Scientific American is the bomb.

[chequita guevara]

I saw Inherit the Wind.

[Bill3000]

I've done an evolution-creationism debate, but it wasn't really a debate because of the flaws in its presentation.

[DanS]

The reason why scientists hate ID is because it undermeigns the value and credibility of science.

This is ridiculous. What would science have to fear from a broad airing of the arguments on all sides? Is science that weak that scientists need to worry?

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by DanS


This is ridiculous. What would science have to fear from a broad airing of the arguments on all sides? Is science that weak that scientists need to worry?

No. I'm saying that evolution has a lot of indirect evidence and actually has value for prediction and, well, a science.

ID on the other hand has no proof other than human logic. The only reason why it was pushed forward was because of political power; THAT'S what why it is undermeigning science, because it tries to portray itself as science, when it isn't.

If there was an alternate non-pseudoscientific theory to evolution, of course it could be taught or mentioned; but there isn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
What would science have to fear from a broad airing of the arguments on all sides? Is science that weak that scientists need to worry?

No, but science class only has so much time in a year. If people want to learn ID they can go to church.

[Patroklos]

tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles

If we are going by peer review, I am afraid science is very far behind religion. By like the 10s of billions.

Scientists are their own faction

I think the word your looking for is clergy. Most people know as much about the proof of scientific facts that they swear by as religious people do about their god.

You are all operating on faith.

[Bill3000]

If we are going by peer review, I am afraid science is very far behind religion. By like the 10s of billions.

Comparing scientific research with the rediculous theology of religion? That's just pathetic.

I think the word your looking for is clergy. Most people know as much about the proof of scientific facts that they swear by as religious people do about their god.

No, faction. As in interest group and such. I don't think the pro-life faction counts as a clergy.

It is sad and true that most people don't know about science and take it for granded, yes. It's another bad thing about society. But they arn't scientists however; if they were, your argument is moot.

You are all operating on faith.

I'd say that religion and science are ultimately two sides of the same coin if one looks toward the path that science is going to go. So, you have a point.

I wouldn't be suprised if entire new religions spring up after the next scientific revolution.

[Ramo]

Efficacy of developmental BMD systems is not a "science question".

A lot of "physics" that I see in most Physics Departments is really cutting-edge engineering (nanotech for instance). Reason why is that plenty of scientists are perfectly competent in doing engineering crap. That's why NASA picked Feynman to investigate the Challenger explosion. Hell, the American Physical Society has done its own studies on the viability of boost-phase ABM systems (they concluded that the proposals are still useless crap). So it's not exactly a big deal when SciAm veers into fancy engineering.

Frankly, a lot of pop-science coverage is crap. And I'd much rather have SciAm cover interesting engineering than inanities like a totally qualitative explanation for string theory. Anyways, pop-science mags are certainly a better place for covering the efficacy of ABM systems than newspapers where people without any technical training are making technical judgements about ABM systems.

[Ramo]

Did you have a mock Scopes Monkey Trial in science class?

I remember doing an "asteroid defense system" trial (in the context of covering what killed the dinosaurs).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
This is ridiculous. What would science have to fear from a broad airing of the arguments on all sides? Is science that weak that scientists need to worry?

Read Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel and you might get a better gist of the philosophy behind Creationism and the threat it poses to teaching good science.

Creationists (and now IDists) long ago learned they couldn't win a scientific debate on the evidence, so they have now turned to challenging the very foundations of science. They decry that science itself is flawed, "materialist" and its approach leads people to atheism and immorality.

Furthermore, they are able to convince people with their babble because, unlike evolution, believing their pseudoscience doesn't take any hard thought or understanding of complex ideas. Scientists have a tough burden in that the evidence for evolution takes a lot of explaining. Creationism/ID theories do not. Well, they don't have any theories, actually, just claims.

Giving a "broad airing" to non-scientific arguments in science classes for any other purpose than to show how they are wrong is silly. Why do it? We don't make such exceptions for other wildly unscientific claims, such as geocentrism, flat-earthism, or any of the other Creation stories in the world. Science classes don't teach about ghosts, goblins or fairies. Airing ID in science classes is doing exactly what you're complaining about--turning science into a political topic, since ID is only be pushed for a political agenda.

This "back door" attack from Creationists may be clever, but it's simply not the way to get their claptrap taught in classes. Science classes are for teaching mainstream science. If they want ID taught in science classes, they have to go through the same means as any other scientific theory--peer-reviewed vetting in scientific journals, followed by general acceptance by scientific experts. They've tried that, failed, and are now trying an end-run.

[Mr. Harley]

Excuse me, those of you stating scientists do not need to worry about religious fundamentalism and CD. Do you live in a red state? Do you live in a red, religiously fundamentalist red state? I do.

Google "texas textbooks board". Look at the hits. Here is how the Discovery Institute, a proponent of ID, covers it.

“Texas has pledged to make sure that publishers address all remaining errors in the textbooks over the next several months,� added Chapman. “So we now hope that fake facts like human embryos with 'gill slits,' the flat earth myth, and overstatements about peppered moth research will be things of the past as well."

First, it's pharyngeal pouches or arches, not gill slits. They are using old data to discredit the theory, i.e. straw man fallacy. If they are forcing the textbook publishers to clean up their acts - fine. But the intent is to replace that data with ID - by their own admission, rather than correct it with the quote "newer" info, that is often several decades old.

Note - overstatements on peppered moth research my a**. What happened was that a bad attack on it has gained credibility due to massive overpublication by non-science journalists types. It is still an excellent example of Darwinian evolution, versus Puntuated Equilibrium.

Wells disagrees with the results of the research on industrial melanism in the peppered moth, and manipulates the literature and the data to fit his views. He points out that the "problem" of the peppered moths is far from simple. His discussion centers on three points where he believes textbooks are in error, alleging that (1) the daytime resting places of peppered moths invalidates Kettlewell's experimental results; (2) the photos of the moths are "staged"; and (3) the recovery patterns of populations dominated by light moths after the levels of pollution were reduced do not fit the "model," although he is unclear as to what the "model" is. All three of these objections are spurious. They are distractions from the general accuracy of the story and its value in showing the effects of natural selection on genetic variability in natural populations.

First, Wells argues that the story is seriously flawed because "peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks" (Wells, 2000:138). He repeats this point throughout the chapter. However, it is both false and irrelevant, and only serves as a distraction to lead the reader away from the actual story of the moths. Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus (1998:123) indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junctions (50%). The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells; his response has been mostly to claim that moths don't rest on "exposed" tree trunks (Wells, 2002 web posting). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over trees, which is not a surprise (Clarke et al., 1994) and it is mentioned in the references that Wells cites.

To clear up any confusion, no researcher doubts that the peppered moth rests in trees (Clarke et al. 1994; Majerus 1998), which means that the resting substrate is bark. Entire trees are stained by pollution -- the leaves, twigs, branches, trunks, and the surrounding ground (Kettlewell, 1973) -- and so the colors of the moths are relevant no matter where on the tree they rest -- trunks, trunk-branch junctions, branches, twigs, and even the leaves. Wells's argument implies that predatory birds can only see moths that are on exposed trunks. By making this argument, however, Wells shows an apparent ignorance of the ecology of birds and woodland ecosystems. If you walk into any forest, you can see that the birds fly from tree to tree, branch to branch, and hunt at all levels of the forest. Woodland species of birds that prey on moths and other insects live and hunt in the canopy (the leafy part of the trees). These birds are not hunting from outside, soaring above the trees like hawks, as Wells's argument would require.

In the scientific literature, there is extensive discussion of the hunting behavior of birds, including those that hunt peppered moths. Ornithologists have shown the woodland ecosystem to be vertically stratified by competition between different bird species. This zonation means that there are skilled predators patrolling all levels of the forest: the trunks, trunk-branch joints, branches, and higher canopy (Colquhoun and Morley 1943; Hartley 1953). Further, birds learn to distinguish their prey against various backgrounds and preferentially hunt prey in locations where they have found it in the past and that birds selectively prey on the more visible moths (Pietrewitz and Kamil 1977, 1981). In other words, birds hunt the prey they can see and hunt it where it is, not where it isn't. Therefore, no matter where the moth rests in the tree, it is visible to predatory birds, and thus its differential camouflage is important.

The purpose of Wells's distraction is to put the actual experiments into question and make it sound as if the textbook authors are either mistaken, or intentionally trying to fool students. The insinuation is that because Kettlewell released the moths during the day, they did not find "normal" resting places. Whether or not this is so, the release and capture experiments took place over a number of days, so the moths were able to take up positions of their choosing, even if the first day was not perfectly "natural" (Kettlewell, 1955, 1956, 1973). Kettlewell's experiments were not perfect -- few field experiments are -- and they may have magnified the degree of selection, but all serious researchers in the field agree that they were certainly not so flawed as to invalidate his conclusion.

In his second objection, Wells ties the Kettlewell experiments to textbooks by constantly repeating the statement that the illustrative photos were "staged" (Wells, 2000:150); the important issue here is not how the photos were made, but rather their intent. Wells implies that the photos purport to show a "lifelike" condition to prove that moths rest on trunks. This is not the case. The photos are meant to demonstrate the visibility of the different forms of the moth on polluted and unpolluted trees. It is absurd to expect a photographer to just sit around and wait until two differently colored moths happen to alight side by side. Further, how the photos were produced does not change the actual data. Birds eat moths and they eat the ones that they see more easily first. The textbook photos never claim to depict a real-life situation, and it is improper to imply otherwise.

The third criticism, and the only scientific one that Wells levels, deals with the recovery of the light form of the moth following the institution of pollution control laws. The main thrust of his argument is that because the recovery of light-colored lichens does not correlate with the recovery of the light form of the moths, the entire story is incorrect. Wells exploits the fact that the original researchers thought that the camouflage of the light moths depended on the presence of lichen. However, the light forms recovered before the lichens did; therefore, Wells concludes, natural selection has nothing to do with the story. Although it is true that the moths are well-camouflaged against lichens, and lichens are destroyed by pollution, nevertheless the camouflage of the moths ultimately depends upon the color of the trees, which reflect the amount of soot staining the trees. Although lichens play a role in camouflage, they are not necessary. This is what happened: pollution was reduced, the trees got lighter, then the moths got lighter. Further, in all areas, the light moths have recovered, as predicted by the hypothesis. This is clearly stated in the literature (e.g. Grant et al., 1998), but it does not fit Wells's story, and he just ignores it.

OK, it gets better.

When Galileo attempted to convert the papal court to Copernicanism few years later, Aristotelian scientists and philosophers prevailed upon the Church to silence him and place him under house arrest; but Galileo was never in danger of being executed for his Copernican beliefs. See Sir William Cecil Dampier,
History of Science and its relations with Philosophy and
Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

Except he was threatened with torture - I believe it was called being put to question or somesuch, Inquisitional torture is not something I specialize in - if he did not recant. If anyone here does not believe that the results of toture by the Inquisitors at best resulted in massive pain, routinely resulted in crippling injuries, and not uncommonly killed directly or indirectly - delayed infections, unhealed bodily injury, etc. - more than a couple of the recipients, well, go google it or talk will Molly Bloom.

To continue.

Although the publisher has agreed to remove the bogus embryodiagrams derived from Haeckel, the text still contains themisleading claim that "All vertebrate embryos closely resemble one another in early development." There is no indication in the
text that the earlier stages of vertebrate embryos are actually quite different, or that early differences do not fit the pattern predicted by Darwin's theory.

Versus the actual modern science.

Regardless of Haeckel's accuracy or preconceptions, comparative embryology continues to be central to our understanding of evolution. Comparative embryology shows how different adult structures of many animals have the same embryonic precursors. These shared developmental features suggest that many animals have ancestors in common. Further comparative embryology shows that closely related animals show a unity of developmental pattern, particularly in earlier stages, and have more developmental features in common than do more distantly related organisms. The fact that certain incipient structures such as pharyngeal pouches or arches exist in all vertebrate embryos yet develop into very different adult structures suggests that they all share a common ancestor whose embryo had pharyngeal pouches (at least at some stage in development). In this way, developmental similarities that are inherited from a common ancestor are homologous, just like the patterns of bones in adult limbs.

If you want to read the entire report by the Creative Design people, https://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...oad.php?id=101

If you want to read a site that actually dissects the errors that have crept in, essentially due to lazy science writers, i.e. my constant point about Puntuated Equilibrium, www.ncseweb.org/icons/index.htm. Compare his analysis with the discovery people. Intelligent Design is in the process of being accepted by the second largest school textbook aquisition system in the country. Now that's an issue.

[DanS]

Excuse me, those of you stating scientists do not need to worry about religious fundamentalism and CD. Do you live in a red state? Do you live in a red, religiously fundamentalist red state?

My hometown is dry. Does that count?

Besides, your and Boris' posts work on the underlying assumption that science would come out worse for the wear in a full airing of all views on the subject. In my experience, science does just fine as a positive argument. Scientists need to make sure that good affirmative arguments are made and to be honest about the the strength of the varying facts available. They need not worry about losing this argument.

[Sava]

@ partisan comments directed at scientists

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Excuse me, those of you stating scientists do not need to worry about religious fundamentalism and CD. Do you live in a red state? Do you live in a red, religiously fundamentalist red state? I do.

Does Mississippi count?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
In my experience, science does just fine as a positive argument.

The point again, being that there is only so much time in the school year and lots of area to be covered. Would you argue that time be taken out of history class to teach Afrocentric views on how Egypt was really Black?