-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/23/warning-this-post-contains-a-discussion-of-public-reason-which-is-just-a-theory/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
But I don't know that I would characterize natural science as impositionistic, science being better described (and taught) as an inductive process or language or what have you than an ordered system of beliefs. (Though it is your and my system of beliefs, of course.) Scientists have extended the invitation for Christians to join them in the lab, and Christians have taken up the offer—it's just that their results have come up shy. Were Christians to stick to their guns and say that they reject science, it would be one thing, but instead they have tried to compete scientifically with ID, etc., and been found lacking. That's competition, and you hardly get to throw a sticker on the books when you try to play but don't bring your A game.
But there is not room for such disagreement in a science classroom. The scientific method has led us to certain conclusions, and if people reject them they're indulging in intellectual cowardice, plain and simple. No "viewpoint" is being forced on these people -- it's their own damn viewpoint! They drive cars, take drugs and use electricity. They live and enjoy freedoms in a country formed upon enlightenment principles. If they want to move to Pennsylvania and start building furniture, they can be my guest. Otherwise it's time to admit that science works, secular discourse has gotten this country where it is, and you don't get to pick and choose elements of either to believe in unless you have very good reasons.
Instead, any caveat mentioned by scrupulous scientists about the bounds of induction is pounced upon by folks who deduce a false equivalence and conclude that, shucks, reasonable folk can disagree. Well, I suppose they can, but to do so in this case they have to throw away six or seven of the most important centuries of human intellectual progress. If people insist upon doing that I guess it's their prerogative, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to accomodate their views and give them respect they don't deserve according to the standards of the intellectual framework that was developed and confirmed to work within our shared history.
If I wander off the visitor's tour at Cape Canaveral and telling the first person I meet that I have some interesting ideas about rocketry (I don't), should they indulge me? No! Doing so would be ridiculous.
American students are bad enough at science already, thank you very much. Until the Old Testament starts helping us build more powerful microprocessors or lifesaving drugs, it needs to be kept out of the lab.
Will, if that's true, then we are in serious trouble. I understand your point, and I think you're correctly characterizing the way this conflict is viewed by the religious right. But that doesn't mean we should indulge them.
We will never find an acceptable middle ground with the evangelical school board members. I think the only bloc genuinely in play here is the next generation. We should win the majority of those kids: science works, mysticism isn't logically consistent, and the city's more fun than the farm.
I don't think that granting a false equivalency in this argument for the sake of politics helps with the larger effort. It may seem like it will allow for a short-term resolution, but really it just makes the know-nothings' position seem more tenable to their kids.
I think we need to be clear and firm: science is true. There are benefits to a secular society. (It is worth repeating, in almost as loud a voice, that no, this doesn't mean you have to stop believing in God.)
I don't see what's to be gained politically by ceding ground on the fundamental point here. The way science is taught doesn't seem to have swung the last election, after all, although certainly the debate is a symptom of a contributing phenomenon. Are you arguing for a basic change in the left's dedication to secular humanism in order to appeal to fundamentalists? I agree that we need to meet America halfway on a lot of things, but this doesn't seem like one of them.
There isn't room for compromise in the in the science classroom—not even on the cover of the book. Separate classrooms, then, teaching separate standards? One teaching science and one not, essentially? I don't think it's justifiable to amend U.S. education policy in order to appease conservatives who can't abide by the rigor of science. If by other means private school voucherization becomes a reality, I don't see that you can mandate that science be taught any better than you can mandate what homeschoolers learn. But then I think that universities would be justified in discriminating against these students on the basis of their not learning science, and since it seems that 1) religious education would sink at that point, and 2) secularism would have no challenger in the classroom, this would altogether by fine by me. (Sucks for those poor red state children.)
(Striking how many parallels this debate has to the veil laws in France. Will, did you ever come down one way or the other on that topic?)
The way science was taught to us at school was much more about 'these are the facts we already know, learn them by heart and we'll test you on them', and much less about 'this is the scientific method, use it to assess the validity of these hypotheses'.
In this context, the claims made in your comments section about science being of a different order than religion are only somewhat valid. The more science classes teach kids to memorise our present understanding of things, and the less they teach kids to test hypotheses using the empirical method, the more a valid claim can be made about indoctrination. If, indeed, religious classes taught children to critically analyse biblical passages for internal and external consistency, I wouldn't be nearly as bothered by them as I am.
How children are taught to approach data is far more important than the data they are given.
My private suspicion is that most of the people who are capable of getting worked up about stickers are less interested in pedagogy than they are in flaunting their own epistemic superiority over the yahoos. Which, up to now, I would have said should not stop anyone from considering their case on its merits. But in the brave new world of Stalinist Public Reason, questions of truth and justification have to give way to questions of motive-- so I guess I've no choice but to dismiss out of hand the arguments of the sticker-shocked.
The point is that the religious case has no scientific merits—why should it be considered for biology class? As for the argument's life-affecting potential, well, it's the principle that's important.
1. The assumption that kids are best raised by their parents. I had to spend 10 years in psychotherapy to undo the head trips that my sorry folks did on me. I believe all decent schools should be in the business of teaching kids how to think and fend for themselves in a rough world. If people know how to think clearly then chances are they be able to distinguish fact from fantasy. I have no problem teaching kids that killing is usually wrong and that a cow was killed to make a McDonald's burger. It's the truth. Kid need to be taught sympathy and empathy. There are far too many cruel kids who grow up to be cruel and uncaring adults, politicians and business men and women.
2. We all have "false" gods that we follow. For example, the false god of materialism. Witness the mad post-Thanksgiving rush to buy all kinds of consumer goods, much of it manufactured in China and most of it crap. What kind of religion is that to prop up a communist dictatorship by buying their toasters? Scientific theories are beautiful things but don't shove YOUR science and how it should be applied down my throat. I don't want my water fluoridated if you get my drift. I don't want my stupid dentist telling me that a dental x-ray is like spending a minute catching some rays at the beach. I want my fruit and veggies free from some Monsato's latest and most profitable pesticide like DDT.
4. I don't want SOCIAL Darwinists to tell me that sweatshops and child labor is a better than a life of prostitution. BOTH are bad and wrong. And, that if a little girl's hand gets cut off then it is okay to shove her out the door without medical treatment or pay because she is no longer productive. All kids have a right to an education and freedom from from hunger.
5. I secretly want to emulate my idol the Unibomber. His anti-technology manifesto should be taught in kindergarten. A lot of good he is doing the world behind bars when he could be outside sending a bunch of ticking Christmas gifts to the smug folks in ivory towers and to the rest of the greedy turds in America who are living off the "fat of the land," as Will Robinson ...er Will Wilkinson says. If they have nothing to fear then won't they fear nothing?
But you can't, because there aren't any. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism in any guise. The fact is that even the most "sophisticated" creationists, eg Behe and Dembski, have been thoroughly debunked. Therefore, creationism has no business in science classes. Therefore, warning stickers are unnecessary. What next: equal time for astrology?
So let's cut the nonsense about imposing "secular beliefs."
As for sex education in public schools, it seems that many rightwingers, very sensibly, support having sex education in public schools. The problem is they advocate teaching the one curriculum that is proven to be ineffective in lowering teenage pregnancies and std's. It simply a fact that comprehensive sex education -which includes advice on birth control - has a better chance of working. (And it is ridiculous to imply, as you most certainly do, that "abstinence-only" is a right wing religious value not shared by "political liberals." The grotestque image of Strom Thurmond shtupping the maid comes immediately to mind. As do Gingrich's extra-marital follies. And so on.) Rather, it's simply the fact that such programs don't work and telling kids about some basic biology, explaining to them the possible serious consequences of sex, AND also telling them where to get birth control and protection does. Would someone had told Roy Cohn; a lot of guys would alive today (not that Roy single-handedly caused the AIDS pandemic, but he more than did his bit to help).
As for "environmental consciousness-raising units," as the father of an eight-year old, I have no idea what you're talking about, unless there is something unspeakably, irredeemably, secularist about a school field trip to a local national park.
And for the record, to say that the people who make a living advocating creationism are oafs is an insults to oafs. No, creationists are liars of the worst sort, as are their apologists. And that's far lower on the evolutionary scale (all references intentional) than an oaf.
If you are up for it, I'll eviscerate your misconceptions and false assumptions about Evolution/creationism.
I posted this at Kriston's place too... but so far, no takers there:
Think about this. If it really did happen via Evolution, the evidence left behind (in numerous ways) ought to be so powerful that someone trying to argue to the contrary (pro-creationism) ought to look like someone arguing that the Easter Bunny is real.
Would you agree?
If so, take your best shot. You can start by telling me this: If you had a 10 year old child who got exposed to some "crazy" creationist and came home doubting Evolution. Then your child asked, "Dad, what are the best evidences that Evolution is proven", what would you say? What would you give as the best evidences and proof that Evolution did happen.
NOTE: By "Evolution", I meant Neo-Darwinist Theory... the belief that ALL life descended from a single-celled creature millions of years ago and the engine for this was mutations combined with natural selection.
Firstly, your definition of evolution is silly. Evolution is simply a study of the mechanics by which life adapts and changes over time. The idea that it can only be proven by demonstrating that '...ALL life descended from a single-celled creature millions of years ago and the engine for this was mutations combined with natural selection.' is equivalent to challenging that a particular model of gravity can only be proven by demonstrating that 'each and every object has been attracted to each and every other object in such and such a way since the beginning of time'. Evolution can easily be demonstrated.
Secondly, and related to the first point. Evolution is not definitively at odds with the idea that the universe was created. The idea that the universe was created is not a question which can be established through empirical testing, so science doesn't approach it. The variations on biblical creationism (old earth, young earth, etc.) do make specific claims which are at odds with scientific disciplines including but not limited to geology, astronomy, cladistics and, of course, evolutionary biology. It's not a case of 'either evolution is true of biblical creationism is true', it's a case of 'biblical creationism isn't true, while our understanding of evolutionary biology increases with every year of additional research.'
Thirdly, the idea that if something is true then a 10 year old should be able to understand is clearly very silly. If you showed two mathematical proofs for pythagoras' theorom to the average ten year old, one of which was accurate and the other of which was full of holes, they would have no idea which was which. In practice, reality is as complicated as we can cope with understanding.
Hope this helps.
This is a bit of a "bait-n-switch":
It also demonstrates the common confusion among proponents of Evolution of the actual positions of the leading Creationists. (they love to argue against their favorite crackpots all day... the kind that say things like "dinasaurs never existed", etc.,) Basically, Evolution is a pseudo-science where "dogmas" are rigidly set regardless of the evidence. In contrast, the leading creationists (Discovery Institute, etc) let the evidence "speak for itself".
For example, leading Creationists ALSO believe that descent with modification is an indisputable fact. But, the difference is that leading Creationists also believe that such modifications:
(1) are usually bound within a species,
(2) but, whenever not bound within the same species, these sometimes transform a population (over time) into a different species... but, definitely, in such cases, this different species is always within the same Genus (or even family)... but NEVER, EVER beyond this boundary... even given successive additional changes over time. BTW - Carl Linnaeus, the "Father of Taxonomy", was a Creationist and held this same exact view. Linnaeus considered the "created kinds" of the Bible to be (roughly) at what scientists called the Genus level, not (necessarily) the Species level.
(4) According to leading Creationists the engine for such changes (as I've described) is:
(A) those mutations which delete and/or scramble genes
...and/or...
(B) thinning of the gene pool within a population.
(5) As a result, in ALL such cases, the resulting species or sub-species is genetically LESS advanced then its ancestor. (i.e. fewer or less complex DNA). This is dramatically different than what Neo-Darwinists believe. But, unlike Neo-Darwinists theory, it is compatible with what is observed in science!
Consider that:
(1) The "hard core" (or most indisputable) evidence that Evolutionists give for "descent with modification" fits quite well into this Creationism framework. (i.e. virus mutations, bacterium mutations, ect. ...see (#4) for more info...)
(2) The fossil record shows tremendous stasis where many creatures that existed (according to Evolutionists) hundreds of millions of years ago exist in the EXACT SAME form TODAY! (Sometimes stuff that supposedly lived 350 millions years ago sudden shows up alive and well)
(3) The fossil record shows tremendous and innumerable gaps beyond the level of Genus or family (and very often even higher). There are NOT just a few missing links. Rather, if the fossil record were a "jigsaw puzzle", after over a century of digging, we probably have 5 out of 500 pieces of the puzzle... and these same 5 pieces keep getting dug up over and over and over again... thus, statistical science conclusively proves that we are NOT EVER going to find but a handful of more pieces to this puzzle. The missing ~99% pieces simply do NOT exist.
(4) Mutations which delete or scramble can be demonstrated in a lab all day long. Scientists who study mutations can go their entire lives without observing a mutation which adds information, but they will easily observe millions of mutations which do delete/scramble DNA. The most common exception is when the addition was already "preprogrammed" within existing DNA... and even this is rare. Moreover, there only about a dozen actual examples in existence of mutations that Evolutions can point to which add genetic information (Nylonase, for example), and even these are highly controversial because (1) some consider these to be the result of horizontal transfer of already existing DNA between microbes/viruses, ..OR.. (2) these examples involve "symmetrical" deletion of other functionality. (Therefore, the "engine" Evolution is based on probably doesn't even exist!). Dr. Lee Spetner contends that, given such astronomically low percentages of additive mutations found in nature, in order to have enough additive mutations for Evolution to occur, the harmful mutations would kill you many times over.
if the fossil record were a "jigsaw puzzle", after over a century of digging, we probably have 5 out of 500 pieces of the puzzle
LET ME CLAIRIFY:
I mean of what the puzzle should look like if evolution really happened. The reason we don't have but a few pieces is because Neo-Darwinist Evolution didn't happen.
As I mentioned before, the science of evolution has degenerated into a pseudo-science. Unlike REAL science, it fails to make risky predictions. For example, Darwin did make risky predictions about what the fossil record would look like after more digging is done... and these predictions failed!
Darwin said:
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now that over a century of digging has passed, we don’t find in the fossil record "interminable varieties, connecting together ...by the finest graduated steps"
Instead, we find fully formed creatures with dramatic gaps separating them.
You'll have to forgive me. I have no idea what a 'bait and switch' is. Can you explain?
'It also demonstrates the common confusion among proponents of Evolution of the actual positions of the leading Creationists.'
It does? How?
'(they love to argue against their favorite crackpots all day... the kind that say things like "dinasaurs never existed", etc.,) '
Or the kinds who claim that the earth is only 6000 years old?
I'll leave the 'usually within a species, always within a genus....' stuff, because the boundaries are pushed back as new evidence with regard to speciation is discovered. Leading creationists used to swear blind that speciation never occurred at all, and most biblical creationists will still use the question 'Can you show me just one example of macroevolution?'. I fully expect that in 5 years time there will be an even larger body of evidence, and the leading creationists will be arguing over an even smaller set of gaps in our understanding.
And then the long treatise on mutations. Ending with the beautiful quote:
'Dr. Lee Spetner contends that, given such astronomically low percentages of additive mutations found in nature, in order to have enough additive mutations for Evolution to occur, the harmful mutations would kill you many times over.'
Which demonstrates a key misconception about evolutionary biology. Harmful mutations do kill large numbers of creatures of all kinds on an ongoing basis. Those creatures that are less apt because of harmful mutations are less likely to reproduce (the more harmful the mutation, the less likely it is to be passed on). Beneficial mutations, on the other hand, are more likely to be passed on (though there are no guarantees), and so the fact that beneficial mutations are rarer than malignant ones is no barrier to the latter being spread.
On the assertion that beneficial mutations may never occur. This is simply and categorically false:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
No, actually, what happens here is that the micro/macro thing often gets lost in translation. For example, there are situations where two separate creatures might be considered (by ordinary people, not necessarily scientists) to be separate species... but both creatures are completely sexually compatible. All dogs, or example, are completely biologically sexually compatible (aside from practical limitatations). Many varieties of bears (black bears, polar bears, etc) are completely sexually compatible.
What happens here is that some (less informed) people who argue for creation hear the "micro/macro" think but fail to get a better understanding of this. They walk away repeating mantras (much like evolutionists do) but fail to understand the full explaination. They falsely assume that leading creationists believe that evolution is ALWAYS limited to the species level.
But when you get to the full explaination, the leading creationists have FOR MORE THAN DECADES (even centuries) believed that "decent with modification" (but via deleting mutations) has the power to transform populations (abet, in rare instances) to a different creature sexually incompatible with its ancesters..
...no "boundaries are pushed back"... As I said, this belief dates back to Carl Linnaeus. The fact that this is new to you doesn't mean that the creationists have changed their views anytime in the past 100+ years. For example, the leading creationists have believed for decades that that all tigers, domesticated cats, lions, etc ALL descended from 1 or 2 or 3 original "created kinds".
Also, your observations about mutations are a nice fantacy... with zero basis in reality.
Dr. Edward E. Max seem to be the "expert" put up on talkorigins.org to take on Dr. Lee Spetner.
Dr. Lee Spetner debates Dr. Edward E. Max and this debate is listed here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
(talkorigins.org also had the same debate, but according to Spetner, they mix up the order. Spetner says that don't actually change what was said, but by mixing up the order of what was said, it obuscates some of the ares where Max was creamated by Spetner)
A summary of this debate can be found here:
http://tccsa.tc/debate.html#max
Likewise, Richard Dawkins was asked:
"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
He couldn't think of one single example. See here:
http://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html
This is a real problem. The engine which drives Neo-Darwin Evolution requires a sufficient amount of additive mutations to work. It is not just that these are rare... they are order of magnitutes rare... to the point that their very existance is even questioned.
For a detailed statistical analysis of this insurmountable problem that Evolutionists must overcome, see below:
http://www.wpbc.org.nz/Feature/stats2.asp
Basically, there are numerous firewalls which prevent most of ANY type of mutation (regardless of eventual benefit) to pass on to descendents. When ALL mutations pass through these various types of "filters"... you have some real problems... well, just read the article...
When ALL mutations pass through these various types of "filters"... you have some real problems
For those too lazy to read the links... let me clairify again:
If only a tiny, tiny percentage of ALL mutations are going to make it past these various firewalls and get into "gene pool" of the population as a whole... applying this tiny, tiny percentage to something that is already order of magnatudes rare (additive mutations) makes additive mutations even more rare.
For example, if a grape factory has a raw output of 999,999 red grapes for every 1 blue grape... but they accidentally squash 99.999% of ALL grapes (regardless of color) ...these guys are very inefficient... what are the chances that a single blue grape gets through?
Then, (back to NDT) suppose one gets through very few hundred years... so what? At that point, there is not enough additive advances in DNA to create the complexity we find in life during that time since the Earth cooled enough to support carbon-based life. An engine this slow cannot go from single celled creature to human being in this time period... not even close.
http://www.clichesite.com/content.asp?which=tip+2054
1. To offer something that is not available (i.e. Full blown "slimy goo to you" Neo-Darwinist Theory), and then provide a different item usually of lesser value (i.e. "descent with modification").
In this case "less value" means that "descent with modification" (in its very limited extent, BTW) is so far from proving full-blown (NDT) evolution that it is pathetic.... like 1st saying the "Sun rotates around the Earth" and then later using the fact that we see the Sun rise as proof.
You accused me of using a 'bait and switch' tactic because I narrowed your own strawman definition of evolution. The low-grade rhetorical trick was yours, not mine. My definition of evolution has remained consistent throughout.
'It also demonstrates the common confusion among proponents of Evolution of the actual positions of the leading Creationists.'
Rhetorical trick number 2 was to frame my own discussion in the context of every other argument you'd ever heard for evolution. It's an intriguing irony given that in the very same sentence you accuse your opponents of doing the very same thing you're doing:
'(they love to argue against their favorite crackpots all day... the kind that say things like "dinasaurs never existed", etc.,)'
Rhetorical trick number 3 is to throw out large numbers of unconnected links without any supporting analysis on your part. This is a particular problem with the statistical analysis link. If you want us to pore over statistics, you have to first provide a succinct explanation of the mechanism they are based on. Creationist statistics are almost always used to debunk their own 'random chance' strawman, which you've now used twice yourself. If you can't convince us you understand the basics, then you're not the right person to discuss any of the complexities with.
'For those too lazy to read the links... let me clairify again:'
Rhetorical trick number 4.
Rhetorical trick number 5 is to focus entirely on the weaknesses you perceive with evolution. I pointed out in my first post that biblical creationism fails on its own merits. If you want to promote it, i'd suggest you do so.
Rhetorical trick number 6 is the argument from authority you use with reference to Richard Dawkin. Not even he, you claim, can think of a single example of benign genetic mutation.
I read up a little on this, and what did I find?
http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999august/august1999.htm
As it transpires, not only are you falling into the trap of assuming that if Richard Dawkin can't answer a question then there can't be an answer, you're actually peddling a ridiculously contrived scenario in the first place. This is not a route to respectability.
Is this to be a real discussion or not?
http://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html
...there are all kinds of links to pages defending Dawkins and pages to counter these. That web site is very fair in that it gives Dawkins much coverage from his defenders.
Personally, after reading much of this, I think that all of the pro-Dawkins articles are "spin" from the Evolutionists... I'll let the "readers" check these out (and your link, too) and decide for themselves.
However, as you (or anyone) reads these, recall how your (or most) science teachers say things like "Evolution is a proven fact because we know that bacteria and viruses mutate into stronger variations that our immune system has a harder time fighting"...
...if such is true, answers to questions like this one to Richard Dawkins (and the links in the discussions about this) ought to be chalk full of specific "clinical" or "observable" examples of such mutations which have added to the genetic complexity (DNA) of the descendents of that virus, etc. The problem here is that the "descendent" was either "less" complex (yes, in some situations, you can have increased immunity or better survival via less complexity) ..OR.. the changes involved horizontal transfer of already existing DNA from other already existing bacteria/viruses.
BTW... please try to debate my facts/points rather than my "debating tricks".
Also, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove Evolution is true. Basically, the sentiments expressed on this thread so far are that Evolution is proven fact and that, by virtue of this, creationism should be ruled out by default. I don't claim to be able to prove creationism. The fact that I could present a lot of evidence for creationism is beside the point. What evidence can you provide to DISPROVE creationism beyond all doubt?
If I were to argue that ONLY creationism should be taught in science classes and that teaching other alternatives should not be allowed... then you could argue that I should be able to prove creationism.... but this is exactly what the Evolutionists are doing... Therefore, the burden is on them (and you) to prove that Evolution is fact. Short of such proofs, Evolution should NOT be taught as indisputable fact, and teachers should be more specific about what is actually proven, what is theory, and what is hypotheses. They should also be more open to alternate theories of origins being discussed. (I know of examples where pro-evolution college professors were fired just because they dared to discuss the kind of "problems" with Evolution I've mentioned here... there is a lot more politics and a lot less science here than many realize.)
Interestingly, during the Scopes "monkey trial", the Evolutionists made the argument that they wanted Evolution to be taught alongside creationism and that we should be open-minded to evidence supporting all possibilities... ironic given their position today!
But, while I'm on the topic of the scopes trial, it is interesting that virtually every single "proof" used for evolution at the Scopes trial has now been proven fraudulent.. BTW, "Inherit the Wind" was Michael Moore-like propaganda. (But they don’t tell you this in your high school science class, do they?) ...in fact, "Inherit the Wind"'s exaggerations and distortions are so outlandish, it is more like a parody.
In fact, science textbooks throughout the 20th century are littered with either (1) now-proven frauds ..OR.. (2) creatures who have now been proven either fully ape or fully human. ALL of the following are in one of these two categories: Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Java Man. The sub total of all current bones currently used as "proof" could ALL fit together in a single closet. There is also much controversy surrounding this. For example, most of the skulls we see on the covers of National Geographic involve a lot of Plaster of Paris and a smaller portion of actual bone fragments.
Anyone... pull your high school or college biology textbook off the shelf and "scan" it for examples "proving" evolutions. Share them with me and lets see if they are still considered valid.
...they are littered with falsifications and "tall tales"... even recent ones... for examples:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm
...for clarification... I was referring, at that point, to those bones currently used to "prove" human Evolution.
But a "handful" of controversial "humanoid" bones won't "materialize" the 99%+ pieces of the jigsaw puzzle I mentioned earlier (regarding the entire fossil record).
Thomas Huxley said:
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites"
Never mind that fact that modern genetics has proven that there is extremely little difference between the races compared to the differences that already occur within races.
But this shows how your pre-conceived philosophy had "colored" your views of what you think is proven scientifically, regardless of the actual evidence.
...it also shows the kind of ludicrous ideas and views that your philosophy can lead to. I should note that, before the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the leading young "progressives" of the day embraced atheism along with communism. They had a lot of similar "bright ideas" too.... which lead the the deaths of hundreds of millions in the 20th century.
BTW... where in any of my posts on this thread (prior to this post) have I been "religious"... call me an "idiot" all day, but I've talked very little about God or the Bible or religion on this thread. I guess ya'll will do anything to avoid actually having to debate the science.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html
Listen... I know that all of your Eugenics talk was kidding around... but the parallels were too striking to let that go... and ya'll did start sounding a lot like the "progressives" that are on display in Dostorevsky novels. They were all so excited about social engineering via the State... and these were obviously conversations that mirrored real conversations that Fyodor Dostorevsky had with real life "progressives" in his day and time... just a few years before Communistism destroyed their country.
So too, creationists like Rob reject evolution because "intelligent design" is a better fit with their religious ideology.
This is a two way street.
A number of years ago, the renowned biologist (and evolutionist), Sir Julian Huxley (bio), grandson of Thomas Huxley (btw, also the brother of Aldus Huxley, the author of "Brave New World") made an interesting comment to an interviewer on a British television program. When asked why the scientific community quickly embraced evolution, Julian Huxley responded:
"I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of the Species, was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
Basically, this is a common theme. Over time, there have been literally millions of college students who loved hearing that "God was dead" via Evolution. If there is not God, there are no absolutes and no eternal accountability to a Creator. Therefore, we set our own morals and we do whatever we please. I have heard such testimony and/or sentiments time and time again, both from converts to Christianity and from still-atheists (who were still delighted with their "freedom").
But... you might be thinking, "how dare Rob try to tell us how/why/what our motivations for believing Evolution"... "Rob doesn't know what we have learned that let us to that belief"... exactly... and likewise regarding your views about my views... no one here knows much about my religious belief or about how I discovered that Evolution was impossible.
Now, can we get back to science (for once) and off these "red herring" arguments?
And speaking of fitting science to one's ideology... there were a series of conferences starting in the 60s and in the early 80s where the "math" and statistical models of Neo-Darwinism were discussed. These started with the 1966 Wistar Institute. Basically, during these conferences, (non-religious, BTW) statisticians and mathematicians saw that Evolution was impossible... but the biologists, paleontologists, ect. stuck to their beliefs in spite of the scientific evidence
Check out the articles present by this Google search. For example, this one.
For example, since Charles Lyell first promoted Uniformitarianism in Geology, geologists were expected to hold to a rigid version of Uniformitarianism with only very little to no Catastrophism... and geologists who strayed from this path (even a little bit) didn't have a chance of a successful career in Geology... they were scoffed at and made fun of.
However, now that the evidence clearly shows that large-scale past catastrophic geological events did occur and had tremendous impacts on the physical makeup of the planet... (we know this for sure due to more advanced technology available today) ...suddenly, having a mixture of Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism is in "vogue"!
This leads to questions... what does that tell us about the state of science in the 19th, 20th, & 21st century? Also, if geologists merely 60, 40, and even 10 or 20 years ago had the "right" beliefs (about there being a mixture), but suppressed them or were persecuted for them because these beliefs were "assumed" to be wrong at that time (due to the scientific community being "hell bent" on not giving an inch to the creationists)... how can we be so sure that more of this is not going on today?
..and it is...
As I said earlier, I can cite examples where college science professors were fired just for bringing up examples of the kind of problems with Evolution that I've mentioned... and they were not trying to promote creationism... they were just trying to tackle these issues!
Finally, from time to time, a leading Evolutionists scientist will "spill the beans" and explain some of these problems.
Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" was a "watershed" book. Denton is NOT at all a creationist. I'm fairly sure that he is an atheist. More recently, he wrote additional book(s) where he speculates on some pretty wild and unconventional theories which are at odds with BOTH creationism and Neo-Darwinism... he seems to have since "gone off the deep end"... but, to his credit, at least he is honest enough to try his best to find a way for naturalism to work without doing the things that Neo-Darwinists do where they sweep impossibilities under the rug... you see, at least Denton is intellectually honest about it. (can't say the same for Darwinists).
Also, consider the following quotes from Stephen Jay Gould, professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University. (deceased in 2002) Gould was one of the few Evolutionist willing to talk candidly about these problems:
"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."
********************
"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?"
(this point is now championed by Michael Behe in his book, "Darwin's Black Box")
********************
...and most devistating of all because this is exactly what would be expected from the evidence left behind by Creationism:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
********************
Let me ask you, do you now consider Gould a religious fanatic?
Does Gould's tenure as professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University make Gould not credible? ...or were you expecting a professor from a small private Christian community college?
In other words, if we really want to live in a pluralistic society, we have to respect others' desire to raise their children, even if we think that their parents are teaching them harmful or absurd viewpoints. Note: I am not condoning child abuse. However, there is a wide range of beliefs that parents attempt to pass on to their children and school can be part of that transfer of beliefs. Will is saying, I think, that no one should be surprised if one group complains that the political processes governing part of the values transfer process (school) favor one group's views over another. And, further, that a good way to eliminate some of the tension among different groups is to depoliticize the process governing schooling by allowing parents to choose schools where their values are taught.