False Fear?

Guess who was one of the sponsors of HB 4946 which would have added the term intelligent designer or creator to science standards?

Brian Palmer

This is fun

(10) As soon as practicable after the effective date of this 2 subsection, the state board shall revise the recommended model 3 core academic curriculum content standards under subsection (2) 4 as follows: 5 (a) In the science standards, all references to "evolution" 6 and "how species change through time" shall be modified to 7 indicate that this is an unproven theory by adding the phrase 8 "All students will explain the competing theories of evolution 9 and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory 10 that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of 11 a Creator.". 12 (b) In the science standards for middle and high school, all 13 references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be 14 modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding 15 the phrase "Describe how life may be the result of the 16 purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.". 17 (c) In the science standards for middle and high school, all 18 references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be 19 modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding 20 the phrase "Explain the competing theories of evolution and 21 natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that 22 life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a 23 Creator.".

Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

— Judge Jones

As long as we're encouraging students to find arguments for and against all the theories (because we -know- this has -nothing- to do with singling out evolution), I'd like to see some sample arguments against Cell Theory and Germ Theory.

What's that? Those fit into your religious worldview, so they don't need to be debated?

Moolenaar said Palmer's does not require the teaching of intelligent design, but that such a decision would be up to local school boards. He said Darwin's theory of evolution is under legitimate scrutiny, and that science students should know about the theory's possible weaknesses. "A scientific controversy should be viewed in a teachable moment for a student to learn the scientific method," he said.

If Darwinists are going to continually claim that the new standards "open the door" for teaching intelligent design (or creationism, or religion, etc.) then I challenge them to produce language in the standards which sanctions the teaching of such. From what I can read, the standards specifically disclaim endorsement or prohibition of teaching ID. The standards explicitly go out of their way to be neutral on the subject. (my emphasis)

Apparently, now "teach the controversy", which is the Trojan Horse for the original "ID" Trojan Horse, now needs it OWN Trojan Horse.

Surreal.

In any case, as I noted before, sooner or later the IDers are going to have to tell everyone what these "evidences against evolution" might be. And as soon as they do, they'll need to explain why they are all absolutely identical in every way with the standard crap that ID/creationists have been putting out for 40 years now (and which have already been rejected in the Maclean, Aguillard and Kitzmiller cases).

Of course, the IDers appear to be attempting to get around this by now demanding that EVERYTHING in science be "critically examined" (including, I expect, evidence for and against Newton, evidence for and against Lavoisier, evidence for and against Einstein, etc etc etc?)

Why can't the IDers just demand that every school in the US hang a sign over the entrance that reads "Critically examine everything"?

Clearly this language has nothing to do with intelligent design and would simply bring scientific critique of theories taught in the classroom, and makes absolutely no mention of teaching intelligent design or any form of a "replacement theory" for those currently-taught theories that are being critiqued.

I like the way these people call for students to "critically evaluate" topics in science that they ae just learning about. Maybe these high school students can research their back issues of Science, Nature, or Evolution (they have been reading these journals for years, haven't they?), or perhaps they can adjust their computer models to account for Designer activity (they've all constructed such models, right?). Perhaps they need to start off with an introductory course in critical analysis of the Bible in order to get a firm basis for these lessons.

Apparently, now "teach the controversy", which is the Trojan Horse for the original "ID" Trojan Horse, now needs it OWN Trojan Horse.

Casey Luskin (remember him?)

Maybe this is the link you are looking for.

Maybe this is the link you are looking for.

Now, Thomas More is looking for other intelligent design cases. "You're going to see this popping up all over the country," Thompson said. "The genie is out of the bottle. People are starting to think about intelligent design." . . . . Thomas More's next intelligent design case may be in the western Michigan village of Richland, where Thompson is threatening to sue on behalf of two seventh-grade science teachers. The teachers, Thompson said, have been prevented by school policy from mentioning intelligent design while teaching evolution. "Even your most staunch advocate of evolution will say there are gaps and problems in it," he said. "So can a teacher, within the context of academic freedom, teach the evidence for and against it?" he asked. Lisa Swem, the Gull Lake school board's attorney, said the policy came at the recommendation of a districtwide committee. It allows discussion of intelligent design, but not in science class. The district, she said, already has wasted resources dealing with Thomas More. If sued, she promises to seek sanctions for filing frivolous litigation. "We're not going to get into the issue of using schools as battlegrounds to fight his culture wars," she said.

Re "Apparently, now "teach the controversy", which is the Trojan Horse for the original "ID" Trojan Horse, now needs it OWN Trojan Horse."

It's Trojan horses all the way down!

Henry

The Wedge surely is being watered down

1. Replace Methodological Naturalism
2. Teach intelligent design
3. Teach the controversy with evolution
4. Teach scientific controversies

Seems ID has been swallowed by Methodological Naturalism...

Can it survive?

Clearly this language has nothing to do with intelligent design and would simply bring scientific critique of theories taught in the classroom

So in which class do students get to hear critiques of religious mythology?

Maybe it's time to start teaching k-12 students about professional ethics in science classes. Ethics is an essential part of the scientific method after all.

Moolenaar is my rep, not that I would ever vote for him. Next time he's in town speaking (not sure when he's up for re-election) I'll have to rattle his cage. I'm sure his actual knowledge of science issues is about the same as my knowledge of labor pains. I've heard about it, but that's about it.

Does anyone besides me see a problem with requiring High School students (or lower grades) to test current scientific theories? It would be very expensive and, ironically, not very educational. I don't think that the average High School student should be required to test atomic theory just so they can learn how to balance a chemical equation or carry out ballistics experiments just before they can learn some Newtonian equations of motion. I wouldn't want students to be required to experimentally test each and every scientific theory simply to learn about the theory or its implications.

Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing from this, but it sure sounds like this bill would require these things.

Comment #78937 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 11, 2006 12:28 PM Lisa Swem, the Gull Lake school board's attorney, said the policy came at the recommendation of a districtwide committee. It allows discussion of intelligent design, but not in science class. The district, she said, already has wasted resources dealing with Thomas More. If sued, she promises to seek sanctions for filing frivolous litigation.

Comment #79268 Posted by Jason on February 12, 2006 08:05 PM Does anyone besides me see a problem with requiring High School students (or lower grades) to test current scientific theories? ..........I wouldn't want students to be required to experimentally test each and every scientific theory simply to learn about the theory or its implications. Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing from this, but it sure sounds like this bill would require these things.

Andy H./Larry:The school board is restricting the freedom of expression of the teachers. A suit against such a restriction is hardly "frivolous litigation."

Teachers are hired to teach the district curriculum. Period.

Those teachers can spout off about IDcreationism wherever/whenever they want, as long as they're not doing so while being paid to teach kids what the district has hired them to teach.

As long as we're encouraging students to find arguments for and against all the theories (because we -know- this has -nothing- to do with singling out evolution), I'd like to see some sample arguments against Cell Theory and Germ Theory. What's that? Those fit into your religious worldview, so they don't need to be debated?

— Tiax

Teachers are hired to teach the district curriculum. Period.

— tiredofit

The IDers certainly love their regressions, don't they? First Behe's intelligent designing time travelling space aliens, and now their train of Trojan horses, as pointed out by Lenny. Wonderful.

There are other criticisms or potential criticisms, e.g., criticisms concerning (1) the co-evolution of co-dependent organisms ( i.e., organisms in a relationship of mutualism ) and (2) the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that reproduce sexually. It appears that the criticisms involving co-evolution have not even been touched upon yet.

It seems that every time the subject of scientific criticism of evolution theory comes up, all people can think of is intelligent design, as if ID were the only scientific ( or pseudoscientific, to some )

— Andy H

criticism of evolution theory. There are other criticisms or potential criticisms, e.g., criticisms concerning (1) the co-evolution of co-dependent organisms ( i.e., organisms in a relationship of mutualism ) and (2) the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that reproduce sexually. It appears that the criticisms involving co-evolution have not even been touched upon yet.

Comment #79427 Posted by tiredofit on February 13, 2006 12:21 PM The school board is restricting the freedom of expression of the teachers. A suit against such a restriction is hardly "frivolous litigation." Teachers are hired to teach the district curriculum. Period. Those teachers can spout off about IDcreationism wherever/whenever they want, as long as they're not doing so while being paid to teach kids what the district has hired them to teach.

Posted by AC on February 13, 2006 03:29 PM (e) Tiax wrote: As long as we're encouraging students to find arguments for and against all the theories (because we -know- this has -nothing- to do with singling out evolution), I'd like to see some sample arguments against Cell Theory and Germ Theory. What's that? Those fit into your religious worldview, so they don't need to be debated?

OK, I have done some investigation here

and it seems that there should be distinctions between the following --- (1) Spending a substantial amount of class time teaching ID as a regular part of the course and/or using ID materials as regular course materials (2) Briefly mentioning ID in class on the teacher's own initiative (3) Briefly discussing ID in class when the discussion is initiated by a student

Comment #79501 Posted by PvM on February 13, 2006 04:44 PM

There are other criticisms or potential criticisms, e.g., criticisms concerning (1) the co-evolution of co-dependent organisms ( i.e., organisms in a relationship of mutualism ) and (2) the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that reproduce sexually. It appears that the criticisms involving co-evolution have not even been touched upon yet.

You must have missed my references. If you do not pay attention, how can we even deal with your questions?

For example, some kinds of pollen are especially suited to be spread by the wind and other kinds of pollen are especially suited to stick to the bodies of insects. A mutation producing the latter kinds of pollen would be useless unless there were already large numbers of bees or other pollinating insects in the environment.

The hypothetical evolution of pollination and angiosperms is tied together. Early gymnosperms and angiosperms were wind-pollinated. Like modern gymnosperms, the ovule exuded droplets of sap to catch pollen grains. Insects (beetles) on the plant found this protein/sugar mix and used it as food. Insects became dependent on this food source and started carrying pollen from plant to plant. Beetle-pollination must have been more efficient than wind for some species, so there was natural selection for plants that attracted insects. Next to occur would have been the evolution of nectaries, nectar-secreting structures, to lure the pollinators. Development of white or brightly-colored, conspicuous flowers to draw attention to the nectar and/or other food sources would also have occurred. The carpel (female reproductive structure) was originally leaf-shaped. It became folded on itself to enclose and protect the ovule from being eaten by the pollinators (hence Angiosperms). Plants with protected ovules would have been selected over ones with ovules that got eaten. By the beginning of the Cenozoic Era (65 mya), the first bees, wasps, butterflies, and moths had evolved. The significance in this is that these are insects for which flowers are often the only source of nutrition for the adults. From this point on, certain plant and insect species have had a profound influence on one another's evolution. A flower that attracted specific pollinators on a regular basis had an advantage (less wasted pollen) over flowers that attracted "promiscuous" pollinators. It is also an advantage for the pollinator to have its own "private" food source because there is, thus, less competition. The varied shapes, colors, and odors of flowers allowed sensory recognition by pollinators and excluded unwanted, indiscriminate pollinators.

It appears that sexual reproduction offers both advantages and disadvantages in the evolutionary process. For example, the preceding reference says, "evolutionists have traditionally explained the existence of sexual reproduction as a means to promote genetic variability and, therefore, increase the rate of evolution," but says that on the other hand, "recombination breaks up favorable sets of genes that have accumulated through selection." And as I said, there is the additional problem that propagation of favorable mutations in organisms with very low rates of reproduction would be very slow.

Evidence: Host-parasite arms race might lead to a Red Queen situation. Curt Lively - snails and trematode infection in New Zealand. Potamopyrgus antipodarum is freshwater snail that has parthenogenetic and sexual individuals at varying frequency in different populations. Trematode parasite eats gonads, and so should impose strong selection on the snails. Prediction of the Red Queen is that sex should be more prevalent in populations with high infection rates. This prediction was supported by a comparative study of different populations of snails.

The coevolution of the meganosed fly and the plants it pollinates is a tale of extreme specialization. Each species has adapted to changes in the other in ways that have left each of them, to some degree, reliant on the other. The idea that a plant species might become dependent for pollination on a single species of animal goes back to the writings of Charles Darwin. For example, Darwin noted, the flower spur of the Malagasy orchid (Angraecum sesquipedale) contains a pool of nectar that is almost a foot inside the opening of the flower. (A flower spur is a hollow, hornlike extension of a flower that holds nectar in its base.) In pondering the evolutionary significance of those unusual flowers, Darwin predicted that the orchid must be adapted to a moth pollinator with a long proboscis. Critical to Darwin's prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant's flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator's tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed. Thus, as ever deeper flowers evolved through enhanced reproductive success, moths with ever longer proboscises would also, preferentially, live long enough to reproduce, because they would most readily reach the available supplies of nourishing nectar. Longer proboscises would lead yet again to selection for deeper flower tubes. The result would be the reciprocal evolution of flowers and pollinator mouthparts. That coevolutionary process would cease only when the disadvantages of an exaggerated trait balanced or outweighed its benefits. Given enough time, the process might even produce new species: an insect that specializes in feeding on nectar from deep flowers, and a deep-flowered plant specialized for being pollinated by insects with long mouthparts. In the early twentieth century it seemed that Darwin's prediction had been borne out. A giant hawk moth from Madagascar, Xanthopan morganii praedicta, was captured, with a proboscis that measured more than nine inches long. Although no one has actually seen the insect feeding on the flower, the discovery is still remarkable, and strongly suggestive of the coevolution of the orchid and moth. Other insects that have relationships with highly specific plants, such as the meganosed fly and other, related long-nosed fly species of southern Africa, provide even better evidence of the reciprocal links between plants and their pollinators.

Comment #78958 Posted by PvM on February 11, 2006 01:43 PM The Wedge surely is being watered down 1. Replace Methodological Naturalism 2. Teach intelligent design 3. Teach the controversy with evolution 4. Teach scientific controversies

Eventually ID will be watered down to: talk about it in religious classes. That's because will remain scientifically vacuous. Soon we will be back to where creationism deserves to be. Outside of our science classes. That will give science classes an opportunity to teach how science explains the facts of life such as the evolution of sex or co-evolution. Powerful evidence indeed.

Comment #79571 Posted by PvM on February 13, 2006 08:30 PM So what exactly are your arguments if not a rehash of incredulity?

But what about a mutation which increases the stickiness without affecting the wind dispersal?

Comment #79574 Posted by PvM on February 13, 2006 08:39 PM Now the evolution of sex and the spread of favorable mutations

It appears that sexual reproduction offers both advantages and disadvantages in the evolutionary process............................

Yes, evolution does come with pros and cons, in the end it is all a finely tuned trade off between the various forces that play a role. Now where is the problem? Is it really a problem? Is it an insurmountable problem? If so, why are sexually reproducing species not extinct?

The one thing that is clear from scientific studies is that sexual reproduction and recombination function to dilute mutations. The vast majority of these mutations are neutral (neither beneficial nor harmful). Of the remainder, most are detrimental. By diluting these detrimental mutations, nearly all of the individuals within a species remain unaffected (since each person has two copies of each chromosome, the "good" copy allows for normal function of the gene). However, not only does recombination dilute harmful mutations, but also beneficial mutations. Since the beneficial mutations are usually not expressed, selection cannot act on them and evolution cannot proceed.

Does this help? In the mean time could you attempt to provide some supporting information that these 'problems' of yours are real problems? Or merely concerns?

A big problem is that I cannot find much information, supporting or otherwise, on these subjects --- co-evolution and the propagation of mutations in sexual reproduction --- because these subjects are generally not discussed in the FAQ's of evolutionist and ID/creationist websites where I could get quick and easy-to-understand pro and con answers. The creationist webpage you gave me on sexual reproduction was helpful.

Why can't public-school students discuss in science classes these scientific issues that we discuss in Panda's Thumb ? Is it because some nervous people are afraid of an alleged fundy conspiracy to take over the USA ?

Well, all I know is that wind-carried pollen and insect-carried pollen tend to be different --- how different, I don't know. I was just supposing that maybe a mutation from a wind-carried pollen to an insect-carried pollen would be detrimental to the plant if there were no insects available which were adapted to carrying the pollen. You probably gave better examples of where an extremely specialized co-dependent feature would be detrimental in the absence of a corresponding feature in the co-dependent organism --- "The coevolution of the meganosed fly and the plants it pollinates is a tale of extreme specialization. Each species has adapted to changes in the other in ways that have left each of them, to some degree, reliant on the other."

There is also the problem of very slow propagation of favorable mutations in organisms with very low rates of reproduction.

— Larry Fafarman

Comment #80019 Posted by PvM on February 14, 2006 11:51 PM FAQ's are hardly the place to look for good information. Try searching for scholarly papers. I provided a good website which outlined a very plausible scenario showing how your 'fears' may be unwarranted.

Nowadays the two pollens are quite different but imagine a plant which uses wind driven pollen to spread its genes in a very inefficient manner. Pollen however is also a good source of food (some plants make yummy pollen and fertile pollen to attract insects, imagine that). The fertile pollen is carried to the next plant, the yummy pollen digested. So now if a plant's pollen is particularly stickier than usual, the plant may become more succesful. Imagine now that the plant secretes nectar to 'catch' incoming pollen, now we have another foodsource and another source of 'stickiness'.

Co-evolution's end effect often appears to be irreducibly complex but that's to be expected. Irreducible complexity is no problem for evolution.

Comment #80027 Posted by Anton Mates on February 15, 2006 12:51 AM "There is also the problem of very slow propagation of favorable mutations in organisms with very low rates of reproduction." Not really a "problem"---it gives us the prediction that organisms with short generation times (which isn't quite the same as a high reproductive rate)---will tend to evolve faster in response to altered selection pressures than organisms with longer generation times.

And in fact that's borne out in reality...we see, for instance, critters like bacteria and insects developing resistance to toxins or pathogens (in the insects' case) in a matter of years, whereas it takes much longer for humans to do the same.

The issue I was addressing here was the rate of propagation of favorable mutations, not the rate of occurrence of favorable mutations. I am assuming that a favorable mutation has already occurred and I am wondering about the subsequent rate of propagation of the mutation through the habitat. The reproductive rate affects the rate of propagation.

— Andy H.

And in fact that's borne out in reality...we see, for instance, critters like bacteria and insects developing resistance to toxins or pathogens (in the insects' case) in a matter of years, whereas it takes much longer for humans to do the same.