even coming close to being competitive with such a platform. Just reading the transcript, one can notice this serious imbalance. They all repeat the same mistakes using the same catch phrases and sound bites. Is it even remotely possible that all these people can conjure up the same mistakes all by themselves?
In the politics of science, I think gaining accessibility to those disseminators of bad science remains the key issue towards defeating anti-science fervor. Do you even know who they are? Addressing it may be a more important outcome than these short-lived victories against Creationist school boards.
Tristram · 14 February 2005
And speaking of Dover, Pennsylvania, keep in mind the nasty outbreak of amnesia of convenience suffered by those board members when giving deposition. Fortunately, two local newspapers recorded some of the comments, and William Buckingham was caught on videotape saying precisely what he swore he did not say.
Right · 14 February 2005
WWJD? Lie apparently.
DaveScot · 14 February 2005
Typical extrapolation
9 I have read the proposed changes to
10 the science standards from the
11 Intelligent Design promoters, and am
12 very much against their acceptance. As
13 a microbiologist, I watch bacteria
14 change into resistant bacteria from
15 sensitive, and I know that change, over
16 time, is a fact; it is not an unproven
17 theory.
Excuse me, ma'am, but an antibiotic resistant bacteria is still a bacteria. What evidence have you that the same mechanism that explains antibiotic resistance drove the process that turned bacteria into bacteriologists?
Sheesh. Gimme a giant break.
Great White Wonder · 14 February 2005
Jason · 14 February 2005
GCT · 14 February 2005
FL and others continually try to make a lot of use out of Dawkins' famous comment about being an "intellectually fulfilled atheist," but always fail to really examine it's meaning. Further, they try to argue that Evolution (Darwinism) is religiously based because it is atheistic and therefore should not get more consideration than their Christian based ID idea, while at the same time trying to state that ID is not religiously based. But, the IDists trying to have their cake and eat it too is not at all original.
The point to this post, however, is to examine Dawkins' quote. Up until Darwin, all science on the issue had to be based on religion. After Darwin, there was finally an explanation for things that was neutral on religion, thus providing, finally, a way for one who is atheist to have an explanation of the world that did not rely on god. In other words, having something that is neutral to religion means that one does not have to profess faith in god in order to study the science, thus it became possible for one who does not believe in god to be intellectually fulfilled. It does not mean that evolution is atheistic, only that it is neutral to religion.
Uber · 14 February 2005
'According to Calvert, if I simply agree with all the world's experts on this subject, I'm either "illogical" (see argument above) or not a Christian.'
This is what gets me. Not to start an argument, but to be a scientist and a Christian is abit illogical. It means in one aspect of your life you follow logic and reason, the scientific method etc, while in a completely different sphere you accept people flying around, snakes talking, and people dead for days returning to life and THEN flying away. When a Christian says they are a logical person, they are not really being forthright in this area. It takes a certain illogic to buy any of it. Its a spectrum.
So yes in some aspect you are illogical. I'm not saying it is bad, but it is so nontheless.
Pastor Bentonit · 14 February 2005
Short microbiology primer for DaveScot and other interested parties:
Known mechanisms of aqcuired resistance to antibiotics in bacteria
1. Target mutation - antibiotic can no longer bind to target structure, e.g. cell-wall synthesizing PBPs for penicillins, or ribosomal proteins for streptomycin/chloramphenicol etc. Target mutation (target still functional) usually point mutation leading to single amino acid substitution in antibiotic binding site.
2. Permeability or accessibility of antibiotic (to cellular targets) decreased - e.g. OMP (outer membrane porin) mutations in Gram negative bacteria, restricting access of (some) readily water-soluble substances to the periplasm, plasma membrane or cytoplasm.
3. Active transport of antibiotic from the cell - e.g. due to increased activity of membrane-bound proteinaceous multidrug efflux pumps. Numerous such systems have been described in Gram negatives and Gram positives (these pumps, interestingly, typically have overlapping substrate specificities and parts of the pump complexes can have several functions like the TolC part of the AcrAB/TolC complex...but I digress ;-). Increased activity can be due to loss of negative regulation such as point mutations or deletions in the mar repressor, which normally keeps the level of multidrug efflux pumps "in check" in the absence of certain chemical stimuli (the mar repressor is inactivated by the binding of salicylate, or the active substance in aspirin, if you will).
A "special case" of antibiotic transport is the tetracyclin pump, a membrane-bound protein that pumps this specific antibiotic (active against bacterial ribosomes and thereby their protein synthesis) out of the cell faster than it enters the cell. The resistant bacterium carries the tet resistance gene, which can be chromosomal or carried on a plasmid or even a transposon. In all cases, the gene can be acquired through lateral (horizontal) gene transfer, from another member of the same species, or even other species. Several mechanisms of lateral gene transfer are known in bacteria, and have been demonstrated in the lab as well as in the field. Look up "transformation", "conjugation" and "transduction". Google search will do.
4. Chemical inactivation (modification) of the antibiotic, e.g. beta-lactamase, an enzyme that inactivates penicillin. Notably, beta-lactamase is very similar - in structure as well as in function - to the normal target for penicillin, the PBP (penicillin binding protein), an enzyme that partakes in the synthesis of the bacterial cell wall. The important difference is that PBP is "killed" in the process of trying to digest penicillin (it is "frozen" in an intermediate step of the enzyme reaction mechanism) whereas beta-lactamase can carry out the complete reaction. The similarities between beta-lactamase and PBP is mirrored in the structural likeness between penicillin (it has a peculiar structure indeed) and part of the cell wall building block that is normally bound and processed by PBP. It is feasible to assume that beta-lactamase and PBP are derived from common ancestral gene(s) or perhaps that beta-lactamase has evolved (sic!) from PBP. Inactivation genes can be chromosomal, plasmid- or transposon-bound, and can be transferred by the same mechanisms as described above.
Need I go on..? We have, i) point mutation, ii) (insertion)/deletion, iii) pleiotropic (affecting multiple traits) regulatory pathway mutation, iv) horizontal gene transfer including known "vehicles"...and that´s just in bacteria :-) There´s plenty of evidence that these mechanisms (together) can not only provide variation for natural selection to act upon (antibiotic resistant bacteria, notably those that carry multiple resistance genes on transferrable plasmids, are more abundant in the antibiotic-rich milieu, e.g. hospitals) but also drives speciation. Do a PubMed search on "pathogenicity island" and "shigella":
...turns up, among others, this little gem:
Luck et al. (2004) Excision of the Shigella resistance locus pathogenicity island in Shigella flexneri is stimulated by a member of a new subgroup of recombination directionality factors. J Bacteriol. (2004) 186(16):5551-5554.
as well as this one:
Turner et al. (2004) Role of attP in integrase-mediated integration of the Shigella resistance locus pathogenicity island of Shigella flexneri. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. (2004) 48(3):1028-1031.
(You can read at least the second one online. Sorry but the spam filter would block the direct links due to underscores)
Ask yourself (as microbiologists already have), what is the difference, genotypically as well as phenotypically, between Shigella[/] and E. coli? Are there E. coli strains with similar pathogenicity islands? Do another search. And how about Salmonella? The Bacillus anthracis/cereus/thuringiensis complex? These are not the only examples of large parts of the bacterial chromosome being exchangable between species! And how about the soil bacterium Agrobacterium, that carries a gene for a plant hormone - plants are eukaryotes and not too closely related to bacteria even to us "Darwinists" - a gene which, upon infection of a plant, is transferred from the bacterium to plant cells to induce growth of a nutrient-producing tumor (plant cancer!) in which Agrobacterium thrives. Horizontal gene transfer between friggin´ kingdoms! Both ways, to boot...think about it for a minute. Is it possible, given enough time, that these mechanisms could together provide sufficient variation for natural selection to work on - to "create" even one new species? If yes, why not all new species?
Moral of the story, we can learn a lot from bacteria, surely you can too DaveScot. But don´t get me started on the species concept in bacteria (hehe). And remember, don´t ridicule these our little prokaryotic friends. The very mitochondria that produce chemical energy (as well as heat) from organic molecules in your cells, they have their own DNA...and protein synthesis...and they divide by binary fission...in fact, overwhelming evidence point to them being bacteria, trapped as endosymbionts inside (proto-?)eukaryotic cells early in the evolution. But I´m sure you had heard of that before.
Cheers,
/The Rev
Great White Wonder · 14 February 2005
Uber · 14 February 2005
Thanks I am relaxed.:-)
'And if you're afraid of dying a painful death, science isn't going to comfort you.'
Maybe not, But honesty is honesty
'And science isn't going to bring back your beloved pet, child, wife or mother (claims of cloners notwithstanding).'
Maybe not, but who knows what the future holds. Then again religion isn't bringing them back either--just making you think that it might.
'But the human mind is obviously capable of imagining and/or comprehending "things" that are beyond science's reach.'
Agree, it's called imagination. I often wonder exactly what is beyond sciences reach. You hear it alot but is it true. Maybe for current science but a jumbo jet would have been beyond sciences reach 300 years ago.
Aggie Nostic · 14 February 2005
Aggie Nostic · 14 February 2005
Steve Reuland · 14 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 14 February 2005
There is no logical conflict that allows Dawkins to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, AND precludes Christians from the same intellectual fulfillment.
It's a bit odd, really -- a rebuttal to the biology teacher could only be to the point that Dawkins does not have the right to be intellectually fulfilled.
That's the point. Government can't do that. If we grant to government the right to discriminate against Dr. Dawkins in such a fashion, we have also granted it the right to discriminate against the 8-year-old girl who wants just to be a good little girl 'to please Jesus,' as Madison famously noted in his Memorial and Remonstrance.
She has a right to be intellectually fulfilled, even at 8. Why IDists wish to overcome that right is a question we need to get them to answer.
Steve Reuland · 14 February 2005
Jack Krebs · 14 February 2005
Yep, giving themselves the veneer of legitimacy is one of the things they are doing - trying to give themselves a good rationale when they finally subvert the standards offered to them by the real science writing committee.
As importantly, they are using Kansas as a national stage to give ID a big PR victory. It's all about winning the hearts and minds of the people, and giving ID a boost - some momentum that they carry onto the next state, whichever it may turn out to be.
Aggie Nostic · 14 February 2005
Bryson Brown · 14 February 2005
The 'different spheres' approach to distinguishing religion and science leads to some hard questions. When I use the words 'true' or 'truth' I rely on a kind of vague, conversational understanding of what they mean.
Now, when it comes to common sense descriptions of familiar things, this is pretty straightforward-- what's true is something we can agree on, after a little investigation. (Of course this has to allow room for difficult cases, where politics or manipulation or weird circumstances make agreement hard or maybe even impossible.) In science, of course, we've refined these standards and arrived at very specific procedures for various kinds of observations and measurements.
But when it comes to relgious 'truths', the idea of agreement doesn't seem to have any traction. Instead, 'truth' takes on a different role-- as an intensifier, or a table-thumping word, or (in all too many cases) as a threat: accede to this form of words, or we'll fix you (in a bad way). Maybe it's time to recognize that 'truth' in this context has very different uses and different force and different objectives associated with it.
Of course the intuition that links truth in science and truth in religion is the connection to
1. Sincere assertion.
2. The notion of 'things being a certain way', i.e.
things being such as to sustain/ render correct the assertion.
But without some notion of how to get to agreement, I'm not sure we have a stable account of what it is that a form of words asserts,i.e. just what it means to say that things are the way a religious claim asserts they are.
This is to just to say, in a fancy, philosophical sort of way,that I'm strongly sympathetic with Uber's worries about the status of religious language and the evaluation of religious claims.
Keanus · 14 February 2005
Jeremy Mohn · 14 February 2005
Rachel Robson · 14 February 2005
FL and (to a lesser extent)Uber:
Do not presume to lecture me on my faith.
FL: Since you asked, because my understanding of evolution led me to a much deeper faith in God, and greater appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice, of human "fallenness," and our need for redemption. Because I believe--as faithful Christians like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Galileo believed--that God wants us to understand His universe, and that naturalism is one of the means He gives us to do so (just like I said in my comments in KCK). *That's* how I know evolutionary science doesn't conflict with my faith. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you actually do care about the answer to this question, and weren't just using me to make your rhetorical point. I believe that you are sincere in your faith, and I only ask you to extend to me the same courtesy.
Uber: You & I have had this chat before, and it's not worth pursuing further. Just like FL, you won't be able to convince me that I don't believe, merely because I don't believe as you think I should.
ts · 15 February 2005
jonas · 15 February 2005
Okay, this is pretty of topic, but anyhow:
TS,
I do not know what to make of your comments, not only because they reinforce the false dichotomy of the ID proponents 'either you have to be with us or you have to be a militant atheist', but also because you seem to pretend to know exactly why people believe. If Darwin's faith was structured in a way demanding the continuing existense of gaps for god to hide in, this is unfortunate and his loss of faith is the logical consequence, but only showing that a God-of-gaps approach is nonsensical.
Why have Kepler or Mendel or Einstein or Heisenberg not rejected their faith when finding mechanisms many would have liked to attribute to mysterious divine forces? Why did Kant not become an atheist, although he formulated in no uncertain terms, why a proof of the devine by postulating unknown factors was ludicrous? Probably beause all of them managed to find God in the things they knew, not hiding the divine behind their lack of knowledge. Both in Christianity and in other religions the rejection of the god-of-gaps approach is no new factor brought about by Darwin - another canard from the creationist birdhouse.
Not only is there the well know cite from Augustinus, one of the deepest pieces of theology of creation in the whole bible is going in the same direction. In the final part of the Hiob poem in the OT - the 'Answer from God' - the wonders of the world, given in rather pre-modern descriptions are cited for the distance between human and God, but not turned into an argument why Hiob should shut up and accept everthing in the world as God's decision, but explaining that it is right of Hiob to ask questions and not accept the pat theological answers of his friends, who would like to make God into a part of their explanations about the world and morality, easily to understand and control.
The main problem of christian fundamentalism is exactly that they are - in my opinion - neither especially Christian nor especially faithful. Instead of trying to follow the Christ and posing critical questions both to themselves and the world at large while finding a good way to do so, they insist on God working in a specified way, truth to be handed down only by their interpretation of the bible and everybody to be judged by their standards alone. They do absolutely not allow for God being different or bigger then their puny imaginations, they want to box in the divine and make it into a tool at their beck and call. The rejection of science is only the logical result of this fatal theological flaw.
Unfortunately, somebody brought up with this tainted concept of faith will probably never be able to constructively think about his or her own believes and those of other people, and might actually be faced with the choice of either emulating Calvert or Dawkins.
Hey Skipper · 15 February 2005
At I just posted an article entitled The Argument Clinic, which hopes to outline the asymmetric arguments Creationists and Evolutionists use.
The article is in reaction to an astonishing amount of anti-Evolution sophistry to be found at http://brothersjudd.tempwebpage.com/blog/BrothersJudd Blog, a right-wing religious blog that, for all of that, does include a very wide range of articles. See Darwinism on the left margin for all the arguments.
Anyway, in comparison to Panda's Thumb, The Daily Duck is a tiny audience hobby operation whose writers are, at best, well read amateurs.
Should any of you have the time to stop by and constructively criticize my article, I would appreciate it.
DonM · 15 February 2005
Hey Skipper,
Great post (on Daily Duck). It's nice to see someone stand back and lay out the landscape without getting all muddy by mucking around in the trenches :-)
DonM
Ric Frost · 15 February 2005
jonas spake:
"Unfortunately, somebody brought up with this tainted concept of faith will probably never be able to constructively think about his or her own believes and those of other people, and might actually be faced with the choice of either emulating Calvert or Dawkins."
Yes we can. It's a lot of hard work, and results in a lot of painful choices. Just because my church is wrong will not make the inevitable separation any easier to take.
I have no idea what path I will end up on. That's part of the fun. I do know this: I cannot deny what is right in front of my face. I can no longer lie "in Jesus' name" to the high school kids I teach.
There is hope. The light of reason can even penetrate the deep cavern of fundamentalism.
FL · 15 February 2005
GCT · 15 February 2005
Great White Wonder · 15 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 15 February 2005
1. I've perused the Kansas Statutes, and I note that the state school board is bound to follow the general Kansas administrative rules for all agencies, whatever those rules are. Among other things, the proceedings are to be public, and it appears to me as if any official proceeding must have a transcript. If those things are not occurring, any decision based on the non-transcript material would be subject to challenge.
2. Holy Cow! I read where the proposal for new standards introduces the idea that biology should cover, in some depth, the question of origins of life. That'll be two or three new chapters -- and the creationists will be unhappy to learn that there is a lot of stuff to fill those chapters.
Maybe the thing to do is to sit back and let that one pass -- then send the book publishers and curriculum writers the entire shelf of papers out of NASA's astrobiology section, including especially those of Jim Ferris, and let Andy Ellington write the chapter on how chemicals spontaneously organize to forms that are precursors to life.
I find people who blanche at the milktoast discussions of life's origins in high school texts usually are about 60 years behind the times.
I thought they didn't WANT to introduce all the stuff that falsifies Genesis -- but this section does quite the opposite, inviting discussion on the origins in detail.
Have they never studied the tales of Br'er Rabbit? Do they have any idea the size of the bramble thicket they have opened for discussion?
Ric Frost · 15 February 2005
GWW posts:
"Your opinion is reasonable and supported by facts."
Barna Group has stats specific to self-identified Christians:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=95
It gets worse: One of Barna's videos has statistics showing that crime rates among self-identified evangelicals are within the margin of error of the population at large. Unfortunately, that group of stats does not appear to be available on the Barna web site.
Aggie Nostic · 15 February 2005
Aggie Nostic · 15 February 2005
Pat Hayes · 15 February 2005
ID is not religion. It is a legal and political strategy employed by biblical literalists -- and a tiny handful of those who see Genesis in more metaphorical terms --to get around court rulings that keep "creation science" out of the classroom.
Perhaps the only thing more damaging to science education in this country than the introduction of religion, would be to further politicize it.
The BOE can take what ever action it wants, now. But, when the courts review their actions later, they will look at process and motive. A record is being built. That record -- the transcripts from the hearings, the closed meetings by the board that exclude moderate members and the public, the short-circuiting of established processes of curriculum development, the selection of experts, the difference between the curriculum adoption process for science and other areas, will all become part of the court record. Those are the weaknesses of the ID strategy that we need to exploit.
Rachel Robson · 15 February 2005
Jeff Guinn · 15 February 2005
A couple weeks ago Christianity Today had an extensive article outlining how evangelistic Christians are no more moral than the rest of us, but do tend to be more racist, and may have an edge on slapping their spousal units around.
DonM:
Thank you. You are very kind.
Clearly, I need to break the code on Kwickcode.
Great White Wonder · 15 February 2005
steve · 15 February 2005
As far as I have seen, religion and moral behavior have nothing to do with each other. Religions often try to claim authorship of morality, but religions have made a lot of claims.
Jack Krebs · 15 February 2005
Dan · 15 February 2005
Rachel - I don't see why the problem of evil is any worse for those who accept deep time. It seems that even the slightest amount of unexplained suffering is sufficient to bring the problem to the fore in full force. After all, if God is omnipotent, he should be able to stop any amount of suffering with equal ease.
Longhorm · 15 February 2005
According to Dave Scott,
"Excuse me, ma'am, but an antibiotic resistant bacteria is still a bacteria. What evidence have you that the same mechanism that explains antibiotic resistance drove the process that turned bacteria into bacteriologists?"
Dave, how are you using the word "mechanism?" It is a poor word to use. It is vague. When cells divide, the daughter-cell often has a different genome than that of its parent-cell. Factoring in all organisms (from viruses to bacteria to elephants to humans), the daughter-cell has a different genome than that of the parent-cell in at least one-tenth of all divisions. It might happen in as many as one-third of all divisions. When the daughter-cell has a different genome, most scientists say: "The daughter-cell has a new mutation." I am learning more about the kinds of events that cause daughter-cells to have different genomes than those of their parent-cells. However, it happens with great frequency.
However, "mutation" is not the only kind of event that contributes to the existence of new genotypes. Sexual reproduction and genetic recombination have been two of the key kinds of events that led to the existence of, to use your word, "bacteriologists." Every single time organisms sexually reproduce the offspring has a different genotype and phenotype than that of either of its parents -- even if there is not one "new mutation." When the sperm-cell fertilizes the egg-cell, the DNA does not blend. When this fertilized cell divides, it often is the case that each daughter-cell has a genome that is identical to that of the parent-cell. When I was born, I might not have had any new mutations. But all of my cells had a different genome than each of my mom's cells and each of my dad's cells. This is one reason people care so much about who they reproduce with. Their DNA recombines with the DNA of their mate. This helps create the new organism. It recombines. I urge you to read about meiosis. It is incredibly interesting.
Also, the offspring often has more DNA than the parents. This happens through something called gene duplication.
Sexual reproduction and genetic recombination enables humans to evolve. They are the key. I can't say anymore about this now.
There is a misconception that many people have. They don't understand how important sexual reproduction has been in evolution. It has been so important. If you are watching the big dog show at the Westminster Kennel Club, you will see all sorts of different dogs. Most of the differences you see were proximately caused by genetic recombination. I believe that "mutation" only played a minor role.
Remember: recessive genes are hugely important. Some traits are expressed only when there is a double-dose of genes.
ts · 16 February 2005
ts · 16 February 2005
jonas · 16 February 2005
ts,
it has not been intended to call into question your motives in attacking ID, your scientific competence or the sincerity or justification of your own philosophy. If I have done so, I would like to apologize. My only point was to regard some examples from history, who apparently (please note the qualifications I very intentionally put in) had no inclination whatsoever to see their scientific or philosophical work diminish or threaten their faith - some of them actually told us about this in writing, in other cases it has been my conjecture, but one made only regarding these people and explicitely similar cases. (To make this clear: I do not pretend to know what makes you tick, what makes theists tick, what makes atheists or agnostics tick in general, I don't even assume there is a simple answer to any of this.)
In fact I fully agree, there is no evidence for (or against) the supernatural or divine and science, due to its naturalist foundations, will never need or benefit from an attempt to introduce a deity instead of mundane, testable factors. But I do think it should be mentioned that the constant dragging of disputes on the supernatural, of theology and metaphysics into discussions about science and science education by IDers and SciCreds does hurt the discourse on faith or philosophy at least as much as it hurts science.
Ric Frost,
I am glad to hear this. I have been hoping that my characterization was overstating the impossibility do get out of this mind set.
Aggie,
not quite sure, but I doubt the dogma of biblical inerrancy actually stems from Pauline teaching. The guy didn't have a canonized bible, so why make the claim? In fact he talked a lot about critical analysis to discern the truth from other voices just claiming it. One can find traces of literalist thinking since Luther, who claimed the authority of scripture against the catholic church, but fully stated it was in the 1920s by U.S. evangelicals in the declaration of fundaments, the document the word fundamentalism comes from.
jonas · 16 February 2005
ts,
the 'unfortunate' comment is about the structure of Darwin's faith, not about him - logically - rejecting this false believe. Apparently he did believe - like you put it - in the former evidentiary basis for their faith. As far as I can tell from everybody I know or have read about, 'evidence' for faith is always based on personal experience, never is and never was based on anything admissible as objective data in science. Again, the attempt to muddle this up is a sign of ID's misrepresentation of both science and faith.
I do conceed that many people profess their faith only for reasons of conforming with society, but Kant and Kepler do not seem to fit that bill. AFAIK Kant lived in one of the first European countries to grant full freedom of religious practice and non-practice and still was a lot more pro-religious than some other contemporary philosophers who even lived a less secluded life. Kepler on the other hand rejected a post as a lecturer because he did not want to make a specific theological statement and went into the breach against the witchhunts, putting himself considerably in harms way. They may have been a lot of things, but apparently no weak-willed closet atheists.
Aggie Nostic · 16 February 2005
Aggie Nostic · 16 February 2005
Flint · 16 February 2005
These results correlate quite well with education levels as well. The implication is that education can contribute at least somewhat to overcoming such prejudices. Probably the first step lies in recognizing that one's prejudices are something to be overcome rather than celebrated.
Aggie Nostic · 16 February 2005
ts · 16 February 2005
FL · 16 February 2005
FL · 16 February 2005
Oh, one more thing as my time winds up for now---Rachel, thanks for taking time to do your extended response there. Best wishes for you too.
FL
Jack Krebs · 16 February 2005
There are two problems:
1) The problem of evil, or at least pain and suffering. This is a theological/metaphysical problem for any belief system that alos posits some sort of universal goodness.
2) But that's not the problem that separates that young-earth creationists from the old-earth theistic evolutionists. The issue here is those who believe that sin (evil,etc.) started with the original sin of Adam and Eve have an incontrovertible conflict with deep time that the theistic evolutionists don't have. That's different than the first problem.
Keanus · 16 February 2005
Rachel Robson · 16 February 2005
jeff-perado · 16 February 2005
jeff-perado · 16 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 16 February 2005
Longhorm · 16 February 2005
I posted: "Factoring in all organisms (from viruses to bacteria to elephants to humans), the daughter-cell has a different genome than that of the parent-cell in at least one-tenth of all divisions. It might happen in as many as one-third of all divisions."
Those numbers might be too high. I'm not an expert. But according to John W. Drake, RNA-based lytic viruses average 1 new mutation per division. However, other organisms mutate at a less frequent rate than RNA-based lytic viruses. For instance, D. melanogaster (fruit flies) average about 0.058 mutations per division.
Here is a link to an abstract of an article by Drake:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10415476&dopt=Abstract
On a different note, I don't like the word "mutation." It doesn't help people get a picture of the series of events that result in daughter-cells having genomes that are different than those of their parent-cells. It also might contribute to some people not trying to determine the events that cause disanalogous daughter-cells. Some people say: "The organism has a new mutation." Sometimes that is the end of the discussion. But the question is: Why does the organism have a new mutation?
I especially don't like it when people modify the word "mutation" with the word "random." That makes it sound like the phenomena of disanalogous daughter-cells is an "uncaused event." The idea of an "uncaused event" makes no sense -- at least at a non-quantum level. (The Big Bang is also a puzzle -- some people suggest that it was, in some sense, an "uncaused event.")
But basically the idea of an uncaused event makes no sense. For instance, what if my friend says: "The eight-ball went from the middle of the table into the corner pocket." Say I ask him: "What caused it to go into the corner pocket?" Say he answers: "Nothing. It was uncaused event." That would make no sense.
Scientists should do a better job of trying to determine what events tend to cause daughter-cells' genomes to be different than their parent-cells' genomes. I'm almost sure that there is not a gene that causes cells to divide so that daughter-cells have different genomes. And it is clear that some rates of disanalogous daughter-cells have contributed to some organisms reproducing more times than some other organisms. But more work should be done on the issue of what causes some daughter-cells to have different genomes than those of their parent-cells. I suspect that mundane events often contribute to daughter-cells that have different genomes than those of their parent-cells. Here I'm thinking of things like friction. Different densities in cell walls. Objects hitting against a cell when it divides. Diet.
Scientists say that a large percentage of new mutations are caused by "copying errors." Well, what does that mean? It is like a metaphore that doesn't help me much. It doesn't help me figure out what is happening.
The nice thing about sexual reproduction: The offspring's genome is different than its parents' genomes no matter what -- even if the offspring does not have one "new mutation." In humans, the offspring inherits 23 chromosomes from its mother and 23 from its father. The 23 it inherits from the father are a mish-mish of parts of the father's 46 chromosomes. Same with the 23 that it inherits from its mother. In the offspring, the two clusters of 23 chromosomes never blend. I don't think they even physically touch each other. The two clusters stay separate -- but close together -- in the nucleus of each cell. So, when choosing your mate, choose wisely.
Also, recessive genes are important. Some organisms have certain traits only if both of the parents have a given gene.
Longhorn · 17 February 2005
I posted: "However, other organisms mutate at a less frequent rate than RNA-based lytic viruses. For instance, D. melanogaster (fruit flies) average about 0.058 mutations per division."
This issue of mutation rates is complicated. For instance, what do we measure? D. melanogaster averages 0.058 new mutations per cell-division. In other words, when two fruit flies reproduce, the fertilized cell may have genome X. Before the new fruit fly is born, the fertilized cell divides 25 times. In the course of those division, a cell may have genome not-X. But the fruit fly that gets born may end up having genome X. So, from cell to cell their may be a new mutation, but the new fruit fly ends up having the same genome as that of the first fertilized cell.
According to Drake, fruit flies average 1.4 new mutations per genome per sexual generation. In other words, that is looking at things not from cell to cell, but from fruit fly to fruit fly. Also, fruit flies average 0.005 new mutations per effective genome per cell division. "Effective" meaning genes that actually code for proteins. Finally, fruit flies average .14 new mutations per effective genome per sexual generation.
In the following paragraph, Drake mentions some of the different ways one might calculate mutation rates:
"Although mutation has chaotic aspects, spontaneous mutation rates assume certain characteristic values when expressed per genome per genome duplication. The rate among lytic RNA viruses is roughly 1, while the rate among retroelements is roughly 0.2. The rate among viral and cellular microbes with DNA chromosomes is close to 0.0034. Mutation rates among higher eukaryotes, estimated from specific-locus studies, vary greatly. Most of this variation can be suppressed if the rates are expressed per cell division instead of per sexual generation, and if the genome size is taken to be only a little larger than the sum of the protein-encoding sequences; then, the mutation rate is roughly 0.01. The reasons for different characteristic mutation rates among different organism groups remain mysterious and pose a substantial challenge to students of evolution."
If you talk to people who don't believe evolution happened, one might get the impression that mutations are rare. You might think that, across the animal kingdom, there is only one new mutation every year. That is ridiculously wrong. RNA-based lytic viruses average 1 new mutation per division. Humans average about 2 new mutations among only coding genes per sexual generation. Mutations happen frequently. They may happen about as frequently as reproduction itself.
Partly because of the frequency of mutation and other things I've read, I can justifiably infer that most new mutations do not make an organism more able or less able to reproduce. However, some people say that new mutations that immediately help an organism's reproductive ability happen infrequently. That may be. But we are talking about 3.8 billion years. That is going to be a heck of a lot of mutations that contribute to reproductive success.
Also, though most new mutations don't help organisms reproduce, they also don't hurt. So they contribute to differences among organisms that get passed along. A trait that doesn't hurt an organism's chances of success are going to continue in the population and contribute to phenotypic differences among organisms. If a gene doesn't hurt reproductive, and it is connected to a successful animal, then that gene will stay alive in the population.
Finally, I don't like the word "mutation." But I don't want to be too hard on scientists for using it. It's quick and easy. And it is often very difficult to determine which events caused a subsequent event. For instance, if a daughter-cell's genome is different than its parent-cell's genome, it might be hard to figure out why. Causation is complicated. For instance, think of all the different events that were in play when you played roulette and the ball landed on the black number 8. Both positive events and events that weren't present. Humidity. Air Pressure. What the person had for dinner. How good a night's sleep he had. It's all very complicated. If want to get really complicated, you can say that the Big Bang was a cause of the ball landing on the black 8. If the Big Bang had not occurred, the ball would not have landed on the black 8.
However, we are justifiably confident in believing that varying degrees of reproductive success has contributed significantly in bringing about the existence of every organism that has lived on earth over the last 3.8 billion years. Specifically, that some organisms have reproduced more times than some other organisms has contributed significantly to the existence of each organism to live on earth -- and probably each trait of each organism to live on earth.
Finally, scientists should do a better job of trying to explain to people what event(s) are most important in daughter-cells having different genomes than those of their parent-cells. It will help people understand evolution and why it is clear that it has happened.
And we should make clear how important sexual reproduction has been in producing some of the organisms that have lived on this planet. That's how I got here. And when organisms sexually reproduce, the offspring's genome is always different than it's mom's genome and/or it's dad's genome. Often with more nucleotides.