From Wired Magazine, an example of how skeptical views on climate change have now become mainstream enough to earn a level of protection when educators want to explore both sides of the issue. It is unfortunate that Wired magazine chose to label the idea as “anti-science”.
They write:
House Bill 302, as it’s called, states that public school teachers who want to teach “scientific weaknesses” about “controversial scientific topics” including evolution, climate change, human cloning and — ambiguously — “other scientific topics” may do so without fear of reprimand. The legislation was introduced to the New Mexico House of Representatives on Feb. 1 by Republican Rep. Thomas A. Anderson.
Supporters of science education say this and other bills are designed to spook teachers who want to teach legitimate science and protect other teachers who may already be customizing their curricula with anti-science lesson plans.
“These bills say, ‘Oh we’re just protecting the rights of teachers,’ which on the face of it isn’t wrong. But they draw big red circles around topics like evolution and climate change as topics to be wary about,” said Joshua Rosenau, a policy and projects director at the National Center for Science Education. “It suggests this kind of science is controversial, and would protect teachers who want to teach anti-evolution and climate-change-denying lessons in classrooms.”
The bill is one of five already introduced to state legislatures this year. While more than 30 such bills have been introduced since 2004, only Louisiana adopted one as law in 2008.
full story here
Berényi Péter says:
February 7, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“I have no idea what this bill is really about (probably some awfully American thing), but it is certainly the duty of a teacher to explain not only what is known, but also reveal the gaping holes in our knowledge. ”
Your entire post is fascinating. I’m going to read it over and over until I completely understand it.
Thanks.
Berényi Péter says:
“To approach from a different direction let’s consider the problem of intelligent design. As we do not have the faintest idea if intelligence is unique or widespread in this universe, it is a perfectly legitimate field of research. If we are looking for signs of intelligence out there (and we do), at least we have to be able to tell apart objects that are designed from those that are not. As soon as we will have general and abstract rules to differentiate between the two kind, we’ll be in a position to ask if there’s any designer other than men out there, either inside or outside the universe, but not sooner.”
This is the SETI search, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.
I think it’s a moot point, since we know there is already intelligent life on planet earth. And yes, William Dembski has already started identifying the rules that identify intelligence from randomity.
One of the things to remember about the creationists is that they see basic religion taught in the classroom in science class in the form of AGW most recently and manmade global cooling before that. And they wonder to themselves why their religion cannot also be taught. And they have a point, for when we allow the religious left to teach their stuff in the public schools everyone else will demand their turn at bat. This is not about science. It is about religion. Cheers –
The law is addressing the wrong problem. In fact a small minority of students are taught about evolution, which is the basic building block of biology. This is due to their concern that parents with a fundamentalist religious orientation would object. This is one of the reasons why America is behind the world in the public school students’ knowledge of science. Most science teachers are not well qualified.
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
I doubt if many students are taught anything about climatology one way or the other. This is probably because these topics are controversial, and teachers don’t want to have to deal with irate parents.
This is a big problem. Since 97% of research climatologists accept the idea of AGW, if climate science is going to be taught the students should at least understand the scientific underpinnings of AGW. Once this has been taught, it is OK to examine the ideas of skeptics and the scientific arguments that they make. I have not heard of any teacher who was fired or disciplined for doing this.
I suspect that states with the lowest performing students will be the ones to adopt such laws. You don’t see things like this considered in states that are at the top of educational heap, like Massachusetts or Vermont.
Up above Dave Springer wrote:
“re; no books expose weaknesses in evolution theory based on evidence
If that’s what you think then you haven’t read:”
Are you sure? 🙂
As it happens, I have read Behe, and I believe I’ve encountered “Mike Gene” before too. Their arguments are all based on a logical fallacy: an argument from disbelief. They can’t imagine how something might have happened, so that must mean it didn’t happen.
That said, you also seem to be slightly confused over the nature of “Intelligent Design.” The Dover Panda Trial five years ago demonstrated that whatever you might mean by “intelligent design,” the Intelligent Design movement is a trojan horse for pure biblical creationism.
Also, like a great many people you misunderstand the nature of the evolutionary process. Yes, it’s effectively impossible for an entire complex cell to assemble out of miscellaneous molecules all at once, just by random chance. But evolutionary theory doesn’t say it happened that way. In point of fact, evolutionary theory, being a theory of biology, requires a living cell as a precondition. Abiogenesis, or the origin of life, is a separate subject. Even so, though, whatever chemical processes produced that first cell weren’t “random chance” either. They obeyed the laws of physics and of chemistry, which can produce stunningly complex molecules and processes from the interplay of relatively simple rules. Much like weather in that respect.
As for likelihood, consider this: the various ‘abiogenesis’ experiments of the last fifty-odd years have worked with a few hundred gallons of liquid and reagents, for a total time of perhaps a couple of years. Back in the day, Earth had a couple of billion tons of water and reagents, stewing for at least a couple of hundred million years. Who are we to say what’s possible or impossible, based on such limited experience?
One more thing: as a veteran of both the AGW issue and various creationism wars, I’ve pondered long and hard about why I am an AGW skeptic but a fervent defender of evolutionary theory, when (as has been ntoed) all-too-many AGW skeptics sound an awful lot like creationists. I think the main difference is simply this: with evolutionary theory, the evidence is available for all to see and examine, in museums and books and collections and even out in the rocks, all over the world. Anyone can pick up a textbook and look at photographs and sketches of bones and other materials, all drawn from life. Anyone can walk into a museum and examine existing collections of bones and other fossils. Anyone can go out in the field and look for fossils themselves. Anyone can read a basic primer on geology and learn how to read the rocks for themselves. That’s how I did it. If I can do it, you can too.
But AGW theory isn’t like that. The data, such as it is, is jealously guarded by a small cadre of specialists. They won’t let anyone else see it. They won’t let anyone check their reasoning.
In short, evolutionary biologists act like I expect scientists to act, and AGW-defenders don’t. Big difference. IMHO, anyway.
Dave Springer: What I don’t believe is that the finely tuned laws of nature are some freak accident that beat nearly impossible odds or that life on this planet and mind-boggling complexity of the molecular machinery in even the simplest living cell is the result of a random dance of atoms in a prebiotic soup. It’s patently absurd
The last time your raised this bogus argument I referred you to an intractable argument called the weak anthropic principle:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_kelly/wap.html
But you ignored it.
Also, life probably evolved not from mud, but from complex hydrocarbons that we call “petroleum.” Some of those pre-biotic organic molecules can be seen on Titan.
================
Anthony Hughes:
The Intelligent Design paradigm says that there are three possibilities. A particular phenomenon may be (1) random in nature, (2) a consequence of a natural law, or (3) an effect of an intelligent designer.
Your paradigm (not a scientific theory) includes a creative entity (3) that was … uncaused? Materialized spontaneously from the ether? That evolved elsewhere? That was designed by a designer of designers, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away?
In other words, what is the origin of your designer?
— “Bird’s nests, beaver dams, and beehives are examples of Intelligent Design.”
Nest, hives, dams and the acquired shell of an hermit crab are coded into the genes of those creatures.
A beaver in a laboratory will work frantically with mud to stop the sound of running water coming from ….. a paper speaker cone! Beavers evolved to be distressed by the sound of running water, and to act in ways that reduce stress. A beaver’s dam is an instinctive response to the environment — it is not designed.
Anyway…. it is not the climate skeptic who worships an Earth goddess.
I would have liked to participate in this debate but my day job would not permit it. I would have argued two points. The first point is that high schools and colleges present Darwinism as seamless. It is not. No non-trivial science is seamless. Darwinism should be presented as a work in progress. It is a work that has suffered some failures and will suffer some more. In my classes, those that take up scientific method, I do a critique of Darwinism from the point of view of science. There is much in Darwinism that is not satisfying and everyone should be made aware of these matters.
As regards creationists, I am not one. I am also not a classical Darwinist. If we fall into either of these paths, all we do is repeat the 19th century debates. However, some creationists have produced some good criticisms of Darwinism and these criticisms should not be dismissed simply because the authors are creationists. The questions raised by a scientific critique of Darwinism are not questions about the existence of God.
The second point is that the idea of creating legislation that permits teachers and professors to criticize Darwinism is a very interesting and important idea. It should not permit teachers and professors totally free expression of their own ideas. We do not want to take up religion or metaphysics in biology classes. However, at this time in history, all teachers and professors in America labor under a heavy burden of political correctness. Legislation that will lift this burden is sorely needed. I am reminded of an eminent biologist from the People’s Republic of China who gave an address that was critical of Darwin and met with near hostility from his American audience. To paraphrase him, “In China, one cannot criticize the government and in the USA one cannot criticize Darwin.” I agree. He correctly described the situation on the ground. Yet Darwin is eminently open to criticism on scientific grounds but such criticism is automatically rejected in American high schools and colleges. That is a serious shame.
How does one criticize Darwin? It is very simple. Perhaps, Darwin’s most important contribution to biology was the insight that similarity of morphology is the best evidence of common descent. This principle is fundamental in biology as it is practiced today. However, it never attained the status of a theoretical formulation but remained what we call a heuristic. The main reason is that it is false. There are creatures who have morphology that is similar to the point of being identical yet they do not share a common ancestor. The fact that a fundamental principle of Darwinian biology is a heuristic rather than a theoretic formulation sets it apart from other sciences. There are many points of diversion.
So, you are no doubt wondering, is man descended from apes or not. There are many ways to answer this question. One answer is to point out that human consciousness is unique in all of nature. No other living organism possesses human consciousness or something resembling it. Of course, there are behaviorists and others who have explained that behavioral study of human consciousness is sound on methodological grounds. However, none of them have actually advanced the science, showing that human consciousness is in some way not unique to humans. Human consciousness remains an enormous hurdle for Darwinism. Such matters should be taught in biology courses in high schools and colleges. Any legislation that would endorse such teaching over the protests of the brotherhood of biology, I would fully embrace.
Like all science, Darwinism is not seamless, a finished work, or fully satisfying.
wolfwalker says:
February 7, 2011 at 3:45 am
Actually, this is quite simple. Any of these observations would falsify evolutionary theory:
* a fossil record that was not sequential. The real fossil record is highly sequential, with fossils always being found in basically the same sequence over and over, all across the world.
Then you are obviously unaware of the so-called Lewis Overthrust, where older fossils are on top of younger ones. To fit the evolution paradigm, some means of inversion is required. But even though no evidence of overthrust can be found, such as a layer of gravel resulting from movement between adjacent layers, it remains the only means of explaining the impossible. Same rules the Hockey Team apply the to the AGW paradigm.
You never see advanced organisms appearing before anything that might have been their ancestor, such as rabbits in the Triassic.
What about Dr Clifford Burdick, who found pollen grains in the PreCambrian bedrock of the Grand Canyon? At first it was thought the samples had been contaminated, but it was subsequently shown that the pollen came from extinct species. Care to actually study the science before rabbiting on about “settled evolution”?
* organisms that were clearly hybrids betwen two radically different forms of life — mermaids, griffins, centaurs
If you really want some fantasy to laugh at, you might appreciate that dinosaurs come in two classes — ornitho- or bird-hipped and those with lizard hips. No prize for guessing which ones evolved into birds. That’s right, the lizzie types are now birds (supposedly) and the ornitho types are — um — not. Look at the science and you might see a similarity to the AGW hype.
* organisms that used a radically different genetic code from all others. Almost all living organisms use the same genetic code. Those that don’t, use a code that is only slightly different.
Since when should creationists expect to find a radically different genetic code? You’re making an unreasonable assumption and hoping to force it upon the whole world in the same manner as an AGW proponent. Why do those with an evolutionary bent feel justified in hiding the
declinescience behind creationism?Anthony Hughes states, “Intelligent design implies that an organism can in fact learn to take proactive steps to enhance its survival. Bird’s nests, beaver dams, and beehives are examples of Intelligent Design.”
So I see we are in agreement. To me this is Darwinism to a tee. I think you are seeing the old definitions, as defined by Darwin many years after his Galapagos trip, in too narrow a sense.
I am sure most people will agree that there is little difference in Darwin terms between physical attributes (resistance to antibiotics) and an intelligent mind that can be proactive in such a way that it affects offspring, commits genocide or such that it “engineers” a pest resistant crop (all of which are actions that directly impact evolution).
Honestly I see no great divide between intelligent design (as you call it) and Darwin’s classic, more physical attributes as described in his works. Even intelligent design must MUST obey Darwinian rules that define success in terms of the future generations they create or manipulate.
Anthony Hughes,
BTW – I would add that, at then end of the day, the fundamental creature that life is mostly all made up from is DNA/RNA. Large multi-cellular creatures like us may look very different from bacteria but don’t be fooled – as far as DNA/RNA is concerned we are just two versions (models) from the same “Ford” genetic motor company of life. Very very little difference really – DNA/RNA cares little which particular version (model) proves most popular and outlasts the other as long as the big wheel keeps turning.
For those poor souls who still imagine that Intelligent Design is scientific:
That’s from Kitzmiller v Dover School Board, when the leading lights of ID tried and failed to demonstrate that ID was anything more than religious belief masquerading as science.
As I recall, Behe managed to widen the net of science so far as to include astrology.
If a theory cannot be empirically tested or be formulated to produce unique predictions which can be empirically tested, then the theory is unfalsifiable and not science. That excludes creationism and ID.
There is a widespread ambiguity in the meaning of the term “evolution”. Quite often it is just the origin of humans from ape-like ancestors. For others, it is a general notion that more advanced species arose from more primitive ones in course of natural history. And more often it is the theory explaining fossil record data by a specific mechanism of natural selection and random mutation, that is, Neo-darwinism. While the the first two meanings of the term are hardly controversial, the third – completeness and universality of Neo-darwinian explanation – is, indeed, controversial, and there are many valid doubts if this explanation is sufficient. I see no objection for teachers to inform students that many problems with this explanation are still unresolved.
There is also another widespread confusion in the meaning of the term “anti-science”. To many, any doubt in sufficiency of scientific method in explaining observable reality is “anti-science”. But there are inherent limitations in applicability of scientific method, and denial of these limitations is not science, but a specific philosophy named scientism. Skeptics are right in opposing such brainwashing of students and noting that assuming of absence of supernatural intervention in course of observable events is not a conclusion of science, but its premise, and science in itself can not resolve metaphysical problems, which are articles of faith. For complex, large, non-linear systems of real world that can exhibit chaotic behavior, like biologic evolution or evolution of climate, it still unclear if scientific method can provide enough tools for their complete explanation, or some extra-natural forces can influence and shape their development.
John A says:
February 8, 2011 at 1:28 am
If a theory cannot be empirically tested or be formulated to produce unique predictions which can be empirically tested, then the theory is unfalsifiable and not science. That excludes creationism and ID
Thank you, that needed to be said.
I’m not sure it excludes CAGW though 🙂
It would be helpful to raise open-minded people if teachers could explain that both naturalism and supernaturalism are philosophies, and while it is natural for scientists to embrace naturalism, this is not a logical necessity, but a choice of convenience. For moralists, on the other hand, it is natural to embrace supernaturalism. Both approaches are legitimate, each in its own sphere, and validity of atheism or theism simply is not a problem which science can resolve.
Slacko, you prove my point: all creationist arguments against evolution are based on bad information, bad logic, or both.
* The Lewis Overthrust does indeed show physical evidence of overthrusting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/
* Cliff Burdick’s claims about pollen are debunked here:
http://asa.chm.colostate.edu/archive/asa/199709/0101.html
* The terms ‘lizard-hipped’ (saurischian) and ‘bird-hipped’ (ornithischian) are misnomers that should never have been. Every dinosaur worker knows this. Every dinosaur worker also knows that the resemblance between an ornithischian dinosaur’s pelvis and a bird’s pelvis is superficial. And that it’s relatively easy to get from a saurischian pelvis to a bird pelvis — all you have to do is rotate the pubis backwards about ninety degrees. This change is seen in partial form (rotation of less than 90 degrees) in several advanced species of theropod dinosaurs.
“Since when should creationists expect to find a radically different genetic code? ”
I never said they should. I said that multiple radically different genetic codes was an observation that would falsify evolutionary theory. Which it is.
John A says:
February 8, 2011 at 1:28 am
“If a theory cannot be empirically tested or be formulated to produce unique predictions which can be empirically tested, then the theory is unfalsifiable and not science. That excludes creationism and ID”
One testable theory would be that a rise in temperature is not a natural phenomenon, but the result of Intelligent Design. What kind of Intelligent Design? Well, the Urban Heat Effect. So how do we test this theory? By trying to find a correlation between level of economic development and temperature. I think Michaels and McKittrick did a pretty good try at testing that theory.
Intelligent Design is not a particular theory, but a paradigm, out of which particular theories can be derived and tested.
When we do science…
We need to determine, on a case by case basis, whether a particular phenomenon is natural, an artifact of Intelligent Design, or a mixture of the two, and to what degree.
For example, a climate model. The modeler may claim that his model is a pure simulation of the natural climate system. Skeptics would argue that the model is merely reflecting the Intelligent Design built in by the many arbitrary parameters the modeler set.
I encourage you to review what is known about the universal source of biological energy, the macromolecule ATP, and the complex, integrated, regulated system that produces it, along with the near perfect nanomachine that pumps it out – ATP Synthase, a synchronized pair of rotary motors operating at near 100% efficiency.
For me, the outcome of that review was this: Abiogenesis and macro-evolution are merely the creation myth of the willfully obtuse who refuse to believe the patently obvious because of the implications thereof.
Since ATP, and all that pertains to it, represents a highly evolved system, and since ATP is such a fundamental (and literally vital) building block of life on Earth, where did life get the energy it needed during the millions of years it took to slowly devise ATP by the random appearance of stray mutations? And, if life had a source of energy reliable enough to power it through thousands of millenia as the ATP system slowly rose out of the stew, then why would life waste such a prodigious amount of energy and time developing ATP?
Rubbish.
Anthony said;
“Excellent question, Vince. There seems to be no reason that evolution was turned off for 500 million years, then inexplicably was turned on.
The natural conclusion is that evolution by natural selection is an insufficient answer to the question.”
How is this any different from alarmists who say that because they dont know why the planet is warming therefore it must be warming due to mann made global warming ™?
If the alarmists argument is from ignorance…then so too is the creationists argument that there must be a intelligent designer because they cant find any other reason for the explosion in life all those years ago.
Mailman
Mooloo:
“Climate sceptics should be careful not to align themselves with the creationists. It makes us looks like cranks.”
You should tell that to the creationists and strongly religious Christians. As groups, they are more likely to be climate skeptics.
Matt Schilling,
“where did life get the energy it needed during the millions of years it took to slowly devise ATP by the random appearance of stray mutations?”
An interesting point, although using this as an argument for intelligent design or whatever you want to call it, is the logical fallacy of argumentium ad ignoratum. The argument also suffers from the ‘bootstrap’ problem – if life needed to be bootstrapped into existence because it is impossible for ATP to have evolved randomly, then who bootstrapped the bootstrapper, since it too must be subject to the same rules?
So, a natural explanation for ATP cannot be impossible because ATP exists.
John A says:
February 8, 2011 at 1:28 am
“If a theory cannot be empirically tested or be formulated to produce unique predictions which can be empirically tested, then the theory is unfalsifiable and not science. That excludes creationism and ID”
Intelligent Design is the null hypothesis for the unintelligent abiogenesis/macroevolution.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the null hypothesis isn’t “science” then neither is primary hypothesis as there is then no means to falsify it.
Mailman says:
February 8, 2011 at 5:37 am
Anthony said;
“Excellent question, Vince. There seems to be no reason that evolution was turned off for 500 million years, then inexplicably was turned on. “The natural conclusion is that evolution by natural selection is an insufficient answer to the question.”
This is a significant issue, Mailman, namely why does natural selection happen some of the time and not all of the time? Obviously, it cannot be the only biological driver in play.
Whether that additional driver was natural or artificial is another issue. But it is clear that natural selection in and of itself is not sufficient to explain the past.
We have a similar situation in climate science, where Greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide, is claimed to be the principal climate driver. Well, if it were, then we would have a steady increase in global temperature, consistent with a steady increase in carbon dioxide. But that is not what we observe in the temperature record. Thus, we conclude that there must be other drivers, other forcings, that affect climate, whether natural or artificial.