A new article appeared in the education section of CNN.com. For those following the debate, theres not much new material here. However, as evidenced by this article, the media seems to be getting better and better at filtering through the IDists spin. Gone is all pretence that ID is not based on religion, or has anything to do with science.
This debate of ideas, normally welcome in a classroom environment, is not embraced by instructors such as Terry Uselton, a high school science department chairman in Knoxville, Tennessee.
“It’s not about education or science, it’s about politics,” Uselton told The Associated Press during a group interview of teachers at the National Education Association’s annual meeting. “That’s the problem, and that’s what we have a hard time separating out. Part of it doesn’t have anything to do with the science being right or wrong.
I agree with Terry, but the much bigger problem is that the controversy they want taught is a fake one, based on discredited arguments, half-truths, manipulations of the evidence, and logical fallacies — just about everything short of lying. This is not a debate between evolution and ID/creationism, this is a debate between good science and bad science, between real science and fake science. Do parents really want their children taught fake science?
“We want the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory taught. That’s it,” [Bruce] Chapman [of the Discovery Institute] said.
The key word there is scientific. The scientific evidence for and against evolution is already being taught. Failed, discredited concepts like Irreducible Complexity (IC) have no place in science classrooms. Besides, not demanding IDs inclusion in high school biology curricula is just the DIs position du jour. Citizens of Ohio remember well the DIs initial stance, which supported the teaching of ID. It was only when they realized that they would lose that they evolved to the Teach the Controversy approach. And its no secret that they want ID taught in the very near future, as they list it as part of their five-year objectives in the infamous Wedge Document, their not-so-secret strategy memo (hint: its already been five years).
[Chapman] said intelligent design is not sufficiently developed to be required teaching, but he points to more than 400 researchers who have signed onto a scientific dissent of Darwinism.
What Chapman means is that there is no theory of ID. There is a fake theory of ID, which recognizes that human knowledge is not complete and that supernatural intelligence is capable of doing anything. Therefore, whatever we dont currently know occurred naturally, the intelligent designer must have done. Also known as God-of-the-Gaps, the only prediction that this theory makes is that as time progresses, and our understanding of the world increases, the role of this intelligent designer will invariably decrease and approach zero. Unlike IDists and creationists, those whose faith is not predicated on scientific ignorance have nothing to fear from science.
NOTE: Chapman mentions that their list of scientific dissenters has passed the 400 mark (scientific meaning basically anyone with a postgraduate degree). Anybody know how many of these are named Steve? Seriously, I cant find the list anywhere, anyone know? My guess is 4 or 5. To put that in perspective, as of 7/5/05 there are 576 scientists that support the teaching of evolution and are named Steve.
16 Comments
Evil Monkey · 6 July 2005
Yeah, and how many of the "dissenters" are actually biologists? And how many of the Steves are?
Ed Darrell · 6 July 2005
WRT your note: How many have asked to be taken off the list of "dissenters?"
Joseph O'Donnell · 6 July 2005
I think that the list they are talking about is on the DI site, but I might be wrong and it could be referencing one of several creationist popular vote lists. Everyone knows science is performed by popular vote!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 6 July 2005
Don · 6 July 2005
I just pulled up my January (2005) version of the DI's list of roughly 300 dissenters. I found one "Steve", on page 4:
Steven Gollmer, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Matt Inlay · 6 July 2005
Tom · 6 July 2005
Also, if you look at the statement that these "dissenters" were asked to sign, it seems almost reasonable.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
There is no reference as to who has made the supposed claims. I'm not aware on any current evolutionary biologists who believe that random mutation alone, in combination with natural selection can account for the diversity and history of life. This is just another example of the DI's basic dishonesty. We need to stop letting them define the terms of the debate.
Engineer-Poet · 7 July 2005
Jon A. Pastor · 7 July 2005
Has anyone analyzed the data from the DI petition? A cursory review shows that an awful lot -- that's deliberately imprecise, because I have not done the requisite analysis -- of the signers are from organizations that are explicitly Christian, and make no bones about the fact that this is fundamental (pun intended) to their approach to learning. I've also noticed what appears to be a disproportionate representation from some regions of the country, if one looks at the number of schools and not the number of names.
Also -- has anyone thought of conducting a poll, asking these people whether they are, in fact, aware that their names are being used to promote DI's agenda? I suspect that at least some of them thought that they were agreeing to some more innocuous use of their names -- if they agreed to anything at all.
Don · 7 July 2005
Matt Inlay · 7 July 2005
Almost all of the signers are overtly, googlebly christian. I'm fairly certain that every single signer knew exactly what they were getting into, and how the list would be used. The reason why the statement is so watered down is not to get people to sign it, but to make the public think their "dissent" is reasonable. Who wouldn't disagree with the idea that it's good to be skeptical of claims, and to critically analyze them?
Incidently, I looked a little closer into Stephen Crouse, who is about as qualified a biologist as you're going to get in that list. Check out his bio to get an idea of what I was talking about.
Flint · 7 July 2005
Is it just me, or does this person view the world through some fairly thick religious filters? Kinda makes you wonder if there's an actual person hiding under all that baggage.
Jon A. Pastor · 7 July 2005
Not sure who "this person" in Flint's post is intended to denote, but I'll assume for the sake of argument it's directed at me.
Outside of this "debate", it would never occur to me even to think about a scientist's religious affiliation or beliefs, much less address them in argument.
People like Dembski open up religious affiliation as a legitimate issue with i.d. creationism by making statements like "As Christians we know that naturalism is false" (intro to Mere Creation), and other i.d. creationists simliarly open it up by making intemperate remarks about the religious positions of i.d.c. opponents, and citing the establishment clause as a justification for pushing i.d.c. on to science curricula.
A recent example of just such an argument came from John Calvert, the prominent pro-i.d.c. lawyer: "the establishment clause requires government -- and that includes the school -- to be neutral with respect to religion. And there are 2 kinds of religions, theistic and non-theistic, and naturalism is the fundamental tenet of non-theistic religions -- secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism." (Temple View, WRTI, Philadelphia -- see my post on this topic)
If i.d. creationists don't like heat, they should not lead the discussion into the kitchen. Once there, they have no business complaining about the temperature.
GCT · 8 July 2005
Jon, I believe Flint was talking about Stephen Crouse. After reading his bio myself, I'm wondering the same thing as Flint.
Jon A. Pastor · 8 July 2005
Oops. Sorry, Flint, for (a) misconstruing your intent and hence (b) going off on a tangential rant!
:-}
After reading the bio, I second (or third) your sentiment.
That being said, I stand by my point about the legitimacy of considering someone's religious affiliation and beliefs in a discussion that's supposedly about science (even though as scientists we know that i.d.c. is religion). Normally, I think that neither I nor any of the regulars on PT would even think about religious affiliation in such a discussion; we're given no choice, however, by the rhetoric of the proponents of i.d.c., who make it clear that -- however coy they sometimes act about the identity of their "designer" -- their agenda is theological in origin and purpose.
Flint · 8 July 2005