A recent Pennsylvania State study by two political scientists reveals that most US public high school teachers are either uncomfortable with teaching evolution or doubtful of its accuracy. Clearly teachers are not carrying the water for evolutionists and something must be done. In lamenting this state of affairs Nature blogger Adam Mann begins with yet another erroneous reference to the Scopes Monkey Trial:
Almost a century after the famed Scopes Monkey Trial, battles over teaching evolution versus creationism in US public schools persist - but they have shifted to individual classrooms where teachers have a vast influence over whether evolution is present, a new study finds.
Of course the Scopes Monkey Trial was not simply a battle over teaching evolution versus creationism. It was an ACLU-spearheaded advocacy for the religious thinking that is the heart of evolutionary thought, as made obvious in the famous grilling of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow on the Bible’s foolishness.
Next Mann erroneously equates intelligent design with creationism to present the usual black/white picture to the reader. There are the bad guys over there seeking to spread dangerous lies, and then there are evolutionists—the vanguard of scientific truth and justice. Mann quotes William Wallace of the National Association of Biology Teachers to elaborate on this dangerous state of affairs:
Since evolution is the fundamental concept unifying biology, it is surprising how many high school biology teachers are unaccepting or uneasy with it, says William Wallace, the Washington D.C. representative of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “It’s like a math teacher not believing in algebra,” he says. Better instruction during a prospective biology teacher's college training could help mitigate this fact, he says, a position the researchers advocate for as well.
Not believing that evolution is an undeniable fact is like not believing in algebra? Given evolution’s substantial failure and algebra’s foundational status, it would be difficult to imagine a less appropriate comparison. Algebra is a branch of mathematics, evolution is a religiously-driven theory that contradicts the empirical evidence. If evolutionists are concerned about the harmful effects of religion on science they should look closer to home.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteNothing in biology makes sense, they claim, except in the light of evolution. But such dogma has badly failed.
Here’s an alternative take:
Dobzhansky notoriously said in 1964: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This was supplanted half a century later by Grant and Grant’s (2): “Nothing in evolutionary biology makes sense except in the light of ecology.” Pelletier et al. (12) quickly followed with “Nothing in evolution or ecology makes sense except in the light of the other,” and this sentiment is pretty much where we are today.
The above is from an interesting review article in Science entitled The Newest Synthesis: Understanding the Interplay of Evolutionary and Ecological Dynamics, which cites examples of rapid evolution that have been observed over the past several decades.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21273479
Better instruction during a prospective biology teacher's college training could help mitigate this fact, he says, a position the researchers advocate for as well.
ReplyDeleteForced brainwashing seems to be the answer to every problem for those guys. Shades of 1984 and all that.
Though evolutionists insist evolution is a fact many life scientists do not share their conviction. Our entire existence including all of biology, according to evolutionists, just happened to arise on its own—somehow.
ReplyDeleteI see you've changed back to "Our entire existence […] just happened to arise on its own" from your earlier diversion of "the world just happened to arise through a set of unrelated circumstances."
But such dogma has badly failed. Not only are their claims not scientific to begin with (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is equivalent to an if-and-only-if statement which is impossible within the bounds of science), but evolution’s fundamental predictions are consistently proven wrong.
Apparently, you're still confusing predictions of scientific theories with prophecy.
Predictions of scientific theories are a function of the underlying explanation of the phenomena that theory encompasses. They represent potential outcomes that cannot stand alone from the underlying explanation and subject to cause and effect. This includes causes which are outside and not necessarily related to the theory itself.
On the other hand, prophecy supposedly isn't derived from putting together piece after piece after piece to eventually conclude what should occur using induction. Instead, a prophet claims an empirically observable outcome is known to occur independent of the cause and effect that brought it about. There might be some factual series of events which brings about the outcome, but they supposedly do not form the basis of foreknowledge. Nor are they necessary for prophecy.
We can say the same about the supernatural, which is not limited to setting up dominos in a specific order which are then merely likely to result in a particular outcome. For example, an omniscient and omnipotent agent that can bring about any exact, logically possible outcome desired.
To contrast the two, lets take a prediction or a prophecy that a man will leave the US.
ReplyDeleteIf this were prophecy, it's supposedly based on perfect knowledge of what has already occurred, what will inevitably occur or that some supernatural agent will intercede to ensure it will occur. The details of why the man actually left can be varied because there are an near infinite ways the outcome could actual occur in reality.
As such, If we do not empirically observe the man leaving the country, the prophecy is false.
However, hypothetically, A criminal profiler might predict that a man will leave the country because he is thought to be a jewel thief who just stole 20 million in diamonds. Hypothetically, this prediction is based on historical trends that thieves who steal over 5 million in diamonds usually sell them to foreign buyers who can reintroduce them into the international market undetected.
In this case, the profiler's prediction that the man will leave the country isn't an empirical mandate.
This is because the prediction is part of a problem solving process which is focussed on evaluating a limited number of competing explanations, rather than make dogmatic claims about whether someone will actually leave the country. For example, this same man could have a heart attack, die of car accident, be murdered by a greedy partner or be effected by a multitude of other events before he could actually leave the country.
As such, the man's failure to actually leave the country doesn't necessarily mean the explanation of the diamonds disappearance is wrong, in reality.
Should we discover the man was a heavy smoker and drinker in his late 50s, this increases his risk of heart attack. However, If this were prophecy, this risk would be irrelevant as foreknowledge of the man leaving excludes this risk from having prevented his departure. If the prophecy was true, the man might be miraculously healed which could inspire him to leave the country. We can same the same about the possibility of a miracle in the case of attempted murder, the statical likeliness of having a car accident, etc. In fact, the man could have requested to be buried somewhere abroad so his death caused his departure. Or supernatural forces could have ensured the man to be on a domestic flight that will be hijacked to another country. The possibilities are nearly endless.
Again, in the case of prophecy, the man leaving the country is an empirical mandate of reality that must actually occur or the prophecy is false.
But in the case of the criminal profiler, the prediction that the man will flee is based on an explanation of phenomena: missing jewels were stolen. And criminal profiling indicates the the thief is likely to flee the country. Furthermore, the explanation (the man) isn't immune from car accidents, risk of heart attack, greedy partners or a multitude of other unconceived possibilities that could prevent the prediction from actually occurring. This is because the prediction isn't supposedly based on perfect knowledge or claimed to be the will of an all powerful being.
As such, we cannot evaluate predictions of scientific theories as if they were empirical mandates independent of the underlying explanations they are based on. To do so is clearly a category error.
Yet, despite the obvious difference, many theists such as yourself appear to interpret evolutionary predictions as if they were prophecy.
If the phylogenetic tree of life was prophecy, the outcome would be an empirical mandate of reality. the prophecy would indicate life fit the tree perfectly, based on foreknowledge, or life to fit the tree perfectly due to intervention of supernatural agent. As such, any variation, such as the occurrence of HGT would indicate failed prophecy.
But if the phylogenetic tree of life is a prediction which is based on the explanation of evolutionary theory, then variations of HGT are not necessarily falsifications as they would represent unconceived factors that cause exceptions.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteOf course the Scopes Monkey Trial was not simply a battle over teaching evolution versus creationism. It was an ACLU-spearheaded advocacy for the religious thinking...
Did you forget to mention that the ACLU was challenging the legality of the Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach evolution "...in all the Universities, and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State..."?
Was it wrong and un-American for those ACLU people to fight for Academic Freedom?
CH: Not believing that evolution is an undeniable fact is like not believing in algebra? Given evolution’s substantial failure and algebra’s foundational status, it would be difficult to imagine a less appropriate comparison.
ReplyDeleteTranslated: We can be absolutely certain of mathematical arguments because they are deductive, reasonably sure about scientific arguments because they are inductive, and eternally undecided in regards to philosophical arguments, which are viewed as a matter of taste.
However, what CH fails to realize is this hierarchy isn't applicable in the case of explanations. This is because explanations are justified by their ability to solve problems better than rival explanations, rather than justified by the means they were derived.
It's in this way that one explanation really can explain phenomena better than it's rivals.
One could deny this, but then one would ether need to deny that falling objects and orbiting planets are best explained by gravitational theory, etc., or claim there is some way around the problem of induction, such as divine revelation. Of course, it could be that Cornelius is an instrumentalist in that he doesn't think science has actually explained anything at all.
Scientific reasoning is reliable, not in the sense that any particular theory will survive unchanged, but in the sense that we are right to rely on it to develop better explanations. Seeking better solutions to problems, rather than better sources of ultimate justification, is the process by which scientific reasoning is applied.
An empirical observation is indeed evidence, not in the sense that any theory can be deduced, induced or in any other way inferred from it, but in the sense that it can constitute a reliable reason to prefer one theory to another.
As such, we could rephrase
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
as
Nothing in the biological complexity we observe is better explained except though evolutionary theory.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteHas science ever explained anything, let alone biological complexity?
Do you believe there is an answer to the problem of induction? If so, what is it?
Great post.
ReplyDeleteThe pure truth on the failed and passé Darwinian fundamentalism.
Sooner or later, like in Galileo's day when the truth hurt the establishment, though the flat earthers would not relent they ended up being merely insignificant to science.
Today the Darwinians are insignificant. Well, except maybe as a great example of a very very bad example.
Pseudo-science, tyranny, vehement resistance of all not in their own little camp and pure, even fierce, obstinacy against facts, don't lead one to greatest in any domain.
"There is not a first class intellect among them". Neither among the new atheists nor the Darwinian bigots.
“It’s like a math teacher not believing in algebra“
ReplyDeleteGödel's incompleteness theorems comes to mind. That is the advantage that the mathematicians have. They already know that they will never know everything.
"Sooner or later, like in Galileo's day when the truth hurt the establishment, though the flat earthers would not relent they ended up being merely insignificant to science."
ReplyDeleteGary,
The Galileo affair had nothing to do with a flat earth. No document from the time mentions a flat earth in any way, whatsoever. The argument regarded geocentric vs. heliocentric models of the solar system.
In the words of the Church: "That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;
That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith."
http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence
It seems an odd reversal to put yourself on Galileo's side, and evolutionary biologists on the flat earthers. I suspect this owes itself to a knowledge of biology as weak as your apparent understanding of history and astronomy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGary: ""Sooner or later, like in Galileo's day when the truth hurt the establishment, though the flat earthers would not relent they ended up being merely insignificant to science."
ReplyDeleteRobert, after all this time on these boards, why do you still expect people like Gary to actually know anything about a subject before they pontificate on that subject?
The geocentric PoV was the scientific PoV in Galileo's time.
ReplyDeleteThe church was tricked by those scientists into thinking the Bible supported a geocentric position.