Lawrence.com

This paragraph describes the attitude of modern-day Darwinists to a T:

"It seems to me that this question is more central to the issue: is the religious right willing to acknowledge these future discoveries of the scientific community if they contradict their dogma? What would it take to get them to do so? What kind of proof? Can their beliefs be disproved? Or is it rather the case that they are so dogmatically entrenched in their belief systems that there is no possibility whatever that we might compel them to acknowledge the power of science-let alone another religion-to explain aspects of our world?"

They are so dogmatic that they have employed a zero concession policy toward challenges against Darwinism.

And incidentally, you've just stated sciences committment to naturalism beautifully. It can't allow "supernatural" causes. In doing so, it obviously makes a philosophical commitment (which is anti-thetical to science), and it also makes possible the scenario that "science" is going to give the wrong answers. Evolution is not self-evident. It is a logical possiblity that intelligent design had a causal role in the history of life. In other words that may be a reality.

Naturalism prevents us finding out however, because as a matter of assumption, it rules out intelligent causes. Basically what we have under naturalism, regarding origins explanations, it the best naturalistic explanation. What we don't necessarily have is the best explanation.

I want the best explanation. We are trying to explain unrepeatable, unique events in the past, and I think we should allow the data to dictate the explanation, not philosophical committments. Darwinism and Creationism BOTH entail unwaivering philosophical commitments. ID doesn't. Within an ID framework, a materialistic explanation is perfectly acceptable so long as the data support it, and it's not a mere wild extrapolation of more trivial data. So ID is not pre-committed to material causes. Neither is it committed to intelligent causes. Everything must be evaluated. Everything must be tentative.

ID is the best explanation for the flagellum. Direct evolutionary pathways are all but impossible. Indirect evolutionary pathways are strewn with obstacles that, upon objective consideration, seem to be dead ends also. We have no independent data that undirected, unguided material causes can produce irreducibly complex systems. We do have that independent data for intelligent causes.

Now, many people choose to say that someday a material cause will be found for the origin of the flagellum (despite detailed explanations of obstacles and reasons to think it won't happen), and they will hold out regardless. That my friend, is faith. Faith in naturalism, but faith nonetheless.

This debate is about science. It is science vs. science. "Scientific discovery" has revealed that there very well may be systems that are beyond evolutionary explanations.

http://elborak.blog-city.com/read/1067474.htm

Check it out

Oh, and I also agree that religion and science don't have to always conflict. Come on, we all took western civ: Galileo "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina."

Oh wait. Who actually read all of those books?

One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function [Kuwajima 1988].

If flagella is irreducibly complex, why can you take away a third of the amino acids with out harming its functions, shouldnt it cease to function?

DR--

You are wise beyond description.

I must point out, however--Language Snob ALERT!!!--that "Bible" in the above is capitalized by convention. Lower-case "bible" is generic, a la "the bible of residential plumbing" or "the bible of baseball statistics." References to book containing the Old and New Testaments, however, are always capitalized.

That said, expecting Kline to understand the meaning of "reasonable," "compromise" and "theory" is (to lift from Dr. Johnson) a triumph of hope over experience.

[getting out the can opener, here come the worms]

I'm also sure that YECers and IDers also know that there is not a shred of credible evidence to support either of these suppositions.

I don't suppose they want a warning sticker saying that ID or YEC don't even qualify as theories.

There should also be a warning sticker on the state science standards warning that they have done away with the concept of Naturalism, which is what the whole of science is based on.

By the way, the only alternative to Naturalism is "supernaturalism", meaning all things can be traced back to a deity (God, if you will).

Even though IDers are careful not to mention God in their arguments or state standards, careful examination of their arguments and the state standards can reveal true motives. Supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon.

Sounds rather Biblical to me...

Great Idea!

Just as long as the Bible is required text for students.

If not, then you are comparing apples and oranges.

PS...most Christians already understand the Bible that way without the need for a sticker. Do you think the same is true for children being tought evolution?

Seems strange saying this by name, but thanks for the nice explanation booby. You've obviously put some time into this topic, and it shows. I'll have to check that out when I get a chance. Very interesting.

By the way, I know the sense in which you're using the term "ordered" in your post, but technically, life is not characterized by "order". In other words, life is not characterized by regular, predictable patterns. For example, the genetic code, more specifically the sequence of nucleotide bases, is not ordered at all. It is aperiodic, and infinite in possible sequence combinations. There are no laws that govern its sequencing. It's much like a language, that can take on an enormous array of different meanings depending on the sequence chosen, but can also be utterly meaningless (functionless) if the sequence isn't chosen carefully.

Ultimate:

Are you familiar with Kant's "Critique of Judgment-Power"? Interesting resonances with this theory of Intelligent Design can be discovered there. He suggests that our experience of the beauty of nature is something that emerges out of a feeling of (what I have termed) "indeterminate design" that exists in nature--he calls it "purposiveness without purpose". Of course, Kant cautions us that even any vague speculations regarding the character of the designer would be precritical. He suggests that in order for us to make sense of nature, it must already exhibit some indeterminate order--it's merely a matter of going forth and determining precisely what that order is. The latter is the project of science. He suggests that we "feel" the order of this indeterminate design when beholding the beauty of nature. He also takes the beauty of nature to be a sign of a native (designed?) fittedness or fluency between our faculty of understanding and nature, which is a necessary condition of possiblity for scientific progress.

Ultimate...

Without going to far into the nuances of Kant's thought (which is enormously complicated), I can say that its relevance to this debate is that ID theorists might find fodder in Kant's third critique, and that it would not be difficult for those advancing ID theory to appropriate Kant's philosophy to this purpose. Obviously, Kant's concern with beauty was not aesthetic per se. Rather, his interest was entirely epistemological. He was looking for a subjective principle which secured the possibility of the scientific project. That is to say, he sought something upon which to base his claim that the world is intelligible and, more precisely, that we can apprehend it in its intelligibility. Essentially, (and in the interest of brevity it's necessary to oversimplify this a bit) if the world does not already exhibit some kind of design, then there is no possibility of understanding it, for, to "uncover nature" is something akin to drawing back a veil between our cognitive faculty-namely, the understanding-and nature itself in order to reveal the latter's inner workings. Kant asserts that the experience of the beauty of nature signifies a fluency between our cognitive faculties and nature. From there, he moves to assert that our "intelligence" is at home in nature, and not something that is merely projected onto things. In other words, our scientific concepts inhere in the phenomenon of things themselves, and not merely in some disconnected, ideal realm that is divorced from that in which they arise (as though the realm of the mind were in some fundamental way opposed to that of matter). In order that our concepts are not mere arbitrary impositions of a constructed order upon nature, nature must be in some way ordered "intelligently" already (to use the language of ID) in a way that we have yet to determine. The project of science is one that is characterized by the pulling back of this veil and the alignment of our faculties with nature itself or, to put it differently, aligning our subjective intelligence with the intelligent, objective order which nature obscurely displays. Kant offers that it's in the encounter with the beautiful in nature that we have intimations of its grand order. I suppose we might think of this as the wellspring of the pacific astonishment of the religious mystic. He beholds nature, and is arrested with the sense that it is ordered by some infinitely brilliant mind. Kant himself makes no such comparisons, but would not, I believe, be uncomfortable with such an association.

(Incidentally, Einstein was enormously influenced by Kant, as have been a host of other influential contemporary scientists-especially those confronted with the question of the limits of human knowledge.)

Mr. A, have you read the proposals that were initiated by 8 members of the science writing committee? Have you? What documentation do you have that shows that these 8 members of the writing committee decided to propose suggestions based on religion or politics? Show me.

And read the proposals. Stop crying about perceived motivations and address the substance.

Boobyfish, we already have dogma in schools. Darwinists are just as dogmatic about their position as Bibilical literalists are. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "scientists" are always these objective searchers for truth. They're not. They operate under their own biases as well, and they define "science" such that "Darwinism" has to be true, regardless of data.

I agree with you that productive discussions can only be had between people who are willing (I know this seems obvious).

I said in my first post (some 70 posts into this thread), that I didn't have time to read through everything prior to my entry. So I didn't know you made any comments regarding science becoming dogmatic. I'm sorry. In your last post, I got the impression that you were implicitly stating that although dogmatism would betray the spirit of science, dogmatism doesn't currently exist in science. If I mis-read you, forgive me.

I don't think this is futile at all. First, it allows me to hone my thoughts, and furthermore, who knows how many readers are lurking who just want to learn more about the issue, but are uncomfortable chiming in. They may very well be benefitting from this.

The fact of the matter is that this revision of standards is politically motivated, and since the particular politicians involved cannot seperate their religion from the way that they govern the state, it is an issue of religion as well.

It's incredibly naive to believe that the board is motivated by science. This is a religious issue.

The proposal here is for the board and others to take a look at their Bibles with the same "critical eye" they suggest looking at evolution with. I suspect they don't, and won't.

There is no doubt that many of the entries in this discussion uncritically appeal to authority. I entirely agree on that point. It seems to me that what has been lost is the vital cultural context in which the debate between intelligent design and evolutionism has ensued-in many ways it is the same as that of 1925. There has of late been a great deal of discussion about the details of evolutionary theory--its problems and its strengths. I don't know--perhaps the sticker idea was a good idea, if for no other reason than that it provoked discussion. But I have a feeling that the discussion that it has generated is happening among a rather specific group of people--in a word, among those who are somewhat open to discussion to begin with.

Among those who have no questions, or are unwilling to question, the above discussions are of no import whatever. What is of concern to those who are unwilling to question their beliefs is whether there is a space for their dogma in the schools. As I said, most everyone here finds themselves embroiled in these detailed discussions about the evidence that exists to confirm or disconfirm the theory of evolution. Traditionally--and even today among scientists and philosophers--when one invokes the name "God", one is referring to what is as yet unknown. But science, in principle, operates under the assumption that what is as yet unknown, may indeed tomorrow be dis-covered; that we may uncover new evidence to advance the horizon of knowledge (and I think most of the intelligent entries in the above discussions make this presupposition as well).

It seems to me that this question is more central to the issue: is the religious right willing to acknowledge these future discoveries of the scientific community if they contradict their dogma? What would it take to get them to do so? What kind of proof? Can their beliefs be disproved? Or is it rather the case that they are so dogmatically entrenched in their belief systems that there is no possibility whatever that we might compel them to acknowledge the power of science-let alone another religion-to explain aspects of our world?

The vital debate, then, is not one between conflicting scientific theories (you'll probably concede that the theory of intelligent design is as yet inchoate and undeveloped), but rather between those who accept the legitimacy of scientific discovery and those who do not--in a word, between the secular and the religious. The power of doubt is absolutely essential to the scientific project, so why is it necessary to preface a science book with a comment that its theories are open to doubt unless to undermine the entire project (and particularly those theories which would contradict their faith)? It seems to me that the stickers are designed to open to doubt, not only the theory of evolution itself, but the capacity of science to answer the question of origins and, thus, the legitimacy of the whole project.

With respect to the issue of evolution, we might ask ourselves as men of science: if we discover in the future that evolution is untrue, will we then abandon the project of science altogether, allow ourselves to be ceased by the blind insistence that characterizes dogmatic belief, and suddenly become "religious"? Probably not. Rather, we remain faithful in nature and the power of science to uncover her, and we thus avoid appealing to the supernatural to explain her truths. We continue to look for a natural answer. And, irrespective of the sticker issue, this dissatisfaction with the supernatural explanation is something that needs to be reinforced. Science is a method for which the power of doubt is central. If one makes a space for dogmatic certainty, one betrays the spirit of science.

First of all anti-evolution is a pejorative term and also inaccurate. The current issue before the BOE is not anti-evolution, in fact it is about teaching more data than is currently taught.

It is utterly ridiculous that anyone who is skeptical of evolution is labeled as religiously motivated - automatically and condescendingly. One of my points in this whole discussion is that there are very sound scientific reasons for thinking evolutionary theory isn't all it's cracked up to be. If that is the case, then that alone warrants a serious look at how we're teaching it in school. And that is what is happening.

You want concessions? I think it's been implicit in my posts that evolution has been demonstrated to explain many things. But it has been given an infinite explanatory domain - accounting for everything, when in reality that is probably not the case.

People like Mr A seem to have a hard time seeing the fascinating scientific debate because they can't set aside the stereotype that only religious fanatics oppose evolutionary theory. It's time to pull back the curtain.

By the way boobyfish, the above debate tells us that there is in fact a scientific controversy over this issue, and it's not merely religious ignoramuses vs. science. The primary thing to look for is not concessions, although that would be interesting. The primary thing to look for is how honestly and straightforwardly scientific objections to Darwinism are handled? Usually it's not with measured, reasoned, sufficiently detailed responses. Usually it's with condescending arguments from authority. I guess also it is important to note how challenges to evolutionary critics are handled by those critics.

For example, in response to the bacterial flagellum, people like Ken Miller throw out the TTSS as proof that the flagellum evolved (which is absurd) along with statements that it's ridiculous to question evolution (i.e. Richard Dawkins), and people uncritically soak it up.

ultimate175: the fact remains, however, that the motivation behind this is primarily religious. The "science" angle is a recent add-on to a longstanding goal grounded in theological dislike of a scientific body of thought (just like with Galileo).

(Sometimes the truth just sounds perjorative -- as when you call a murderer a murderer. Similarly, you're not being mean, or perjorative, to call a theif a thief. If the shoe fits, you know....)

Now where's your compromise position?

Let it go man. You're holding on to the 1925 stereotype, and times have changed. The primary motivation IS NOT religious. The science "angle" is all there is to ID, and it has emerged because of the biochemical and molecular biological revolutions over the past few decades. Again, go back through my posts, and tell me where "religious motivation" rears its head. I personally know ID theorists who are Jewish, Catholic, Christian, Muslim, and agnostic. Everyone has their personal beliefs (including Darwinists), but that doesn't make either theory religous. None of the ID theorists, nor I, base our arguments or positions on anything but data and knowledge of causes and effects. No holy writ, no faith, no doctrine. Data. Show me where I'm wrong.

What is a "compromise position"? Define it, and I'll try to answer your question.

The science writing committee is behind the proposals, not the BOE. I'm still unsure if you've read the proposals or not, because you haven't answered the question. What other theories do the standards propose teaching?

In my opinion, ID jives with the data better than Darwinism does, but the curriculum to teach it is in infancy, and it's just not ready to be taught. But your claim that it is theology masquerading as science is just incorrect. I mean just read back through this discussion? Has there been any reference to faith at all? Seems to me the only thing that's been discussed are old stereotypes, causes and effects, and biological data. Call it religiously motivated if you want to, but the fact is that it's motivated by the age old foundation of science, which is to let the data direct explanations as science seeks to describe our world.

I said the board implements the standards, i did not say they wrote them.

I hope your support of ID is because of examining the science, and not of blindly following religious doctrine. Reasonable people can disagree. I am not questioning your motives, but i sure am questioning the BOE's. I don't think that they have looked at the science, I think they are motivated by religious doctrine, and I disagree with that. I believe that is against the non-establishment clause in the Bill of Rights, and against what this country is about. Practice religion, or abstain, but don't force your beliefs on anyone else.

Well for example, many textbooks still use fraudulent drawings, accompanied by fraudulent text regarding embryonic develpment. Many also claim that the Miller-Urey experiment sheds important light on the origin of life (which it doesn't - it is important historically though). Most textbooks make a passing mention of the Cambrian explosion, as if it weren't even interesting. In reality, it represents the origin of almost every animal phyla in the span of a few 10's of millions of years without any evidence of evolutionary precursors. This is a very problematic class of data for evolutionary theory (that can't be explained away by preservation bias), and should be discussed as such.

These are just a few off the top of my head. All in all, it is just presented uncritically at best, and in some cases, as I've noted, with false or fraudulent data.

Does this happen in other sciences?

I teach English, not biology. I encourage my students examine all sides of an argument before coming to their own conclusions. I merely facilitate class discussion, i do not reveal my opinion about any issue we discuss unless they ask me after discussion. I don't care what a student thinks, just that they think and not just rotely recite what someone else tells them to think, including me.

The reason that people are not paying attention to other objectionable things in school books besides evolution is because their is nothing to be gained by it, no agenda to push. There is no debate about and no standards revision about teaching string theory vs. quantum mechanics because there are no theological implications in the debate. As soon as evangelicals decide that string theory is dangerous to our "values", that will be when there will be people who start paying attention to it.

Come on Mr. A, you're the one who seems to be unwilling to let go of an idea. I just pointed out several issues in biology textbooks that need to be corrected in print and in class (not to mention larger issues with Darwinism that might be too complex to teach in high school, but which should influence the way it is taught). It's about accurate science education, not an agenda. If you truly condone critical thinking, then you'll set aside your paranoia about religious zealots and investigate exactly what the science proposals entail. The authors of the proposals are clearly in favor of laying all age appropriate material out on the table and letting students take it in themselves. It is the defenders of "evolution only" that want to keep students from hearing about any data that might create skepticism about evolution.

Again, have you read the proposals?

Once again, I am completely for an accurate science curriculum. I have no problems examining alternate theories. What I am questioning are the motives of the state board of ed., who are in charge of the standards.

I looks a little suspicious when the Attny. Gen of the State meets with two halves of a quorum of the board of Ed. to avoid the Kansas Open Meetings Act. When the conservative chief law enforcer for the state violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law to have a closed door meeting with the conservative board members, who are in charge of implementing the standards, you will excuse me if I question whether or not their motives are completely magnaimous. I doubt their conversations ever turned to the topic of what is best for the children of Kansas.

The proposal would seem completely reasonable, except for the fact that the other theories that the standards propose examining are presented as if they are as scientifically valid as evolution, and they are not. They do not have the vast body of research to back them up. It is theology masquerading as science.
We aren't discussing Greek/Roman or Native American creation stories as science.

There are major holes in grand unification theory, but we aren't discussing alternate theories in the standards because there is no theological conflict.

It's disingenuous to claim that the teaching of creationism isn't religiously motivated.

It's online, too: http://pitch.com/issues/current/news/feature.html

CJ's a pretty darned good writer.

Oh.. and don't forget to mention in all the school books that space-time is curved and all physical quantities have to correctly represented as tensors.

And, stop putting pictures of atoms as a nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons making it look like the solar system.

There are a lot of other objectionable things in today's school books than evolution. Why isn't anyone paying any attention to them ?

"I'm all for the revision of any school standards that encourage critical thought and the examination of all sides of an issue. I have a vested intrest in it since I teach high school."

This may be a painfully stupid question, but do you teach all sides of the issue in your class? It seems that on one hand, you're willing to be open, but then with the other hand you discount the motives of "questioners" and (I presume) don't bother to pass on their criticisms for that reason.

Is there, in your opinion, any way that one can legitimately question evolution? Do you do it when you teach?

Example:

"Einstiens theory of gravitation replaced Newtons, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome." Meaning, gravity is a fact, the theory of gravitation isnt, its a theory.

OK, reading closer now. One third of the amino acids in flagellin (a single protein) were cut without harming function (based on that single sentence, I'd still like to see the fine print with that).

So, as I originally pointed out, you're talking about a single protein in the assembly that still functions when some amino acids are removed. No proteins were removed. In other words, the flagellum is IC, meaning if you remove any of the proteins, it stops functioning.

Who knows. When (if) SETI researchers receive a radio signal that indicates an intelligent source in deep space, are they going to know who sent it, or what they're like? No. Are you going to care? Probably not.

The effects of design are detectable independent of knowing who or what did the designing. The data only goes so far.

Ever notice how as soon as the science guys get fired up, they kill the buzz? :)

I'll be the first one to admit that all of the above has gone right over my head. I understand very little of it. But I do pull two things out of it.

The first is that the issue is more complicated than the partisans on either side would lead you to believe.

The second is what aegrisomnia says:

"If you think that evolutionary theory does not explain the spread of life on this planet, fine. I just want a plausible alternative with a large body of evidence that explains how it happened"

Isn't that what this whole kerfuffle is about? That the people who are so excited about criticism of evolution DON'T want a plausible alternative to be presented? Whether that alternative is creation or panspermia or something we haven't thought of is the case, it seems as soon as someone questions the orthodoxy, they're labeled "anti-science".

Seems to me the orthodoxy of evolution learned some pretty clever lessons from the orthodoxy of Copernicus, but it's especially fierce, I suspect, among those who, like me, haven't the faintest idea what you two are talking about....

El, you make some good points. Remember though that the main issue at hand is what should be taught in our high schools. Currently, evolution is taught pretty dogmatically, and most of the significant problems with it are totally glossed over. This is a widespread problem with textbooks. It would be much better to tell students that there's a lot we don't know, and that it appears that some features of life may be beyond evolutionary mechanisms. But they need to learn about these problems, and we need to teach them to think about them. We don't need to tell them uncritically that "everything evolved", as is currently done.

I think most people of my view don't want ID or an alternative taught because it's too new. There isn't any really solid curriculum yet, and it just isn't mature enough. But we can still do a lot better than we're doing now. And that's what the proposed revisions to the science standards are all about.

Irreducibly complex biochemical systems are not nit-picky challenges to Darwinism. Neither is the Cambrian Explosion. Neither is stasis in the fossil record (which Gould tried to explain away with punctuated equilibrium). Neither is the fact that many homologous structures have non-homologous genetic origins. Etc. etc.

This is all data that doesn't "fit" Darwinian theory, and most of it isn't trivial. Evolution undoubtedly occurs, but there is good reason - scientific reason - to doubt that it has the explanatory power that science has given it.

Miller hasn't done research to rebut Behe. He has written stories. And these are not boring details, but critical details that get to the heart of evolution's capabilities.

The toxin injector you refer to is the Type Three Sectretory System (TTSS), and it is NOT extremely similar to the flagellum. Miller wants you to think it is, but that's ridiculous. Why? Because the flagellum consists of 40 some proteins. The TTSS consists of 10. TEN! And they're not even the same proteins (homologous yes, but not the same, and tinkering is required to even make the TTSS a subset of the flagellum). That leaves at least 30 unique proteins to get to a flagellum, and that's just the parts list. The correct assembly instructions are completely different (and possibly more important) matter.

What other functions can the "component structures" be used for other than movement? Creating drag behind the bacteria? The "stories" presented by Miller et al. meant to "debunk" Behe are just stories, and upon examination they're rather absurd.

So, if evolution could not produce a flagellum (or any other IC system), which is at least a real possibility, then that means something else did. One alternative is intelligent agency. Intelligent agencies have demonstrated repeatedly the ability to produce IC systems - because they can plan ahead and assemble a large, intricate assembly of parts that are otherwise useless on their own. Although it is a very young idea (in a scientific form), design detection methodologies are already in use in many other sciences, most notably SETI.

At the very least, design is causally adequate, which is critical in an historical science. Evolution appears not to be.

And finally, it's to let go of the 1925 Inherit the Wind stereotype, and time for people to realize that those of us who want the teaching of evolution to be more objective in schools just might have a point. "Fundamentalists" are not the only ones who have problems with Darwinism and the way it is taught. Many analytical, scientific, thoughtful and very intelligent people are skeptical as well.

Good question, boobyfish. For me, I'll reiterate my earlier compromise offer: I'll sign off on the stickers Kline and the other religiously motivated people want on science textbooks in return for their signing off on similar stickers with similar intended goals placed upon Bibles.

Compromise means both sides taking steps away from their initial position towards the position of another.

I'll move away from my opposition to warning stickers on science text books, in return for warning stickers on Bibles.

We can all agree that the goal is for people -- children especially -- to learn not to knee-jerkingly believe any story or claim people in authority put before them, but rather to evaluate stories and claims based on a spirit of critical consideration.

I'm still waiting to hear a compromise position from the religiously-based anti-evolution side.

Anyone?

Update, I Googled Kuwajima 1988, and apparently you got that from a talkorigins article that had no further explanation of what Kuwajima did. Therefore, I don't buy it. There is always fine print in these that requires scrutiny.

I did find it interesting that a few paragraphs above this in talkorigins, I read this line in regards to the evolution of the flagellum:

"An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure"

Fortuitously becomes associated with the base? Fortuitously? Associated with? Does anyone wonder what the hell that means? It's obviously a stop-gap for having no detail, or even any idea of what in the world that would actually entail. It's a story. It's not a scientific explanation.

How do you figure 497 amino acids is a third of the flagellar amino acids? It's not uncommon for a single large protein to have that many amino acids alone, and there are 40 some proteins in the flagellum.

Does removing 497 amino acids remove any proteins? Or does it just remove 497 aminno acids? Post the link, I'd be interested in reading the fine print there as well. How was it done?

If it doesn't remove any proteins, then what you're really arguing is that you can remove amino acids from some proteins and those proteins are still functional. I'm not arguing that proteins are IC (although some might be).

I'm sorry I don't have time to read through every post on here, but it seems like those who are sticker bashing (I actually don't like the sticker idea either) are guilty of severe oversimplification on the issue. I saw one post that referenced talkorigins.com, as if the existence of that website compellingly dispells all evolutionary dissent. I've also seen "evolution" defined in this thread as "change over time". Profound.

Everyone here knows that "evolution" means much more than that when this issue is debated. It means essentially that natural selection acting on random variations (mutations, gene transfers, etc.) have unlimited creative ability, and indeed are responsible for the entire history of life on earth.

There are many scientists who disagree with this, and there are major, foundational problems with Darwinism. I've read countless people claim that it has been "battle tested" and "proven", etc., and that's absurd. It has been demonstrated repeatedly under the species level, and for relatively trivial changes. It has not been demonstrated beyond that. It is assumed beyond that.

Irreducibly complex biochemical systems are an interesting, and I think grave, challenge to Darwinian mechanisms. Anyone want to talk about these?

It's interesting (and telling) that all the creationists are able to come up nit-picky challenges to Darwinian evolutionary theory that are easily countered with a little further scientific exploration, instead of coming up with any shred of credible evidence that supports creationism (besides what come from a several thousand year old collection of religious themed writings).

Where is the wreckage of Noah's Ark? The bones of Noah's whale? Evidence pinpointing that all human life arose from the genetic material of only two people? Tell me how the inbred descendents of Adam and Eve didn't end up with flippers for hands, and then we can talk complex biochemical systems.

-BA

But are you willing to examine evolution critically? I didn't say "we know all there is to know about the science of incredibly complex biological systems". I said we know enough about certain IRREDUCIBLY complex biological systems to warrant considerable skepticism about evolution's creative power.

You confidently say that my "ideas" are based on "questionable science from creationist propoganda websites" (which is not true - after all I'd hardly call, for example, Cambridge University Press a creationist website), so evidently you know what you're talking about, and would be willing to discuss the origin of the flagellum here.

The flagellum, as you know, is comprised of about 40 different proteins (many multiples of each). We know experimentally (via knock out experiments) that the absence of any single protein, or combination of proteins, results in a complete loss of function. Therefore, without all of the parts, there is no flagellum. There is no function to gradually improve, which presents severe problems for evolutionary mechanisms. Indirect pathways such as co-option have serious problems as well.

Material processes can't plan ahead - natural selection selects for immediate beneficial function. It's all about instant gratification. It can't save a mutation now because it thinks it will be useful down the road. This extremely problematic when trying to find a plausible evolutionary scenario to the flagellum (or any other IC structure). And if evolution has apparent problems with an extremely small component of the oldest organism on the face of the Earth, it is perfectly reasonabe to question the grand claims that are made for evolution in general.

So, since I'm just spewing "creationist" propoganda, what are you thoughts on the flagellum. Do you even think, at a minimum, that it presents an interesting challenge to Darwinism?

It is an interesting challenge. But it has been countered by research by Miller et. al. from Brown University. Complex aspects of the flagellum have precedents elsewhere in nature. Yersinia Pestis (the bubonic blague bacterium) has an organelle that injects toxins into cells that is extreemely similar to the flagellum assembly. Also, the flagellum component structures can be used for many things besides movement, which lends evidence to their development through evolutionary means.

We could snipe back and forth at each other with boring details about flagellum all day long (actually I can't because it will start to bore the crap out of me), but that would pointless.

All I ask is an alternative theory with a body of evidence to support it. Don' like evolution? Fine. Give me something else than evolution sucks. Tell my why something else is better.

If you don't agree with Darwinian Evolution, hold up an alternative for us to critically examine. It is a humble request from a lowly blog discusser.

This isn't about imagination. It's about scientific explanations. No one is arguing that the evolution of the flagellum is logically impossible (nothing is really logically impossible, especially in an historical science), but it is very implausible.

Altering function is an indirect evolutionary pathway, but there IS NO DATA suggesting an alternative function exists. Besides, have you actually thought about what it would take to randomly alter previously "other function" systems to come up with a flagellum? It's a just-so story. Claiming that the flagellum evolved via co-option of other systems is, pardon the irony, a leap of faith. This is a vague response to a vague proposal - but we can talk specifics regarding the evolution of altering functions if you want to.

You're taking Behe out of context. His statement "if there is such a thing", is introductory, laying out the foundation of this notion. He goes on to explain in detail that IC systems do in fact exist, and we know this experimentally. A flagellum with 39 proteins functions as nothing. With 38 proteins, nothing. 37, nothing. And so on (and yes I'm aware of the TTSS, but come on, that doesn't really get us anywhere). So in the case of the flagellum, yes, it does cease functioning.

Evolution isn't concerned about anything, but if organisms aren't improving (and specifically related to reproductive efficiency), then evolution won't go anywhere interesting. So whether it knows it or not, improving organisms is the bread and butter of evolution. Nice to see that someone so candidly admits that it is a completely unguided and mindless process though. That's good to have on the table.

From the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:

Main Entry: theory Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Main Entry: myth Pronunciation: 'mith Function: noun Etymology: Greek mythos 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

Evolution is a theory incorporates a large body of evidence to explain a phenomenon, just like the theory of gravity.

Creationism is a myth. Until there is a large body of evidence that can prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and created in 6 days, the only business creationism has in school is during discussions of mythology, philosophy or religion.

-BA

Ya, Snoop, you know, whatever.

"Code words"?

Do you have a secret ring, too, from a box of cereal, that lets you see those code words under what, a black light?

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Do you have a problem with those "code words"?

David's counter-sticker idea hits the nail on the head. Millions of people accept evolution, just as millions accept creationism, or ID. In our PC-oriented world, the only right solution to appease everyone would be the dual-sticker approach.

Science and theology do not have to be considered mutually exclusive. In fact, the two approaches have co-existed for centuries. Consider this from Brother Guy Consolmagno, S.J., Ph.D., an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory:

"It was only with the rise of literacy in the 1500s that a lot of people who knew (barely) how to read, but otherwise did not have much of a sophisticated education, started interpreting the Bible for themselves as if it were some sort of 'magic book.' And the more the Church tried to stop this sloppy theology, the more that the English (and thus anti-Roman) historians on whom our culture is based condemned the Church for restricting 'freedom of thought.' "The big problem for the newly literate was that the Bible seemed to say things directly contradicted by scientific evidence. For instance, geology demonstrated that the Earth must be millions of years old, while the Bible said it was created only 6000 years ago. "But wait a minute; that's not actually in the Bible. It's only the result of a foolish calculation by an English bishop in the 1600s."

And this: "Evolution is [another] major issue that leads people to believe that science is incompatible with religious teaching. Again, it's important to distinguish between what fringe fundamentalists have said, and what is actual Catholic or other mainstream Christian teaching. The Catholic Church never formally condemned 'evolution.' Indeed, the only two times Popes spoke on the matter, in the 1940s and in Pope John Paul II's recent statement, it said just the opposite. They saw no conflict to religion in the theory of evolution, as long as one acknowledged God the creator acting in this way. "The denial of scientific knowledge is not a prerequisite of religious faith; nor is it necessary to deny the existence of God in order to pursue science."

Why are some people so afraid of teaching both, and letting individuals decide for themselves which they accept -- or, in fact, whether they accept both creationsim and evolution in concert.

You're doing a nice job of throwing in "flat-earther" and "religious zealot" to distract from the point. You go right ahead and keep taking shots in the dark trying to nail me down with a stereotype, and I'll keep discussing the issue.

First, the primary mechanism of Darwinism is to gradually improve an existing function by slight, successive modifications. Darwin himself wrote that if it could be demonstrated that any organ or structure could not have developed in this way, his theory would absolutely break down.

Now, there are good reasons to infer that irreducibly complex systems (IC systems) are inaccessible to direct Darwinian mechanisms. In other words, we know that there are no siimpler versions of these systems that could have been "gradually improved". This is experimental and empirical knowledge no less. That leaves indirect evolutionary pathways that suffer from problems of their own.

Not only do we not have an understanding of how a biological process arose (actually many, and those present at the very beginning of life on Earth), we actually have considerable knowledge about those systems that provides reasonable, critical and thoughtful people data the creates warranted skepticism that material processes can produce them. Given that, it is completely unscientific to dogmatically claim that "everything evolved". In reality we have no idea that that is the case.

Now, would you like to apply some "critical thought" to IC systems and discuss them here, or would you like to keep bashing straw men and calling names?

I called no one either a flat-earther or a zealot. Nor have I stereo-typed anyone. What i did do was say that your ideas were based on questionable science from creationist propoganda websites.

Also, I think that it is absurd to say that we know all there is to know about the science of incredibly complex biological systems and organisms. We don't even know about all of the creatures that inhabit this planet, much less how all of them adapted to the environments that they inhabit.

If you think that evolutionary theory does not explain the spread of life on this planet, fine. I just want a plausible alternative with a large body of evidence that explains how it happened. If this is creationism/intelligent design fine. If an alternative, fine. So as soon as you are able to present a theory for life on this planet that has a larger body of evidence that supports it, along with greater support in the scientific community than for evolution, I will gladly examine it with an open and critical mind.

I suspect no such alternative explanation exists.

"Irreducibly complex" is another of these code words that are a tip off that all Ultimate is doing is reciting, without any critical thought, the arguments of Michal Behe, or one of his "disciples."
Just because we don't have an understanding of how a biological process arose, does not mean that we can make the jump to saying that it was divinely created.
A few hundred years ago, the flat earth was circled by the sun and the sphere of the heavens. Then we gained the scientific knowledge (after some scientists were killed by religious zealots and accused of heresy) to explain a previously unexplainable phenomenon. Before Watson and Crick we lacked the science to explain genetics; we could observe the phenomenon, but we could not explain it. We can't fully explain flagellum with existing scientific theory. This one challengedoes not call the entire theory of Darwinian evolution into question, since there are similar things in nature, it just means that we lack the science to explain it fully. If you wish to stand on a flat Earth in the center of the universe and shout at the rain, thats cool with me too. Newton said he was trying to discover the laws that God made when he was creating the universe. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive; all it takes is an open mind and some critical thought.

-BA

i also forgot to add the disclaimer on 2/13: "i'm writing this comment while intoxicated. points in the following passage may not make any sense."

;)

Mr. Dog you can hide behind all of your seemingly calm condescending elitist platitudes, but I simply call a spade a spade and you don't like it.

You state "Snoop, you misunderstand the goals of critical thinking: it's not hate to challenge some dangerous assumptions: it's wanting to protect the Constitution from a small group of loud religious agitators."

Mr. Dog get real I have read your stuff for more than a year now, some of the other posters may enjoy the seemingly pithy dialogue with you but I see you for what you really are. Types like yourself continue to throw out words like "dangerous" "religious fanatics" "right wing zealots" and because the majority of people are willing to pat you on the head and excuse yours and other liberals real goal and that is to demonize religious right. I actually don't disagree with your general premise, as I am far more open minded than you assume. You consistently use "code words" to paint a picture of doom as a result of these right wing freaks and their agendas and their attempt to corrupt the constitution.
And you constantly come up with this crap about "critical thinking", I'm sorry the Snoop continues not to let you get away with this crap.

And my comment above that these issues have "everything to do with a small minority of religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their closed minds on American society" is born out by Scott Rothschild's reporting into today's Journal-World on the topic of the anti-Gay Kansas constitutional amendment:

From the article (http://www.ljworld.com/section/legislature/story/196083):

"In 2004, the House failed to gain the two-thirds majority needed to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot.

"That angered a group of Christian fundamentalist ministers, who then mobilized to energize voters during the Republican Party primary in August.

"They worked overtime to defeat four Republican incumbents who had voted against the amendment.

"And the ministers succeeded.

"The four incumbents were bounced by a combined 854 votes in the four primary contests.

"That helped put the wheels on track for the two-thirds majority vote by the House earlier this month, which set the April 5 statewide vote on the amendment."

I respectfully point out that the writers of the Constitution themselves sought to prevent the blending of religion and civil law -- hence the First Amendment.

When someone swears or affirms to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," they are swearing to preserve, protect and defend the separation of religion and state -- for the good of both.

Which is even more important in an age where the blending of religion with state power (in such countries as Saudi Arabia, from where the 9/11 hijackers mostly came, and Afghanistan in the recent past, and Iran, where religious fundamentalists repress their citizens' freedoms and rights based on religious, not civil, law) is so rampant and destructive.

Those religious states are modern object lessons for what the writers of the Constitution sought to avoid here in America.

Which is even more impressive when you consider they knew very well that they were making illegal an establishment of Christian religion in America, along with any other religion.

Why, I wonder, do so many Americans seek to undo what the writers of our own Constitution, light of the free world, fought and died to establish?

jen82, although we are on the same wavelength, I am going to take your statement one step further, to clarify. Follow me on this, the definition of theory is, "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena." Therefore, evolution is a fact, organisms change from generation to generation, it occured in the past and is occuring in the present, there is proof, do a search on speciation. However, the "theory of evolution," is a theory, obviously. If it so happens that they put "evolution is just a theory" on textbooks, its an outright lie, because evolution(to specify, I mean the definition of evolution)is a fact, and also a theory that tries to explain the fact.

It is this deliberate misinterpretation of "theory" as an "almost truth" by creationists that causes confusion. Why would creationist attack the theory, all it does is try to explain the fact. Whether the theory is still there, the fact remains. And it seems like, if you asked me, that their problem lies in the "fact," not the theory. So why? Is it possible that they cant disprove the fact, so they misinterpret the meaning of "theory," thats what it sounds like. Convincing people to turn a blind eye to fact. Or possibly creationists are just cognitively impaired, who knows?

Have you ever noticed that people who believe in creationism look really unevolved.

aegrisomnia: Using your example: We prove gravity exists only by using the theory of gravitation. If the theory of gravitation doesn't exist, neither does gravity (in scientific terms). The definition of theory from a scientific point of view does not imply fact. Rather, a theory is an idea accepted within the scientific community that has not yet been disproved. In other words, according to what I've learned of scientific method and theory since I was a kindergartener, you cannot accept theory for fact. Reason being, there is no possible way to absolutely prove the theory (we can see microevolution occur, but we cannot see macroevolution occur before our eyes, though the fossil record is a good account). A theory stands until it is disproved. Because the term theory is interpreted as such within the scientific community, creationists have been able to manipulate it very easily to fit their purpose (as they often do). I pointed out that gravity is a theory, though, as you pointed out, it's as good as fact. All of the evidence points toward gravity holding us to this earth, and not say ...a supernatural force. Until someone proves otherwise, the theory of gravity holds. I accept gravity as fact and evolution as fact, though as a scientist, I know that since no one witnessed the evolution of life on this planet (or any other sure proof), I cannot officially claim it as fact. Science wouldn't be science if we didn't constantly question ourselves and each other. This definition of theory stands to allow for this. (This is also why the scientific method exists ...the experiment must be repeatable, so that any other scientist can get the same results--many a fabricator has been exposed this way, and many a revolutionary theory has been accepted.) Darwin was not, by far, the first person to propose evolution (in fact, Aristotle and some before him had their own ideas on evolution...much different that Darwin's, that had stood for 2000 years or more; Wallace also published a paper at the same time as Darwin, stating similar conclusions that he reached independently). If you think the scientific community took his ideas sitting down, you're mistaken. Rest assured that his ideas have been explored endlessly and put the the test is various ways. While he was wrong on a very few points, and had, at the time a weak argument (until Mendel's work resurfaced), he was almost entirely correct, and his theory holds. The exact mechanism, as I mentioned, is still hotly debated.

Suggested reading: Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker" Charles Darwin, "The Voyage of the Beagle," and "The Origin of Species" Lyell's famous account of geography that inspired Darwin

And then try: Any Stephen Jay Gould Any papers written as Gould vs. the Darwinists

My revised compromise sticker (the first was was too "leading"): Phill Kline, you're free to use it.

Caution: Serious disagreement among readers has existed for thousands of years about the stories in this Bible, and there are hundreds of religious stories throughout the world that contradict and call into question the stories in this Bible. This Bible should be approached with an open mind and a spirit of critical consideration.

There's nothing in this draft compromise sticker that isn't simply a fact.

If the goal is to prevent children from being exposed to "theories" or "stories" as if they were literal truth and facts, why not apply that logic to religion as well as science?

Great comments from everyone, with the exception of Snoop's little micro-tantrum.

Snoop, you misunderstand the goals of critical thinking: it's not hate to challenge some dangerous assumptions: it's wanting to protect the Constitution from a small group of loud religious agitators. Just like citizens who question authority aren't motivated by hate of the authority, as from your comments one might reasonably expect you to believe; rather, they're motivated by the need to hold power accountable to citizens, from whom those in authority derive their power to govern.

I understand that it's easier to brush off a topic by suggesting I'm motivated simply by hate than to actually engage the topic, and that, being easier, you take that route rather than the harder one. That's human nature.

Oh: and here's another compromise position: those wishing to put a semblance of the 10 commandments in courthouses can freely do so -- if they put prominently and publicly in every church and place of worship across America a copy of the First Amendment admonition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Because what it boils down to is, you don't have problems with my thinking: you've got problems with the Constitution.

I don't have problems with the Constitution. I wish we'd follow in its brilliant Enlightenment ethos.

Just thought this might be useful to chime in with, on the angle of religion and science not needing to contradict each other ... it's from Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and a deeply religious evangelical Christian, basically explaining how it's possible to be both:

"Actually, I don't see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve. Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument - one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there's no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It's unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary. If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am."

Of course, if all evangelicals thought things through as far as Collins does, and if all science types were as willing to open their minds to the idea of faith in something you can't see, hold or measure, we'd have very few problems...

"Should we continue to question the legitimacy of the conclusions of scientists?"

Of course we should. Scientists are not the priests of the middle ages, the fountains of all knowledge and wisdom in a world of illiterate barbarians. They are men and women just like us, and the reason they are still scientists is that they don't know everything yet. They pursue knowledge knowing that they don't know everything yet. The wisest know that they don't know much at all. The best know that everything they conclude is contingent upon the evidence they have, but that it could all change with the new evidence they seek. Every one of them seeks to find the places where science is wrong.

If scientists themselves did not question the legitimacy of the conclusions of scientists, what would they do for a living?

"This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a small minority of religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their closed minds on American society."

Actually, it's not a small minority. According to Newsweek:

"Sixty-two percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools; 26 percent oppose such teaching, the poll shows. Forty-three percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools; 40 percent oppose the idea." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

And according to Gallup, 47% of Americans, including a majority of both women and blacks, believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

So if after 75 years of exclusive teaching of evolution in public schools, only half the people in America believe it, I suspect the fundamentalists have significantly less to worry about than they think they do.

My mistake. I should have said "75 years after evolution was placed in classrooms across the nation".

I apologize for the error.

Strange that the scientific project, in all of its permutations, can become so estranged from the initial spirit in which it was undertaken. Initially, the scientific idea emerged through a struggle for an integrated, holistic approach to understanding the universe. It was not something, as many believe, that had technological advancement in mind at the outset-this was merely a serendipitous byproduct. It was thought that understanding the world was good in and of itself, not, at least in principle, because of the advantages it could give man in his perennial struggle against nature or other men (Incidentally, the origins of the view that understanding the world is good in itself can be obliquely traced to the early origins of the Christian tradition-this is a subject for another time). The principle difference between science and what precedes it is that natural scientists made a break from using fables and stories about the supernatural to understand things. It represents a turn away from the gods and the "super-natural", and at once a turn toward nature. Hence, "natural" science.

So what is it that separates the West from Islam? Or, more precisely, what separates the America of 2005 from the culture of Islam?

Obviously there are fundamental rifts between our cultures on the level of ideology. But once all of the murky obscurities of this problem have evaporated, what remains is the question of technology. It is, in a word, only technology which distinguishes the America of 2005 from Islam. This fact is proved by the rapid movement to the right in this country. Ultimately, this movement toward identifying dogmatic principles as the hard-core of our culture evinces a fundamental identity between our culture and that of Islam. The marginalization of "other" communities-the gay community, for example-demonstrates this characteristic similarity. (It is clear that the "logic" of religious demagogues tends in the direction of extreme intolerance, which is, coincidentally, the same that we find in the fundamentalist Islam, only the zealots within our own communities thankfully have not been given the same degree of sway as in the culture of Islam) Yet we, contrary to the community of Islam, remain faithful in the progress that technology can generate. Indeed it has become an ideological imperative that we continue to develop technologically--a moral value, if you will. Specialization has enabled our engineers and scientists to become so estranged from the initial elemental drift of the scientific idea-that of attempting to understand our world through the identification of the governing principles of nature-that now science has become a project of personal profit. It is no longer a question of endeavoring to gain greater awareness of nature herself. Nature has been reduced to a resource for self interest and capital gain.

(continued) It is in the forming of this rift between science and questioning that we find the key to understanding the difference between Islam and our America.

When science became separated from the scientific idea, it made a space for the reemergence of dogma because, again, today's science (at least in terms of its "cultural" relevance) does indeed only concern itself with making Ipods, personal computers, pharmaceuticals and missiles (or, if nothing else, it is clear that the institution of science is moved chiefly by corporate interest-in a word, research and development). Technology has become a tried and true method. It no longer has any need of the scientific idea which generated technological progress in the first place. Now it can be used to gain power over our neighbor, and this is something that no doubt appeals to the fundamentalist.

What is necessary then, is a cultural realignment with the scientific idea-an idea for which the value of questioning and examining ourselves and nature is central. This obviously involves attempting to expunge dogmatic thinking from our culture and, not, as the political establishment would have, retrogressive embrace of dogmatic thinking. It is this return to critical examination and questioning which we would bring about a fundamental difference in quality between the fundamentalist violence of Islam and our America.

Reading all of this shit makes my head hurt, but some observations:

Yellow cat, you hate anybody who believes in anything, just write a blog saying all religious people are a bunch of freaken idiots and they should be shipped off to an island somewhere. Join Fred Phelps group and stand in front of churches on Sunday morning holding up a sign saying "GOD IS MADE UP!" "GOD CAN'T HATE FAGS, CAUSE GOD AINT REAL" GOD CAN KISS MY WHITE ASS..........oh shit I forgot god aint real you idiots!

STICKERS: Adding stickers is a retarded idea, period. Whoever came up with the concept needs to be bitch slapped. Having a long winded debate on it is simply pointless. Its is as retarded as putting a warning sticker on a cigarette pack. The fuck who came up with the idea I guarantee you sells smiley faces stickers for a living.

props to jacob......

Rama....... wow your good at being a jackass, If Mitzi thinks "mothers should stay at home and poor people shouldn't breed." I may not agree with the stay at home mom thing but yes poor people should not breed, we don't need more hillbilly ass trailer court or for that matter nappy headed ghetto babies running around Dollar General in their diapers and moms in fuzzy slippers.

"Who the fuck told you that they would take your kids away if you didn't give them eight hours of evolution classes a day? That sounds like a load of SHIT to me, you fucking liar. I always knew that deep within you beat the heart of a pro-life, pro-white (oh, I'm sorry, you know at least one "acceptable" black person), pro-sanctity of marriage, status quo-retaining HONKY. See you in the funny pages!!!!!"

What the fuck are you talking about, and how many darkies do YOU know and socialize with? And if you say I had a negro friend in high school I will piss in your corn flakes. Congrats on the second genius to use the word honky on Da Blogs!

This is an video interview with Richard Dawkins, Britain's leading scientist (Oxford), discussing this very issue on PBS's NOW at

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/dawkins.html#

check it out. it's worth your time.

The issue of creationism is not the central question here.

The issue is how one forms one's belief system, and whether one is capable of critically entertaining other altermatives to this system. If it were the point of the stickers to encourage critical thinking, rather than make a space for dogma, then I would be in favor of such an addition to textbooks.

Encouraging critical thinking, we all know, is not the issue. It is rather one of, as D.R. says, religious fundamentalism. They seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of science as a means of answering fundamental questions.

And this is one case in which we cannot separate the message from the messenger. Why? Because the messenger wants us to fall in line with his dogma. Hence, he wants us to abandon a method of establishing belief that has proven itself valid across the whole spectrum of human culture.

How has science proven itself valid? By its capacity for generating technological progress, of course. We see the fruits of scientific progress everywhere. In fact, I'm engaging with one of them right now: my computer.

Should we continue to question the legitimacy of the conclusions of scientists?

Of course, but only in view of finding a more complete vision of the universe. In fact, we may to need to think about going beyond science itself to discover this--perhaps philosophy commands more of the resources necessary to come closer to answering these questions than science alone. But what is called for is certainly not, as the creationists would have it, retrogression to a less complete, subjective vision of things. Because that is the very definition of "subjective" belief, isn't it? A belief that is biased by personal prejidices, feelings, emotions.

And the emotion that governs the need to adhere to such a belief?

Fear.

Societies in the mad grip of fundamentalists produce stonings of women, chopping off of hands, and suicide bombers. Our pluralistic, non-fundamentalist society produces microchips, space shuttles and iPods.

OH MY - WHAT AN INTERESTING WAY TO SPIN FACTS OR HISTORY INTO SUPPORT FOR OPINIONS.

America was founded by a bunch of white Christian males, who wiped out Native tribes, built their wealth on the back of the slaves they owned and treated women as chattle (if that well). Oh, and they found Bible quotes to support all of that. So Bible thumpers and subvertors of its message have been with this country since it's inception.

Has much changed since that time? The inventors AND THE CURRENT PRODUCERS & BENEFICIARIES OF THE WEALTH that comes from such things as the micorchip, space shuttle and iPods (not to mention a lot of other things) are largely white males. Fundamentalism (which you use as a word to describe Christians) or Atheism doesn't matter one whit to them...As long as they can produce and not be impeded in their wealth producing efforts. The people with the real power don't care what the "little people" believe or even do, as long as they live in a society that will support and purchase it's goods. The funadamentalist Islamic states are plenty rich (read OIL). The completly secular Soviet Union and/or China lacked the system to produce the wonderful things you tout as the result of a lack of religion.

It is not lack of religous zealots, or their presence, that produced the modern wonders you mention. Science can flourish in either environment - if the proper capitalistic incentives are alive and well.

Please, for the sake of your own intellectual honesty; Be upset all you want about the gradual increase the government is placing upon God, but try to think straight when you argue against it (if you want intelligent people to "buy" your arugments)! Calling a horse a pig doesn't not make it one. No matter how many people join in the chorus!

booby:

Man you sure talk purty.

And while I don't believe that faith and science are diametrically opposed (there would be little science without faith), I DO believe that fundamentalist christianity is antithetical to critical thinking.

I'm sure many of us have a take on what the central issue is in all of this and I have mine. And that is: if the fundumentalists have strong religous convictions, fine. But - and I'm serious - stay the fuck away from my kids.

"if the religious right wants to continue the dumbening of our children, I'm OK with that."

Sadly, that's exactly what's happening. It's time the government quits holding back education in this state. Stickers on books... wasting time on the gay marriage issue instead of solving the education funding issue... when will the dangerous actions of the religious right end?

I have a BS in Genetics and study evolution as sort of a hobby (I also took the evolution class at KU).

I don't have anything really profound to add, but here are my two cents:

Evolution is a "theory." So is gravity. I have studied for science for years, and currently work full time in a lab. In my experience, the controversy amongst scientists is not whether or not evolution occurred, it's by what means (just one example: Darwin vs. Gould). Separation of church and state: this good old-fashioned amendment apparently no longer applies (my lab in Missouri wishes to do stem cell research that could benefit people with severe spinal disease/damage...a new bill has been proposed that would make this a felony. The only opposing argument is religious. This, however, is an entirely different can of worms). Education is important. Science is taught at schools. Religion is taught at home. See above. Most of the people who try to argue with me regarding evolution have NEVER EVEN READ A BOOK ABOUT IT. I refuse to argue evolution with someone whose only knowledge stems from what their church tells them evolution texts say (it's the same concept as an atheist who has never read the Bible cannot legitimately argue with a christian about religion). For example: You can't tell me that there are holes in the fossil record and that's your only argument. If a text (or common sense) had been consulted, you would know that volcanoes, earthquakes, and plate movements have a nasty habit of destroying and moving delicate fossils. I agree with the above statements regarding scientific method: it's a beautiful thing. I also agree that this isn't necessarily an evolution issue: it's a stop forcing your religion on everyone else issue. In response to the polls cited above: How many people were polled? In what locations? 1000 people in Texas doesn't count. *This isn't the most intelligent argument, I know, but I wasn't totally prepared for it.

Actually, Misty's quite right. The fact that scientists are still working means that they are going to make discoveries that change the paradigm in which we view the world.

Continental drift is a perfect example, though none of us has seen it. It's a fairly new theory which took about 70 years to pass into the common consciousness. Why? Because it took that long for scientists who believed in isostasy and/or a contracting earth to die off. They were too wedded to their old ideas to accept new ones.

The origin of the moon is a second example. When I was in school in the 70s, I remember a textbook picture that postulated that the moon broke off from the earth leaving a hole which became the Pacific Ocean. The modern theory was developed by Hartmann and Davis less than 30 years ago.

So as long as we're still 'doing science', it's inevitable that we're going to discover that some of the things we believe today are 'quaint superstitions'. That ought to keep us humble about the things we think we know. We're no smarter than our grandparents, and if we think they were morons because they believed silly things, it's rather silly to assume that our grandchildren will not think the same things about us.

The issue here isn't science, or evolution, at all.

The issue is religious fundamentalism.

A small, agitated group of religious fundamentalists believe that they are actually under assault by society at large and by evolution in particular.

Trying to eliminate the ability of evolution to call into question their own beliefs, even by implication, they seek to prevent its being taught in public schools.

And they've been scared and threatened by evolution for a long, long time: in 1925, 15 states had laws banning the teaching of evolution.

Once the Supreme Court ruled that such laws (geared as they were towards making civil law based on fundamentalist religious beliefs) violated the First Amendment, religious fundamentalists developed their new strategy of taking over school boards.

Same goal -- controlling public education so it didn't question their fundamentalist beliefs -- different strategies.

Same paranoia that society at large is actively assaulting them and their way of life.

This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a small minority of religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their closed minds on American society.

Societies in the mad grip of fundamentalists produce stonings of women, chopping off of hands, and suicide bombers.

Our pluralistic, non-fundamentalist society produces microchips, space shuttles and iPods.

Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."

Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?

"That's right."

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?

"Uh-huh."

Dinosaurs.

You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.

"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.

"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.

"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord." Bill Hicks

I disagree with Fangorn completely. First, there is no single unified idea about anything in science. There is no scientific brainwashing machine that forces everyone in the scientific "community" to believe the same thing. There are papers written everyday questioning pretty much every idea in science. The majority of them are never published, but they are being written by serious educated scientific people.

Second, I disagree with his assertion that evolution is the sacred cow of biology and not open to discussion. Most of the people who disagree with it aren't interested in a serious debate, because they'd lost, hands down. To put it simply, the theory has been time tested, battle tested, and is the best we've got so far. That's why it's being taught and other explanations are not.

Finally, the truth of a scientific idea has little to do with why it should or should not be taught in the classroom. Most students are taught that an atom is a dot with an electron moving around it in a circle, that time is not an illusion, and that gravity is this "force" that acts according to rules thought up by Newton in the 18th century. This is because it's a whole lot easier to teach than the whole truth (explained by Relativity, Quantum Mechanics etc). People in High School should be taught things that better their understanding of science and the truth comes later, if they're really that interested in it. The only reason evolution is getting picked on is because it kind of throws a knot into the whole religion "thing".

DR,

V. adeptly penned. Me likes.

Thankfully, I am an English teacher, so my battles are fought over "Sopranos"-watching 16-year-olds being exposed to the "f" word in "Song of Solomon." And, believe it or not, some books taught to these same students actually discuss, ahem, marital relations outside of wedlock. I know, I know... 'tis shocking, but true

However, I did find these v. amusing alternative textbook stickers on the site of Dr. Colin Purrinton, an evolutionary biologist at Swathmore. They are a hoot and can be found at

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

Also on the page are a variety of other links that are quite fine.

Cheerio, amoebas! ML

I completely agree with you that children should be taught critical thinking (and that the "Right Wing" in particular has failed to do so) if we did teach our children critical thinking then stickers wouldn't be labeled as the "dumbing down of our children". It would be seen as something our children need to think about for themselves. I would hate to think that we are actually afraid of a sticker in a textbook.

It does seem a bit closed minded to label creationism as "dumbing down". It would seem that believing in tolerance means being tolerant of anyone who agrees with you. Many great thinkers and scientists have come to the conclusion of creationism.

Just something to think about..critically, of course.

The fact that someone could write that "every scientist on the planet" believes in the theory of evolution goes along way toward proving the point I am about to make. Many who believe in evolutionism understand that they cannot allow serious debate on or scrutiny of their favorite theory. If it's not jammed down students' throats year after year, they may actually begin to apply the scientific method to their thinking about evolution. They may actually find that there are many evidentiary problems for Darwin's brainchild, like the dearth of transitional forms between major animal groups, or the complete lack of ancestors to the major groups that appear in the Cambrian explosion. They may also find that there are many in the scientific community who disbelieve the theory of evolution (not a majority, certainly, but a not fringe "mirco"-nority as evolutionists often disparagingly imply). If the fact that there are scientists who disbelieve evolutionary theory is a surprise to you, it illustrates how thoroughly believers in evolutionism have quashed any dissenting voices in the debate. I don't propose that creation or even intelligent design be taught in public schools. I do propose that contradictory evidence to evolutionism be allowed in the classroom. If no such evidence is ever allowed, one might reasonably conclude that believers in evolutionism don't think their theory can stand up to a little scientific scrutiny.

Many of you would benefit from going back to the books and studying exactly what the steps are in the "scientific method". Then apply them to evolutionary theory. The result will probably surprise you.

And, aegrisomnia, I must refute your "bait-and-switch" tactic. It's rather common, actually. No one disputes that "change in populations of organisms from one generation to the next" takes place. But these are all changes within a species, which you then turn around and define as "evolution". It's quite a jump from minute changes within a species to what most people think of as "evolution": muck to amoebas to metoposaurs to monkeys to man. The fact that an organism will adapt to changing conditions around it does not prove that the organism will "evolve" into a different organism.

Mitzi:

Big words, coming from a little woman who thinks that mothers should stay at home and poor people shouldn't breed.

PS:

Who the fuck told you that they would take your kids away if you didn't give them eight hours of evolution classes a day? That sounds like a load of SHIT to me, you fucking liar. I always knew that deep within you beat the heart of a pro-life, pro-white (oh, I'm sorry, you know at least one "acceptable" black person), pro-sanctity of marriage, status quo-retaining HONKY. See you in the funny pages!!!!!

How about a sticker and a vacuum-seal on every book or printed matter that reads:

"Critical thinking required."

Of course it wouldn't be required (or accurate) on the Internet.

I agree with Fangorn to some extent, but don't you all think this is more a question of the spirit in which this whole sticker affair has arisen? I mean to say, can we really separate this issue from that fact that they seek to cast doubt upon whether the earth has existed for more than 6000 years, in order to make a space for a religious conviction which has no grounding whatever within that paradigm which takes evidence as the deciding factor in the establishment of belief? That it is necessary to continue to question the truths of science is doubtless. In fact, it is through the maintenance of this questioning disposition that science itself remains dynamic, thereby avoiding stagnation into a kind of pseudo-scientific dogmatism. And I think the latter is what Fangorn seeks to point out in elements of the scientific community: a rigid adherence to a single-track, one-sided thinking about, in this case, the origin of species. No doubt, this rigidity must be thwarted if the project is to remain scientific. But what we are contending with here is not the suggestion of an alternative scientific theory, but a "theory" based solely in faith, and one for which we may not hope to find demonstable proof or evidence (unless of course one considers the stories in the Bible to be a form of "evidence"). How are we to expect to find common ground with our neighbors if there is no standard by which to determine objective truth--namely, the standards of science. On this point, I'm sure most of you will agree: In the end, if scientific method is repudiated, we all become mere islands of opinion, hermetically sealed within ourselves with no way of discovering common ground upon which all of us stand.

More than that, what a terrible weakness (dare I say bankruptcy?) of faith it is that dictates a literal adherence to every aspect of a religious text. The Bible is one of my favorite books, but I must say that I treat it much like I do any other of my favorite books--as one great source of wisdom among many. When I read a great work of fiction or see a great film, I often walk away entirely transformed. Indeed, there have been many occasions on which I have felt as though I needed to change my way of living in some elemental way. But does that mean that I believe the stories to be literally true? Certainly not. Does the fact that I don't believe these stories to be true diminish the force of the underlying message? In no way.

Has anyone ever noticed that the account of creation in the book of Genesis mirrors the theory of evolution?

First light, then water, next comes land, plant life, fish and birds, then reptiles and mammals, and last of all, man. The word used in Genesis for "day" is also the word used for "age". So instead of "in the first day" some interpret that as "in the first age"... I once had a biology teacher that taught evolution and explained it as something designed and prompted by a Creator. This is called The Day-Age View of creation and is an acceptable alternative among many "conservatives" to a 6,000 year old earth.

So, I don't think evolution does "throw a knot into the whole religion thing". I think it throws a knot into the stomachs of people who are afraid of what they can't explain. Again, this is where unbiased critical thinking from both sides would be helpful.

Are we to simply dismiss the fact that every culture ever discovered has or has had a religion? Or the fact that most of those cultures have an ancient belief in a Creator? Did all of the people come to the same conclusion independently by coincidence?

What I find interesting about this whole debate is that it's not just that the creationists don't believe in evolution, but that they don't believe in scientific method--or the whole project of science for that matter. Since it is by means of scientific method that the process of evolution has been demonstrably proven, it is precisely this which they repudiate. And, interestingly, it is precisely this which is responsible for the creation of the technology that these people feel that they cannot live without--namely, their computers, their SUVs, their TVs, their tanks. We might as well put a sticker on all of these technological advancements, "science is a theory, not a fact, and therefore this item may not actually exist. You should approach the question of whether this really exists in the spirit of critical consideration." Evolution is real and as indisputable as the existence of technology, for it is through the scientific method that both evolution and technology were determined.

Isn't it dangerous when a culture gets so alienated from its own roots that it would wholly embrace the advantages of something which it completely repudiates? Our culture embraces all the advantages of technology while simultaneously attempting to subvert the ethos and the spirit which generated those advantages to begin with. Isn't this analogous to Fascism which rose to resist liberal democracy--that same force of history which made the creation of the German state initially possible? What absurdity!!!!!

I saw the headlines in the newsstand as I walked to work this morning, and I had an epiphany about the whole evolution thing:

I don't care.

Not that I think there's one whiff of merit to the morons who think that every scientist on the planet somehow has it wrong, but I realized that if the religious right wants to continue the dumbening of our children, I'm OK with that.

Let's face it -- any child with any sort of inquisitive mind quickly learns that what's taught in school does not always mesh with reality. Those with the wherewithal to think for themselves will always discover the truth despite any undermining by our fabulous edumacation system.

And those without the wherewithal?

Fuck 'em.

Try bring a belief in intelligent design to your interview with the college recruiter, the honor society screening panel, or your job interview and see where it gets you. I'm fine with conservatives teaching a philosophy that will allow my children to get better jobs than their children.