Minnesota following the Kansas trail?

[I less than three logic]

I may be jumping to conclusions, but I’ve read a recent article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that gives me the impression that the first few steps are being taken to lead the Minnesota schools down the ID (iot) trail. The main purpose of the article was to say:

The Minnetonka school district may change its guidelines for teaching evolution to emphasize that it is a scientific theory rather than proven fact.

Which I’m ok with, as long as in the same course, perferably the same lecture, they explain what “theory” means in science. Let them know that a scientist doesn’t wake up one morning and say, “I have a theory, blah blah blah.”. His buddy goes “I like that idea”, and next week its in a science textbook.

Other statements in the article, however, raised my alarm a bit more.

Eaton also became involved in the debate after an April 24 opinion column he wrote for the Star Tribune in which he said: "While ID is an interesting and growing scientific topic, it is an emerging theory and should be allowed but not mandated by the state."
He also said intelligent design is not creationism, which is based on scripture, because it is based on science.

What science is ID based on? They sure like to use that shiny science veneer a lot, but, like plywood, when you scrach ID a bit you see it isn’t made of science; just bits of science that have been shredded and glued back together to form the shape you need.

I like this last statement here.

"When new information comes about, especially with an idea so prominent, it seems educators would be excited about the new idea," said MacKay, who likened the discussion to Galileo's time, when he was ridiculed for theorizing that the Earth went around the Sun.

I can see the resemblance between evolution and the ridicule Galileo received for his theory. Although, probably not in the way MacKay is thinking about it. I also feel pretty confident that in a few hundred years the treatment of the two theories will have even more similarites.

I am still unable to post links, so I’ll try to post it discontinuously. You’ll have to remove the spaces. Also, you may need to registar to view the article. It’s titled “District may tweek evolution wording” if you need to do a search.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/106/5762856.html

The question I pose in this thread is

Do you think it is likely that other states will follow Kansas’s example. Did we not point and laugh enough to discourage other states from doing so?

You may also want to check out

http://www.startribune.com/stories/357/5772287.html

If my links don’t work I’ll ask a moderator to help me post them.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to make links work.

 

[Snide]

The question I pose in this thread is

Do you think it is likely that other states will follow Kansas’s example. Did we not point and laugh enough to discourage other states from doing so?

I am cautiously optimistic that, at least as a whole, my state (Minnesota) will not allow this to happen.

But I was disturbed to read recent letters to the editor against an opponent of ID teaching (who had written a previous letter or editorial). They were full of the usual fallacies (Just a "theory," based on science, etc.). Still, these were just a few of the small minority (I hope).

 

[Brown]

What science is ID based on? They sure like to use that shiny science veneer a lot, but, like plywood, when you scrach ID a bit you see it isn’t made of science; just bits of science that have been shredded and glued back together to form the shape you need.

I saw these stories in my local paper, too, and I thought people up here in Minnesota were smarter than that.

Now, I've been pretty hard on ID in some of my postings, but I want to go on record as saying that ID could be based upon science. Whether it actually is based upon science is another matter, but it could be.

Let me draw a comparison. In 1869, John Wesley Powell (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/canyon/filmmore/transcript/transcript1.html) led an expedition down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, which at that time was unexplored territory. While on his journey, Powell discovered structures that appeared to have been designed by one or more intelligent entities. Powell concluded that these structures had been constructed by people who had once lived there, but were now gone.

How did Powell know?

Nobody questions that Powell was right. The buildings and granaries and artwork were all of intelligent construction. Human construction. And the presence of intelligence in their design was obvious.

Well, this is basically the path that intelligent design wishes to take. The proponents simply wish to say "It's obvious." (Lest you think this is a simplification of the ID mindset, this is precisely the point made by leading ID spokesperson Michael Behe in his New York Times column. If you encounted Mount Rushmore, he argued, you'd know that it was obviously the product of intelligent design.)

One can conceive of the possibility that, at some point in the distant past, one or more designers interfered with the progress of life on Earth, and the remnants of their interference are observable by people today. There are plenty of stories based upon this notion (such as "2001: A Space Odyssey) as well as some myths, such as the myth of ancient astronauts.

The study of such interference could be scientific.

But does that mean ID is scientific? It does not. ID suffers from a serious lack of evidence. ID proponents are struggling mightily--and unsuccessfully--to demonstrate that there was any interference at all! The "It's obvious" argument just doesn't wash here.

It is possible to describe in great detail why the ruins Powell found were made by intelligent designers. The ruins resembled artifacts humans are known to make. They were constructed in non-random places and in patterned ways for identifiable purposes. There were painted images of human hands, the size and proportion of real human hands. Presented with evidence like this, a rational person cannot deny that, more likely than not, the ruins were constructed by intelligent designers.

ID, by contrast, cannot describe in detail why biological structures were instituted by intelligent designers. ID proponents point to complexity, but it is known that complexity is not necessarily indicative of intelligence. It is further known that so-called "irreducible complexity" does not stand up to rigorous examination. Evidence showing ID is non-existent.

From the ruins Powell found, he could conclude something about the nature of the people who made them: how big they were, how many lived together, what they ate, and so on.

ID cannot reach this step, and in fact ID has not even come close. ID has no information--none--about the nature of the designer. Furthermore, it is likely that ID proponents wish to keep the nature of the alleged designer a mystery. Notably, if standard engineering principles were to be applied to certain organic features that allegedly were designed by a designer, the designer would subject to a charge of incompetence.

It is a widely recognized principle of science that there is a difference between saying that a phenomenon is not understood saying that the phenomenon is not understandable. ID proponents wish to ignore this principle. In effect, ID proponents wish to throw up their hands and say that if they cannot understand the natural basis of a phenomenon, then the only explanation is a supernatural one.

 

[Melendwyr]

In effect, ID proponents wish to throw up their hands and say that if they cannot understand the natural basis of a phenomenon, then the only explanation is a supernatural one.

That, right there, is precisely why ID is not scientific. Science doesn't recognize the concept of supernatural. If a phenomenon exists, then it's part of nature. If we find a new phenomenon that doesn't fit into our ideas of what nature is like, we adjust our ideas to include the discovery. Anything we can observe (and anything we can't at present, or in practice) is part of nature. Observing a phenomenon with a cause beyond or outside of nature is logically contradictory.

 

[CapelDodger]

From the ruins Powell found, he could conclude something about the nature of the people who made them: how big they were, how many lived together, what they ate, and so on.

ID cannot reach this step, and in fact ID has not even come close. ID has no information--none--about the nature of the designer.

That's a very good point. If ID is a new, burgeoning "scienctific topic", the subject of what - if anything - can be inferred about the designer must have come up and attracted some people's attention. ID proponents should be asked what the current state-of-play is on that sub-topic.

Pure speculation, but I would expect their reaction to be "We're not saying it's the Biblical god". Which wouldn't be an answer at all, but is the nearest they've got in the "How To Sell ID" crib-sheet. But they should be pressed. Is it the current consensus that information about the designer can be inferred, or not? If not, is there an equivalent to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to demonstrate that the nature of the designer cannot be inferred from the design?

What, if any, hypotheses have been put forward that do infer something about the designer from the design?

Like you, I don't think they'd like to go there.

 

[Bjorn]

who likened the discussion to Galileo's time, when he was ridiculed for theorizing that the Earth went around the Sun

A bit off topic, but hasn't Galileo been used for this purpose since, well, since Galileo?

 

[jay gw]

It's pretty embarrassing that out of all developed nations in the world today the United States has the only population that seriously debates supernatural creation myths. I don't suppose people are aware that they look like backwards ignoramuses.

Just ridiculous.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You're so right, jay. In less backward countries like Saudi Arabia, they don't debate supernatural creation myths at all.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's pretty embarrassing that out of all developed nations in the world today the United States has the only population that seriously debates supernatural creation myths. I don't suppose people are aware that they look like backwards ignoramuses.

Just ridiculous.

(My emphasis, for Dr Adequate's benefit.)

It does seem very silly from out here. Sadly, Blair is sold on faith-based models - he's sold on any popular US model - and schools blatantly teaching creationism present him with no problem. All part of the rich tapestry. There's no particular sign of it taking off, but who's to say? When the US was sending men to the Moon and bringing them home, the current situation was not the most obvious outcome. Islamism was not a subject on the tip of anybody's tongue. The Middle East conflict was still about nationalism, not religion. Modernism was everybody's declared goal, science and progress were synonymous to the chattering classes. The Manichaen conflict was secular, capitalist-communist. Why and when did it all turn aside?

 

[Dr Adequate]

We ran out of communists?

Ah well, just to cheer you up, here's some postcards from undeveloped Saudi Arabia.

 

[Ducky]

I am embarrassed that my newly adopted home state would consider this bullsh*t.

If it weren't that Minnesota's public aid for medical expenses very literally saved my life I would move back to Detroit. You see, when the tumor in my spine was diagnosed I had no medical benefits. The Minnestoa aid got me my operation and following radiation treatments while I searched for work that would provide medical insurance (which I now have.) Had I been living in Michigan I don't believe (though I'm not sure of this) that I would have recieved not only the medical aid, but the quality of doctors I had at the UofM fairview. My nuerosurgeon is one of the top in the country.

Well that and St. Paul is hella nicer than the Motor City.


...with more of a music scene...


ETA:

By the way, Minnesota skeptics, I believe we should get together and discuss how to combat this nonsense. Suggestions?

 

[Snide]

Well that and St. Paul is hella nicer than the Motor City.


...with more of a music scene...

Seriously? More than Motown? I didn't realize how nice I have it!

ETA:

By the way, Minnesota skeptics, I believe we should get together and discuss how to combat this nonsense. Suggestions?

I got nothing, but I'm all ears!

 

[CapelDodger]

Ah well, just to cheer you up, here's some postcards from undeveloped Saudi Arabia.

Very swish. It could almost be taken, on such evidence, for a developed country. No pictures of Saudi women driving cars, though. That's a bit of a give-away.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Very swish. It could almost be taken, on such evidence, for a developed country. No pictures of Saudi women driving cars, though. That's a bit of a give-away.

But now the goalposts have been shifted almost 180 degrees, because it seems that you're now judging how "developed" they are, not economically (as we might usually understand the term "developed country") but in terms of how much dumb religious prejudice they have. But in that case, how "developed" is the US, which still has lots of creationists running around making trouble?

But then if the US isn't "developed" then jay's comment made no sense in the first place ... he would then merely be commenting that a place with religious bigots has religious bigots. Yes: true.

 

[CapelDodger]

But now the goalposts have been shifted almost 180 degrees, because it seems that you're now judging how "developed" they are, not economically (as we might usually understand the term "developed country") but in terms of how much dumb religious prejudice they have.

Even if we accept "developed" in that limited sense, a veneer of fantastically expensive buidings paid for by oil money (and, more recently, debt) does not make a developed economy. From tent to skyscraper in 50 years is a change in quantity, not quality.

But in that case, how "developed" is the US, which still has lots of creationists running around making trouble?

Separation of church and state still holds. It was never erected in Saudi Arabia (an expanse of sand named for it's hereditary rulers, the al-Saud family, Bedouin warriors who overthrew the al-Husseini family in the 1920's). The emarrassment that US fundies cause right-thinking 'Murricans is not mitigated by comparison with Saudi Arabia.

Had jay gw claimed that "the US has become just like Saudi Arabia", he would have been guilty of hyperbole. In fact he referred to "developed countries", meaning, I'm sure, those such as the one blessed with my citizenship.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Even if we accept "developed" in that limited sense, a veneer of fantastically expensive buidings paid for by oil money (and, more recently, debt) does not make a developed economy...

Had jay gw claimed that "the US has become just like Saudi Arabia", he would have been guilty of hyperbole. In fact he referred to "developed countries", meaning, I'm sure, those such as the one blessed with my citizenship.

 

[brodski]

meaning, I'm sure, those such as the one blessed with my citizenship.

A nation which would never, for instance, stand for state funding of schools which teach 6 day creationism?

At least some people in the US seem to care enough about real science to fight this rubbish, in the UK we seem to just have rolled over on this issue.

 

[CapelDodger]

A nation which would never, for instance, stand for state funding of schools which teach 6 day creationism?

At least some people in the US seem to care enough about real science to fight this rubbish, in the UK we seem to just have rolled over on this issue.

A tad embarrassing, I must admit, but I expect Gordon (a true Scotsman if ever there was) to sort it out when he replaces blissed-out Blair and air-head Cherie. I hope it's a temporary aberration over here. In the US it seems to be the result of a long-term political program, which has not yet achieved its goal.

 

[brodski]

A tad embarrassing, I must admit, but I expect Gordon (a true Scotsman if ever there was) to sort it out when he replaces blissed-out Blair and air-head Cherie. I hope it's a temporary aberration over here. In the US it seems to be the result of a long-term political program, which has not yet achieved its goal.

brown is as obsessed with "choice" as Blair is, so I'm sure he'd want to here "both sides of the debate"
and remember, City Academies are a form of PFI, Gordy values getting public spending off balance sheet more than any scientific atrocity.
Oh and most of the "bright young things" in the Labour Party (Browinte and Blairite) are pretyy woo in my experiance.

I've met one too many ministers who are hard core woo to have much hope for the future.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Now, I've been pretty hard on ID in some of my postings, but I want to go on record as saying that ID could be based upon science.

Not really. Yes, one could put forth a scientifically valid theory for which "intelligent design" is an accurate description, but "intelligent design", as the term is currently used, has no scientific validity, nor potential thereof. The Theory of Gravity, for instance, deals with gravity, where gravity is precisely defined as the force of attraction experienced by two bodies due to their mass. Intelligent Design "Theory", on the other hand, deals with intelligent design, where intelligent design is "precisely defined" as... well... you know... design that's intelligent.

While on his journey, Powell discovered structures that appeared to have been designed by one or more intelligent entities. Powell concluded that these structures had been constructed by people who had once lived there, but were now gone.

I have added emphasis to your statement, as you seem to be deliberately trying to deemphasize this point. Did he really say that he thought that they were designed by "one or more intelligent entities"? Or are you deliberately introducing a vagueness to create an artificial similarity to ID?

It is possible to describe in great detail why the ruins Powell found were made by intelligent designers. The ruins resembled artifacts humans are known to make. They were constructed in non-random places and in patterned ways for identifiable purposes. There were painted images of human hands, the size and proportion of real human hands. Presented with evidence like this, a rational person cannot deny that, more likely than not, the ruins were constructed by intelligent designers.

Note a pattern here? There is a crucial difference between what Powell did and what IDers are doing. Powell started with the assumption that intelligent designers existed, and his arguments anticipated that his audience agreed. What was at issue was not whether humans exist, but whether they created the artifacts in question. In evaluating this question, Powell was able to draw upon a lifetime of experience of how humans live, what things they tend to make, what their motivations tend to be, and so on.

IDers, too, start with the assumption that the intelligent designer exists, the difference is that they won't admit it. Instead they go looking for evidence for their position, and then claim that it was the evidence that led to the conclusion, rather than the other way around.

Powell was able to state precisely what he meant by his intelligent designer: human beings. IDers, on the other hand, have nothing but hand waving when it comes to telling us what they mean. Powell was making a statement about the physical world while ID is, at its core, simply a philosophical notion. Whether the processes that led to the evolution of humans were "intelligent" or "unintelligent" is a completely meaningless question. Intelligence is not a physically valid property, and any "theory" that treats it as such is not science.

To make this more clear, let us go back to that favorite analogy of IDers, the watch. If you found a watch in the middle of an empty field, would you assume that the pieces just happened together without any intelligent interference? Of course not. Because you recognize it as a watch, and you've seen lots of watches before. You've seen watches made in Switzerland, you've seen watches made in the US, you've seen watches made in China, and the thing they all have in common is that they were made. So given that it's a watch, and all available evidence points to watches being made, it's reasonable to conclude that this one was made. Comparing a watch to a human implies that we already know humans were designed, which is begging the question.

In order to truly understand ID, you must realize that it is, for all the denials, inextricably tied to theology. To claim that intelligence exists separately from the physical world is simply to call souls by a different name.

The study of such interference could be scientific.

But it wouldn't be ID, as such interference could not be the ultimate source of the "design", and thus not the proper study of ID. In order to design humans, these other entities must, by the principles of ID, have been designed by some other being. This chain can only end in an appeal to God, making this a religious argument disguised as science.

But now the goalposts have been shifted almost 180 degrees, because it seems that you're now judging how "developed" they are, not economically (as we might usually understand the term "developed country") but in terms of how much dumb religious prejudice they have. But in that case, how "developed" is the US, which still has lots of creationists running around making trouble?

Dr A, the term "developed" has a long history of being used to refer to how well a country conforms to Western standards of progress, which includes not just economic development (especially economic development that is largely confined to the upper class), but other developments, such as the Enlightenment, democracy, relatively low corruption, et cetera.

While it can be argued that this term is largely arbitrary and biased towards Europe and the US, it is hardly legitimate to imply that jay gw is manipulating the meaning of the term to suit his position.