Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists


"Reed" <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126037323.968902.149260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I know this response is coming somewhat late, but storms and power
> outages have plagued the area all day.
>
> Alexander wrote:
>> "Reed" <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1125752836.983292.72830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >I would appreciate comments on the following proposal. As background
>> > you should know that I am credentialed philosopher, an evolutionist,
>> > and an atheist.
>>
>> Why 'evolutionist'? Evolutionary theory is not a club or an ideology you
>> know.
>>
> I think telling the reader where I'm coming is easier on the reader and
> prevents certain sorts of misunderstandings - at least that's my
> experience. I regret using the phrase "credentialed philosopher". It
> is just a way of saying that I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from a
> respectable university. I am currently living in France, but I taught
> philosophy in the US, not in France.
>> >
>> > I would like to suggest the following practical strategy to counter the
>> > anti-evolutionists' call for equal time in the science classroom:
>> >
>> > When a school board presses for equal time, the evolutionists should
>> > agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the
>> > curriculum specifically devoted to the creationism-evolution issue.
>>
>> I can see so many problems with this, it isn't even funny. Why even
>> devote
>> class time to an issue which isn't an issue until the theists declare it
>> one? If you want to give time to the different concepts of creation
>> (which
>> by default includes arguments of design) then I would say a more generic
>> philosophy class or religious studies would be appropriate. This would
>> encourage students to consider the nature of comparative faith and the
>> range
>> of creation stories available.
>>
>> A specific class devoted to the subject would simply polarise the
>> students
>> even further into which 'philosophy' is the most correct.
>
> Well, I've actually taught the creation-evolution issue at the state
> university level and invited in a pro-ID chemistry prof (not Behe) to
> present his case. While the students probably understood where I stood
> on the matter, it was all very professional and didn't lead to
> polarisation at all. I didn't penalize students for being
> anti-evolutionist themselves - as long as they had a reasonable grasp
> of the opposing point of view. I'm sure, for the most part, I
> strengthened most students reasons for believing in the theory of
> evolution and rejecting ID as good science. As long as a balanced
> textbook is tied to the curriculum, reason and fairness will favor
> evolution simply because it is overwhelmingly the stronger position.

Was this in the US?

Can you confirm which pro-ID chemistry Prof it was?

The problem for me, from the get-go, is that ID is not science. Full stop.
You are presenting it as a legitimate line of enquiry and that creates
problems.

If you were simply encouraging students to consider the
theological/philisophical implications then that would not be an issue. But
presumably by inviting a chemistry prof in to 'teach the alternative' he
would present the 'scientific evidence' for ID and this creates the illusion
that ID is a valid science.

That this would be jumped on as a useful exercise by the ID crowd would not
surprise me as they are looking for any excuse to undermine the US
constitution.

Remember that ID is a political machine, it is not interested in equity or
advocacy, merely pushing it's own agenda. Neither is it science and it
should not be treated as such. If you want to educate kids to think
critically then educate them in how the term 'theory' is derived and the
actual difference between religion and science and why they are not
compatible when it comes to basing inference on actual evidence.

>
>>
>> > This kind of course is well within the power of school boards to
>> > implement. Moreover the Europeans routinely give philosophy courses in
>> > high school.
>>
>> Not exactly. We have A levels here in the UK (for 16-18) which is an
>> elective and the philosophy classes generally cover a much broader set of
>> topics than simply a single debate. This seems too narrow a course to be
>> of
>> value.
>>
> Given we don't teach any philosophy in high school on this side of the
> pond, it's a start.

Sorry - you gave the impression you were actually living/teaching in France,
not the US.

It will be of value because a major part of the
> course is discussing the importance of science, clarifying the notion
> and importance of testability, the role of naturalism, etc. In general
> it will discuss the difference between genuine science and
> psuedoscience.

Yet by allowing an ID proponent to make a case for ID you are not
demonstrating 'pseudoscience', simply providing a platform for it.

>
>> IMHO, a philosophy of science course of this sort will be
>> > far more interesting and educationally relevant for students than the
>> > typical long dead white male course. Ideally the course will be jointly
>> > taught by both a proponent of ID and of evolution.
>>
>> Why? ID is not a science, so why would there be a separate class devoted
>> to
>> teaching ID and evolution away from the science class. This sounds too
>> much
>> like a way of teaching ID outside of the science class, but as a
>> legitimate
>> investigation into science. Which it is not of course.
>
> I don't conceive this class as "a way of teaching ID" if done correctly
> it will be a way of teaching what science is, and the difference
> between science and pseudoscience.

This is exactly how it will be treated by the ID crew. Simply a method of
advancing their own agenda.

>
>> >
>> > 2. It keeps ID and creationism out of the science classroom, and
>> > defuses that issue.
>>
>> No, it puts it on a pedestal by giving it exclusive class time. You'll
>> have
>> kids going from their 'origins' class into a biology lesson sticking
>> their
>> hand in the air and saying 'but sir ... Mr Smith said that evolution is
>> impossible coz the eye is irreducibly complex' and you're back to square
>> 1.
>>
> Ok, we disagree on the basic value of the class. But if I'm right, at
> the very least the proposal will change the present dynamics of such
> school board meetings and put the other side on the defensive. Again,
> see the comments I made to J. Harshman.

I don't think so. If you get the chance go and read the transcripts of the
recent Kansas hearings on ID. It will give you an idea of the kind of
people and organisations you'll actually be dealing with.

I'll reiterate that as ID is a political movement, there is nothing to be
gained by embracing it as they are not saying anything intrinsically of
value.

>
>> >
>> > 3. It avoids the First Amendment issues. The course has an obvious
>> > secular purpose. It hopefully would bypass the need for endless
>> > litigation before an increasingly conservative court system.
>> >
>> > 4. It allows us to frame the issues in broad historical context: we
>> > start with young earth creationism as a scientific theory, and end with
>> > ID.
>>
>> ... er .... Creationism is NOT a science. It never has been and never
>> will
>> be. It doesn't even have a theory to propose. You can present it as a
>> valid religious expression but that has to be measured against the range
>> of
>> creation stories available and the fact that it does not answer any of
>> the
>> issues covered under the scientific method.
>
> Of course, it's pseudoscience. But proponents of "creation science"
> claim it is a viable, scientific, alternative hypothesis that empirical
> evidence supports at least as well as the theory of evolution: for
> example, they claim that Noah's flood, if it did occur, would have
> resulted in a fossil distribution consistent with what palentologists
> observe, etc.

Er ... no. The fossil and geological evidence distinctly refutes young
earth concepts all the way down the line. In fact geologists prior to
Darwin decided that the geological record did not support a global flood.
Some of them where quite senior in the church as well ... that still didn't
mean they shied away from the evidence - neither did it affront their faith.

You seem to be under the impression that it is simply a question of
presenting alternative interpretations of data. It is not. The facts that
are in front of us are pretty stark - the evidence for an old earth is vast,
that for a young earth is virtually nil. The YEC stance is thoroughly
falsified and yet they maintain it is still true. You are therefore left
with a fundamentalist faith position that has nothing to do with science.

If they continued that line of reasoning and maintained a purely faith
position there wouldn't be this problem, but they have converted the mythoi
of scripture into logos and embraced the literal word of the inerrant Bible.
This makes them blind to inconvenient facts and no amount of debating about
evolution will convince them otherwise.

If science took this stance, of continuing to support concepts that had lost
any semblance of factual support, then we'd be in trouble.

>
>> > 5. It allows us to present Darwin's argument in its original form: as
>> > an extended comparison of how the theory of evolution via natural
>> > selection matches against the Biblical theory of special creation in
>> > light of detailed empirical observation.
>>
>> No - this means we're back to teaching science again only this time by
>> making comparisons with creationism. Surely you can see the problems
>> with
>> this. If you want to discuss the metaphysics of creation stories then
>> fine.
>> If you want to discuss ontology or the nature of observation/reality or a
>> host of other issues to do with religion including where we might all
>> ultimately come from then fine. But it's still not science, it's
>> philosophy
>> (full stop) or religion.
>
> But Darwin himself carefully weighed empirical observations against
> the theory of supernatural ID, and his arguments are as legitimate
> today as back then. It's a way of teaching both science and philosophy
> at the same time. I don't see the problem.

ID is not a theory. For someone involved in epistemology and the philosophy
of science, you do like to confuse terms.

He did not weigh concepts of ID in any event. He made some fairly profound
decisions in his life in relation to his personal relationship with God, but
it was never about 'ID'. It was simply a question of where the evidence
lay.

>
>>
>> I've personally studied it as a sociological issue, but it was a personal
>> choice for my MA and I simply don't see the advantage of creating a
>> seperate
>> bear pit of a class for kids to basically spout their own religious
>> assertions (or rather, mummy and daddy's religious assertions) in the
>> context of a discussion about science.
>>
> My experience teaching this material is that it just doesn't happen
> like that. You start out with scientific methodology, and if a student
> makes some sort of faith-based claim, they are challenged to justify it
> scientifically.

So your class on ID would take about 10 minutes then? Or are you saying
that your class on ID would have to, by default, introduce the work of Behe,
Dembski et al. If it does, then you've just handed to them on a platter
what they've been after all along.

>
>> >
>> > 6. There is a good chance that in most cases students will be properly
>> > taught, and the cause of science education and evolution theory will be
>> > advanced.
>>
>> How?
>>
> Because the theory of evolution has the much stronger hand in a side by
> side comparison. Note that even the anti-evolutionist are not
> challenging the basic authority of science to establish rational
> empirical belief. Their goal is to claim this authority on behalf of
> their psuedoscience.

It's not just stronger, it's the only option. ID does not belong in a
lesson plan except as a foot note to the peculiarities of the American
psyche in relation to faith and the US constitution. It is not science and
it is not even good faith or philosophy.


>
>> > I want to return to point 3 above. It's true that most of the main
>> > movers and shakers of ID have a religious motivation and are
>> > creationists in disguise. And it's even more true that school boards
>> > are primarily motivated by a religious agenda.
>>
>> That should be a big fat warning sign for your proposal right there.
>>
>> >And perhaps those facts are sufficient on First Amendment grounds to
>> >find
>> >that sticker and equal treatment laws serve no reasonable "secular"
>> >purpose - which is a basic Constitutional test.
>> >
>> Would it though? You've already mentioned that 'Creation Science' and ID
>> would have to be taught as part of your 'philosophy' class, which brings
>> a
>> whole host of other issues to bear. If you're not teaching every
>> creation
>> myth and how they dispute evolutionary models then you are looking at
>> just
>> one creation myth in particular to the exclusion of others. I think
>> you'll
>> find that the Lemon test would kick that one into touch pretty quickly.
>>
> Nah - particularly with today's (and tomorrow's Supreme Court). The
> primary purpose is secular - to teach philosophy of science, not
> evolution or ID.

But every time you mention ID and the example of the chemist you brought in
you've done exactly that. I still don't understand what aspect of the
'philosophy' of ID you would be teaching as ID is as devoid of 'philosophy'
(except to rant against 'naturalistic materialism') as it is of science.

In a civics or history class you can teach the First
> Amendment and freedom of speech by going into some detail how the
> courts handled white supremacists and communists without describing
> that as "teaching white supremacy".

Again ... that is ideology. We are discussing science which can be
established through empirical observation. Legitimising ID through the use
of talks in a 'philosophy' class is just as bad as keeping it in a science
class, you've merely moved the 'science' lesson next door.

Talk about a 'designer', talk about God, but don't refer to them in the same
breath as science.

>
>> >
>> > There are in fact a solid core of ID proponents who are not religious
>> > but who genuinely think that evolution is bad or questionable science -
>>
>> So? Science is not based on personal opinion. It's based on empirical
>> data
>> and the scientific method. As ID is not science, nor will it ever be,
>> regardless of what school boards in Kansas and elsewhere say, it should
>> not
>> be taught as such, even if the (apparently unnamed and uncounted)
>> non-religious ID supporters say it's bad
>
> I agree with all that. The point is to illustrate that normal,
> intelligent people (misguidely) object to evolutionary science.
> Ultimately, as you agreed earlier, the fight must be made on the basis
> of bad science, not religion.

Which the scientific community are already doing. They need to get off
their arses and make it a political fight, but at least they are getting
there.

>>
>> How does that work by the way? If there is evidence for a designer and
>> you're saying there are 'non religious' ID supporters (who by definition
>> have to support the idea of _a_ designer) what, or who, are they
>> considering
>> as a non-religious alternative?
>>
> Many of these people don't conclude that God or aliens did it - only
> that there must be some natural, yet undiscovered mechanism that
> accounts for the range and diversity of biological complexity in the
> given time-frame.

Er .... does the term 'Intelligent Design' ring any bells in relation to
this discussion? The terms 'intelligent' and 'design' infer an external
agency that is (or has) _actively_ shaped our genetic makeup. A
naturalistic process is exactly what ID proponents are fighting against.

The idea of a 'natural' but undiscovered mechanism is even more bizarre in
some respects as it falls outside ID/Creationism into some kind of
scientific agnosticism ('how did we get here ... evolution?' 'Nah ....
doesn't seem right, despite all the evidence and stuff''God?''Nah ... gotta
be something natural man''Evolution?''Nah ... still doesn't seem right the
second time around').

If noone is actually proposing an alternative to evolution in terms of a
theory then it remains viable as it's not falsified. If your friends could
propose an alternative then I could take them more seriously. They would
certainly get shown the door at DI.


I think they are wrong, but I personally know at
> least two such people that are highly intelligent, generally
> reasonable, and well-educated.

Sure. Yet they haven't proposed anything that confirms ID and certainly
don't have a scientific alternative. This is hardly rousing support for
your proposal.

>
>> If they don't ask that question then why the hell are they supporting a
>> concept that calls itself Intelligent _Design_?
>
> Some buy the negative arguments of ID, but not the conclusion that
> there is an intelligent designer.

All ID does is try and poke holes in evolutionary models. There is no
theory of ID so if you take away the (generally very lax) critique by ID and
then reject the notion of a designer you are only left with evolution. I
don't see their point.

>>
>> > the number of such proponents is not inconsequential.
>>
>> Yet strangely quiet and invisible.
>>
>>
>> Also IDers are
>> > well-organized, well-funded, and have increasing political clout.
>> > Moreover, they are working very hard to present ID as a purely secular
>> > hypothesis.
>>
>> Which of course it's not.
>
> Before science could accept the geocentric view of the solar system,
> scientists first had to buy the unintuitive view that the earth was
> moving and spinning even though things weren't flying off the surface
> and we didn't feel the motion. They had to first do negative science
> and reject the traditional Aristotelian view of motion. Galileo and
> others did experiments and produced a view of motion that made
> rejection of the Aristotelian view plausible.

Before being made to recant of it by the Catholic church. See what
religious inflexibility does for you? I never understand why YEC/ID
proponents use Galileo as an example of scientific dogma when it was the
church that was desperate to supress scientific knowledge.

IDers view their
> negative program in the same spirit. If a scientist claims to have
> definitive evidence that the Shroud of Turin is approximately 2000
> years old, we still have to deal with their secular argument even if we
> already know that the scientist is a professed theist. As long as
> Dembski and Behe don't use God as a premise, we still have to deal with
> their arguments and claims on a secular basis - which we do.

Yes. They have been demonstrated to be wrong on many occasions, but they
still cling to them. The fact remains they use the concept of a designer
(and it doesn't matter if it's 'unnamed', the notion of supernatural agency
is implicit) which cannot be empirically established, no matter how much
they jump up and down about how science can't explain everything (a fact
that scientists themselves are painfully aware of and go to extraordinary
lengths to point this out).

ID is an argument built on deceit and is a political construct designed to
circumvent previous court rulings and the constitution itself. Treating it
as a legitimate area of inquiry (even as philosophy) is simply playing into
their hands.

The notion of God or a 'designer' is fine .... but it's still not science
and doesn't need to be equated with science in any way.


>>
>> We simply cannot count on courts continuing to rule against
>> > ID on purely First Amendment grounds. Whether its blue laws or "In God
>> > we Trust" on our bills - I simply have no great confidence that the
>> > courts won't eventually find some semblance of a secular purpose to
>> > justify anti-evolution laws. In the end we must justify banning ID from
>> > the science classroom for the same reasons that we ban giving equal
>> > time to the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS, the holocaust denial,
>> > or the moon landing hoax. All of these views have people with PhDs or
>> > some other degree supporting them, yet none have anything to do with
>> > religion or First Amendment issues.
>> >
>>
>> Well quite. I would (again) encourage the scientific community to get
>> politically active, involve parents, academics and theologians who don't
>> support ID to be much more engaged in the issue and show ID/Creationism
>> for
>> what it is - a political front for religious ideology to be imposed on
>> classes and students and a drastic undermining of standards of education
>> and
>> science.
>>
>> Your proposal would just open the door to them, even if it's the class
>> next
>> door.
>
> Again, I disagree. Having taught such a course, I'm convinced that it
> will generally have a positive effect.
>

Ah ... you clearly haven't been to Kansas recently.


.

Relevant Pages