The ID Freaks Win One

dahamsta

This is just the saddest, most pathetic ongoing story in recent months. Obviously I can't compare the Iraq and ID debates, but on just one basic issue, that of credibility and gullibility, it has to be said that at least at the heart of the Iraq problem there's a spark of a genuine debate: Saddam Hussein was a troublemaker, he may have needed to be dealt with anyway, it may have led to a very unfortunate 100k deaths.

At the heart of this is nothing, zero, nada, zilch, zip. At the heart of this is some very, very deluded and gullible people with absolutely ludicruous beliefs that defy science, that even the Vatican rejects. At the heart of this is a country that seems to be finding it increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction.

In a recent poll over 50% of Americans thought that ID/creation was responsible for our being here on earth, as against ~30% that attributed our being here to the logical, scientific theory - yes a theory, but a logical, scientific one - of evolution. Tag this onto the beliefs of Americans when it comes to WMD and the like, and it becomes a very scary country indeed.

Does this make me an anti-american? I don't think it does. But I do think they need our help. Read into that what you will.

adam

Kansas Board of Ed. Adopts Intelligent Design
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tuesday November 08, @09:26PM
from the why-do-they-have-to-use-the-word-intelligent dept.
kwietman writes "The Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 to allow science students in public schools to hear materials critical of evolution in biology classes. The new curriculum mentions that theories of life arising from similar building-block molecules through purely random processes can be challenged by recent findings in the fossil record and by molecular biology. Not all were happy, however. 'This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,' said board member Janet Waugh. The new standards will be used in statewide standardized testing; the students are still expected to know 'basic evolutionary principles.' As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"

mike65

Help? They have the freedom to belive the ridiculous I'm afraid.

Mike.

dahamsta

Yes Mike, help. Of course they have that freedom, but the country, generally speaking, seems horrifically misguided. When our friends get lost, I think we should help them get back on track. I don't know if our help would be accepted, in fact I very much doubt it would, but we should still try imho. How we'd go about that is another topic entirely though. Don't even ask me to suggest how, I wouldn't know where to start.

[EDIT: I'll admit that suggesting they need our help also suggests that we're in some way superior to them. That wasn't the intention. We may be now, or will be at some point in the future, misguided in other ways too. I'd hope they'd help us too when we need it. (Don't mention WWII, that's not what I'm talking about. At all.)]

mike65

Well I suspect our more enlightened cousins in the US will point out the obvious (watch Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, Conan O Brien etc in a day or two). They will be more effective than a campiagn from people they already have contempt for.

Mike.

Dimitri

It will be our children that learn the true effects of the Iraqi war. The damage Bush has inflicted on American credibility is going to be long lasting. Lets face it after this no one in the international community is going to trust them. In most countries those once loveable yankees with bizarely white teeth are going to be pariahs. Yes they need our help. I'm totally against anyone telling them one theory is better than the other, but to seperate church and state is the only way the states can move forward from this horrible mess. The usa at the moment is a constitutional monarchy. Yes they elect their President but for 4 years he is king and there is **** all you can do about it. Prehaps someday gitmo can be the basis for charging Bush with war crimes, i live in hope.

dahamsta

Have you any comment on what this thread is actually about, or did you just feel like a completely off-topic rant to massage your own ego?

Dimitri

Have you any comment on what this thread is actually about, or did you just feel like a completely off-topic rant to massage your own ego?

My apoligies i thought your emphesise was on credibility and gullability, simply using the ID v's evolution debate as an example.

This is just the saddest, most pathetic ongoing story in recent months. Obviously I can't compare the Iraq and ID debates, but on just one basic issue, that of credibility and gullibility, it has to be said that at least at the heart of the Iraq problem there's a spark of a genuine debate: Saddam Hussein was a troublemaker, he may have needed to be dealt with anyway, it may have led to a very unfortunate 100k deaths.

dahamsta

The title was a hint.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

The problem isn't ID. It's this "redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"

Means science fairs can be about anything now.

dahamsta

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know what your specific objections are on that front, but if it's about stoning, and cutting hands off, and arranged marriages, and fundamentalism in general, then I'd agree with you. I'd say that about fundamentalism about any religion though. It's just, not to put too fine a point on it, nutty.

Hobbes wrote:

The problem isn't ID. It's this "redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"

Means science fairs can be about anything now.

Indeed. I'm doing a scientific dissertation on ghosties and aliens and palm reading and stepping on cracks on the pavement and the correlations between all four and how they can make mayflies horny on Tuesdays at the moment. If anyone would like a copy, please send a stamped addressed envelope to me C/O The Pope, Gold And Priceless Art And Accumulated Wealth That Could Feed The World City, Near Italy.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

Sanity reigns in Pennsylvania

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1638584,00.html

ressem

If you're going to criticize the board majority as deluded... gullible... , could you be more clear on what part of the revised standard is a problem, rather than insulting flag, mom & apple pie?
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html
pg 75, 76

Maybe
"c. Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented
in the fossil record. Evidence also indicates that simple, bacteria-like life
may have existed billions of years ago. However, in many cases the
fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences
postulated by biological evolution."

or
"d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be
extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new
complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which
appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of
macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct
observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences
from indirect or circumstantial evidence."

OR the politically correct line pg 11
"While the testimony
presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor
prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement."

Maybe its arguable that it gives too much discression to teachers?

Evolution is still the defacto explanation used. Perhaps its a win for ID, allowing teachers to state that the std. textbook isn't gospel. But hardly the end of the scientific revolution in that state.

bonkey

ressem wrote:

If you're going to criticize the board majority as deluded... gullible... , could you be more clear on what part of the revised standard is a problem, rather than insulting flag, mom & apple pie?

Fair request. I'll have a crack at it.

The document starts off promisingly. It says, for example:

Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”

To summarise:

Teach kids the theory. Point out the identifiable weaknesses of said theory. Hold up other scientific evidence to use the scientific method to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method through the analysis of this theory and the conflict surrounding it.

Superb. And I'm not being sarcastic. That is a worthy goal for any science course.

Reading a bit further down...

We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design,

Somewhat disingenuous.

The standards do not exclude ID, as we will see. Allowing it while not mandating its inclusion is arguably just as poor a decision as mandating it would have been unless it is in accordance with the scientific methods / scientific evidence line taken above.

In short, either ID meets the scientific standard, or it should be excluded. This is what the document says, but it presents it by saying that it doesn't automaticalyl require that ID be taught (unlike evolution).

So...we continue down a bit through various preamble, until we come to the section entitled the Nature of Science. In 2001, this opened as follows:

Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.
Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining
empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses,
theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex
inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

So, in 2001, ID - was not and could not be classified as science at all, as it was not a natural explanation.

Roll on 2005. Lets look at the same opening paragraph.

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Hmm. Seems pretty similar, doesn't it?

There's just one thing: Science no longer is understood to be about seeking natural explanations, but rather about seeking more adequate explanations.

This may seem trivial, but this change is what the furore is about. Under the new definitions, explanations do not need to be based on the natural world. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is classifiable as science under this, as long as I can rationally argue a more adequate explanation which makes use of The Noodly One. Obviously, this opening isn't limited to just FSM.

Interestingly, I'm not convinced either FSM or ID could be presented as a theory under the 2005 guidelines, but they certainly can be presented as science.

I'm not going to go further, as this almost insignificant-seeming change is the crux of the matter.
Once you longer require science to be about natural explanations, you've pretty much opened the floodgates. It doesn't matter where you go from there, the damage is done.

Now ask yourself. Why did the preamble make an issue out of not being about putting ID on the curriculum? Was this a way of subtly telling us that they wanted to open the gates for FSM-centric theories? Or perhaps all extra-natural theories except ID were what they wanted to allow?

Somehow, my skepticism tells me thats not the case.

Perhaps its a win for ID, allowing teachers to state that the std. textbook isn't gospe

I believe it should be incumbent on any science teacher to clearly teach what a conjecture, a hypothesis and a theory are, and why none of them constitute truth nor are they "gospel" (although thats not the term I'd encourage for use in a science class).

The limitations/flaws of theories should also be pointed out. Our Big Bang models actually fall apart just before the Big Bang! Our two (!) main theories of how things work (Relativity and Quantum) are currently incompatible with each other. Evolutionary Theory is far from a single cut-and-dried case. Steady-continuous or event-driven-bursts....some combination....something else....we've no consensus.

By all means point out these flaws. But here's the kicker....if you're going to propose something else as credible (even using "Kansascience"), its not because there are flaws in evolution. Its not a see-saw, where the dodgier one is shown to be, the more certain the other becomes. ID does not gain any credibilty from knocking evolution, but it sure makes the creationists happy. Of course, this only holds true if one applies something like the scientific method (even using "Kansascience") to the reasoning.

The right balance - as I see it - would be to allow all valid, scientific criticism of evolution, and to allow that science doesn't have a better answer at this point in time.

No scientist could argue with such an approach, nor could one argue that the teaching of science was being undermined in any way, as acknowledgement of the limits of any scientific model is central to scientific progress.



jc