RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:10   

Wish I knew who I sent mine too. Those PM's were deleted around Sept.

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:12   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 29 2008,10:44)
My survey of the other questions above shows mostly "when did you stop beating your wife"-type questions -- e.g., Steve Story's [Steve, have you actually read EE?] or Lenny's -- or topics where I've already given my last word (e.g., the mammal-like reptiles illustration discussion, with Afarensis).   

I'm still interested, however, in learning about specific errors in EE.  

What's wrong with my question, Paul?

 
Quote (JAM @ July 18 2007,16:46)
 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Because changes in size aren't a big deal genetically:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112

Do you have some data that suggest that size changes are a big deal?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:15   

On the contrary, 'when did you stop beating your wife?' is a perfectly valid question to ask a guy with a history of wife-beating.

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:17   

Quote (JAM @ July 23 2007,16:34)
 
Quote (JAM @ July 18 2007,18:21)
Re quotation #24,

The second and third quotations aren't in the cited paper. In fact, this very cool paper supports a hypothesis that provides an explanation for the rapid evolution of the turtle's shell, directly contradicting the apparently manufactured quote:

"The recognition of a simple developmental mechanism, namely an epithelial-mesenchymal interaction, at the initiation of carapace development provides a basis for hypotheses about the rapid evolution of this body plan (Burke 1989b).

Burke, A. C. 1989b. Development of the turtle carapace: implications for
the evolution of a novel bauplan. J. Morphol. 199: 363–378.

Note also that the authors hypothesize which proteins are involved, which inductive relationships between tissues are involved, etc.

Clearly, this is another lie by omission, possibly compounded by lies of commission.

Wesley,

You should update your description of the turtle quotations from page 24, because it doesn't include the second paper that they quote-mined:

How the Turtle Forms its Shell: A Paracrine
Hypothesis of Carapace Formation
JUDITH CEBRA-THOMAS et al.
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY (MOL DEV EVOL) 304B:558–569 (2005)

They are still being completely dishonest, however. Here are the partial quotes from that second paper:
     
Quote
Because "the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly," Gilbert and his colleagues argue that evolution needs "to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace [shell]."


The first in context:
     
Quote
This reptile [Proganochelys] had the characteristic derived trunk morphology now associated with turtles. Thus, the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly. We can propose a hypothesis that may explain at least part of how this might happen. The key innovation is to getting the ribs into the dermis. Once there,
variation in the population might enable some individuals to use this heterotopic placement of ribs to form a shell. If they could form a positive feedback loop between the rib and the CR (e.g., through Fgf10 and Fgf8), they could co-ordinate rib and carapace growth. When the ribs undergo normal endochodral ossification, the BMPs would induce the costal bones that form the plate of the carapace. (This may involve overpowering natural inhibitors of BMPs that are secreted by the dermis.) This mechanism, wherein the displacement of a tissue allows it to induce structures at new locations, has been proposed by Brylski and Hall (’88) to account for the rapid emergence of the fur-lined cheek pouches of pocket gophers. The compatibility of our findings with those of the
turtle fossil record has been noted by paleontologists (Rieppel, ’01).


The second in context:
     
Quote
These observations indicate that the ribs act as initiation centers for the dermal ossification of costal bones. The ossifying regions of the dermis extend towards one another to eventually fuse. The data reported in the present report confirm and extend these observations and permit us to frame a hypothesis to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace.

Hey, Paul! Maybe you could address this instance of not merely taking quotes out of context, but adding false context...

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:19   

How about these questions?
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,17:20)
 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,09:54)
The accurate representation of data is important, especially when most students will never see the actual fossils in question.

JAM, can you say which quotes from the box "Coming Out of Their Shell?" you find objectionable, and why?

All of them. Quoting instead of presenting the data is inherently dishonest, and you know it. How can anyone be so dishonest as to not see the hypocritical contrast between your statement to Afarensis, immediately followed by your attempt to defend your avoidance of representation of data in favor of quotes?

Is quoting an "accurate representation of data," Paul? Why is it that real scientists don't generally do it, and you fake scientists do it all the time?
       
Quote
Also, Burke's data were interpreted by Rieppel (2001) as disproving the "correlated progression" model for turtle evolution, advanced by Kemp and others.

So what? The bottom line is the accurate representation of the data, and you run away from that in the most cowardly way. Your intent is clearly to deceive.
       
Quote
Rieppel writes:

Why not show the students the data, Paul? The  Alcian-blue and Alizarin-red pictures from Figure 3 alone would demolish any doubt that the shell was derived from existing structures.
       
Quote
For his part, Kemp responds:

Selective quoting is inherently dishonest. Show the students the data. What are you afraid of?
       
Quote
[Correlated progression] stands in contrast to an alternative view of the origin of turtles, expressed most recently by Rieppel (2001 [citing Burke]), that the rib-vertebrae-carapace-limb complex is too radically different from the ancestral amniote condition to have evolved gradually, but must have resulted from a macromutational event caused by a radical change in early development.  The difficulty with Rieppel's hypothesis is that it must account for how this sudden developmental change also caused what must have been simultaneous, but functionally integrated

Wow. "Functionally integrated" is definitely not a term I'd use to describe a turtle!
     
Quote
... shifts in many other traits, notably the musculature, limb function, central neural control of locomotion, ventilation mechanism, dietary shift away from faunivory and so on: it is unrealistic in the extreme that any single macromutation could have such a comprehensive effect.

I don't find it unrealistic at all, but then, I've seen some pretty comprehensive effects of single mutations on skeletal morphogenesis. Have you looked at any of those data? Why don't you quote the predictions of which morphogenetically-important proteins will be involved from the Burke paper? Is it because you're too chicken to make a testable prediction yourself?

I know that you are renowned for your avoidance of simple questions, so here's another: why do real scientists cite data, but you choose to quote bits and pieces of interpretation? What would your target audience think if they saw Figure 3 of the Burke paper instead of your chosen quotes?

If you think my questions are unfair, what proportion of my own publications would you bet contain quotations?

Can I get the same bet as Lenny proposed?

Paul?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:20   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,20:09)
I actually thought I sent my copy to you Gary. I'll get you a copy in 2-3 days.

That would be very nice of you, and I will take it as a responsibility to respond.  But Paul has claimed here that, "I've stated my interest (above): I'm looking for evidence of specific errors in Explore Evolution."

I think he should provide me a review copy as 1) I am clearly qualified both as a scientist, and educator, and 2) I have read nearly as much creationist literature as he has.  So, I propose that I will consider "Exploring Evolution" scientifically, pedagogically and even in accordance with creationist dogma.  After all, the DI should be pleased if their intelligent design theory might be shown as independent of the garden varity creationism (Garden of Eden, that is).

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 06 2008,20:22

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:24   

this is from the EE website.

Quote
This book is one of the first textbooks ever to use the inquiry-based approach to teach modern evolutionary theory. It does so by examining the current evidence and arguments for and against the key ideas of modern Darwinian theory. We hope examining the evidence and arguments in this book will give you a deeper understanding of the theory and help you to evaluate its current status.


Paul, care to explain how such an evenhanded-sounding textbook has only Darwin-dissenters for its authors, funders, and reviewers?

Quote
dis·hon·est (d?s-?n'?st) pronunciation
adj.

  1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
  2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:27   

I'll tell you what, Paul.  I am about 2/3 through a manuscript on science and creation. The working title is "Science and Creation."

In it I show that 19th and 20th century creationism is a violation of science and scripture, and I outline a biblically coherent alternative.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine?

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 06 2008,20:27

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:42   

I'm out. It's a very bad day here at UNC and it's going to be a horrible week. Don't know when I'll be back. In the meantime, I have only one question I want Paul to answer.

Is there a single argument in your book which can't be traced back to creationists?

We found recycled creationist crap on every page, but nothing else. Is there anything in there creationists haven't already said, and if not, do you understand why taking a pile of creationist claims, deleting the overt references to creationism and trying to package it as a neutral textbook is misleading and dishonest? You refuse to admit the dishonesty even though its obvious.

Return to honesty. Go back to calling yourselves creationists, and calling your claims creationism, and give up the facade.

Or get some brains and do something else. Your pseudoscience isn't going anywhere.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,06:26   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,20:44)
Board of Reviewers, Explore Evolution

E.C. Ashby, Ph.D.
Regents’ Professor and
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
School of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia

Daniel Ely, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
University of Akron
Akron, Ohio

Bruce Evans, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Huntington University
Huntington, Indiana

W. Michael Gray
Professor and Chair
Department of Biology
Bob Jones University

David Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Biochemistry
Grove City College
Grove City, Pennsylvania

Dean Kenyon, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, California

Scott Kinnes, Ph.D.
Professor
Departments of Biology & Chemistry
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California

Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD.,
D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc.
R.C.V.S.
Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol
United Kingdom

Pattle Pun, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois

John Silvius, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Cedarville University
Cedarville, Ohio

Robert Waltzer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Belhaven College
Jackson, Mississippi

William Wise, MSEd
Science Department Head & Biology Instructor
Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Thanks for the list, Paul.

I do recognize some of these names, and note that it includes microbiologists, chemists and biochemists who probably NEVER taught an intro biology course. I also note that it is a short list; a typical biology textbook (especially the first edition) has literally dozens of reviewers. I also recall that the front matter of the book thanks those who participated in pilot projects; these are not named here. Are they the same people?

I may spend the next day or two seeing what else I can find out about the names I don't recognize on this list. But so far, given the preponderance of folks from conservative Christian creationist colleges, this list is just further evidence that EE is Pandas redux, sanitized for constitutional protection.

It appears that others have given you plenty to think about here, but I'd still appreciate your attention to the points originally raised here back in August, and recently clarified here.

As well as some idea when the EE "debate" page will be operational.

Thanks in advance.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,06:48   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 06 2008,23:02)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,21:27)
Of the twelve reviewers, the only two who didn't "Dissent" from evolution are a high school teacher and a guy from Bob Jones University.

I don't even have anything to say about that. It speaks for itself.

I think it's very nice that the EE authors reached out to the Bob Jones University faculty. Plenty of life sciences heavyweights there. Besides, didn't Lou go there briefly?  :p

(*Lou: apologies if it was really Liberty. I can't remember.)

Nope, you got it.  I went to Blow Job Bob Jones U.

Kay recently got an acceptance letter from Liberty.  (She finds that hysterical.)

I did not however, review EE.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,06:58   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 07 2008,06:48)
Kay recently got an acceptance letter from Liberty.  (She finds that hysterical.)

I did not however, review EE.

Which is, I assure you, equally hysterical.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,08:13   

I began reading through this thread again, and an interesting parallel came to mind regarding the argument over whether EE is just warmed-over creationism disguised (again) to look like science.

     
Quote (Luke 22: 33-34 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening previous to the events at Gethsemane)
33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.


       
Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,14:30)
I'll wager a bottle of scotch that in the end, we'll trace over 100 items from Explore (Some Lies About) Evolution back to earlier creationist junk.
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 15 2007,14:32)
Given that two of the three quotations examined so far contribute to that tally, who do you expect to take that bet?
 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,17:21)
Steve & Wes,

If you can spell out the terms of the bet, I'll take it.

Any brand of single malt, under $100 (a bottle).   :)
 
Quote (Luke 22:54-57 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
54Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

55And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

56But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.

57And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.



       
Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,19:03)
Hmm...100 was a hasty number-- from the table of contents, http://exploreevolution.com/table_of_contents.php , the book only has about 143 pages of text. Expecting to find 100 creationist retreads in 143 pages might be a bit much. I do expect to find at least one every three or four pages, though, so I bet we'll find at least 40.
 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,06:18)
Steve,

I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms.
 
Quote (Luke 22:58 @ , ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
58And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.



       
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,18:36)
Hey Paul, I've not read your, uh, wonderful new science textbook yet.  But, given the extensive past history of creationism/ID, I feel pretty confident that I can make a testable prediction about its contents:

*ahem*

I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch, nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and can be found **nowhere else**).

Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul?  Can you point to any peer-reviewed science journal articles wherein any of these, uh, "scientific criticisms of evolution" have appeared?

Tell you what, Paul, since you're such an eager betting man and all, I'll even offer you a wager.  I'll give you one hundred dollars ($100) for every scientific argument against evolution presented in your magnum opus that has appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and you will give me one hundred dollars ($100) for every one that has appeared in some creationist/ID tracts published by ICR, AiG, or one of DI's minions.

Deal?

I've always wanted a yacht of my own . . . . . .
 
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,18:20)
Can I get the same bet as Lenny proposed?
 
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,15:57)
P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive.  But let's see precise terms.
 
Quote (Luke 22:59-60 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
59And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.

60And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.


--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,09:45   

ROFLMAO.

Paul you blew it dude.  Just because you are such a congenial dude (I think we foolishly believed that this was a result of the fact that you know, deep down, that you deserve some flak for your involvement in pushing creationism ReDux and you have seemed willing to take it) everyone has given you the benefit of the doubt.  

But the scales have been lifted my friend.  You are a fraud.  Not even the nice guy you pretend to be, you are a Liar For Jesus.  I can't wait to see the mess your Of Pandas And People Explore Evolution book gets a bunch of local school boards into.  I hope that gives you fulfillment, because clearly doing science is getting your creationism NOWHERE.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,10:56   

More grist for the mill. Many of the reviewers for EE are at Christian colleges. Here are some additional data re the stances of those places vis-a-vis creationism and evolution.

Huntington University – “The faculty of Huntington University subscribe to the following statement of faith. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”

Bob Jones University – “I believe in the creation of man by the direct act of God. God's Word was not given to us to teach us science. But the same God Who wrote the book made the laws that govern science; and He would not cause to be set down in His Word anything that would be contrary to His own laws. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27 - The theistic evolutionist attempts to reconcile Genesis to evolution. But it cannot be done; the two are irreconcilable.

Grove City College – “Grove City College remains true to the vision of its founders. Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom.”

Azusa Pacific University – “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God.”

Wheaton College – “WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.”

Cedarville University – “The Bible, God's Word, is truth — inspired, infallible, and inerrant.” Also in the course catalog – “Creation Science is one way Cedarville faculty help students develop a biblical world-life view.

Belhaven College – “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, and only infallible, authoritative Word of God, which exercises ultimate authority over the individual, the Church, and human reason.”

In addition, this site ranks Christian Colleges according to various criteria, including this question –“ Is Theistic Evolution permitted to be taught as a viable option in the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1?”  Azusa Pacific (“Allowed”), Belhaven College (“Does not Teach Evolution as a viable option”), Bob Jones University (“Creationistic”), Cedarville University (“Creationistic”), Wheaton College (“It teaches that Adam and Eve were directly created by God, but it does not have definite beliefs on creation as direct or evolutionary.”).

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,12:23   

As most of the participants in this thread want to talk about EE as “repackaged creationism,” “warmed-over creationism,” "creationism redux" -- let’s call this “refried creationism,” or RC for short -- I’ve tried to draft a concise argument expressing the RC criticism as identifying a serious error in EE.  How about this:

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

That can’t be what RC entails, however.  A creationist textbook may give a perfectly accurate description of (say) the mechanisms of photosynthesis, yet one wouldn’t want to exclude photosynthesis from teaching materials or classroom discussion on those grounds.

So, on the assumption that there’s more to RC than (1) & (2), can someone here express the “refried creationism” criticism succinctly, in a short propositional form (i.e., as an argument) explaining why scientific topics that may have been discussed in creationist writings are nevertheless illegitimate material for science instruction?

Thanks.  I'd also value the comments of anyone on whatever formulations of RC are posted.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,12:31   

And thus ends the parallel.

 
Quote (Luke 22:61-62 @ ca 30CE, late in the evening following the events at Gethsemane)
61And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

62And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.


Peter, it would appear, was ashamed of himself.

Edited by Lou FCD on Mar. 07 2008,13:32

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,12:38   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:23)
As most of the participants in this thread want to talk about EE as “repackaged creationism,” “warmed-over creationism,” "creationism redux" -- let’s call this “refried creationism,” or RC for short -- I’ve tried to draft a concise argument expressing the RC criticism as identifying a serious error in EE.  How about this:

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

That can’t be what RC entails, however.  A creationist textbook may give a perfectly accurate description of (say) the mechanisms of photosynthesis, yet one wouldn’t want to exclude photosynthesis from teaching materials or classroom discussion on those grounds.

So, on the assumption that there’s more to RC than (1) & (2), can someone here express the “refried creationism” criticism succinctly, in a short propositional form (i.e., as an argument) explaining why scientific topics that may have been discussed in creationist writings are nevertheless illegitimate material for science instruction?

Thanks.  I'd also value the comments of anyone on whatever formulations of RC are posted.

Paul

No. The difference between "discussed" and "thoroughly rebutted" is significant. We're not talking about automatic disqualification simply because a topic has been "discussed" in the creationist literature. But if the argument has been rebutted, and unless the creationist science community has come up with new data (not just the same argument repackaged as if it was new), it has no place in a modern biology textbook. Thoroughly rebutted arguments definitely deserve very little treatment, other than historical, in a public high school science textbook.

For some context, outside the limited scope of the evolution discussion, phlogiston has been thoroughly rebutted as a scientific explanation. Discussion of phlogiston theory should not be given much space, outside of a brief discussion of the history of oxidation-reduction chemistry, in a high school chemistry textbook. Does that make the distinction more clear for you?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Leftfield



Posts: 107
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,12:44   

Paul-

I think step 1A in the RC argument is that the creationist perspective on topic A is not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific publications.

I think that is the point of Lenny's long ago offer to pay up $100 for any argument in EE that had appeared in the peer reviewed literature in the last 50 years.

Edited: To say Alb beat me to it, and because I wanted to make sure my edit button worked.

--------------
Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,12:49   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:23)
As most of the participants in this thread want to talk about EE as “repackaged creationism,” “warmed-over creationism,” "creationism redux" -- let’s call this “refried creationism,” or RC for short -- I’ve tried to draft a concise argument expressing the RC criticism as identifying a serious error in EE.  How about this:

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

That can’t be what RC entails, however.  A creationist textbook may give a perfectly accurate description of (say) the mechanisms of photosynthesis, yet one wouldn’t want to exclude photosynthesis from teaching materials or classroom discussion on those grounds.

So, on the assumption that there’s more to RC than (1) & (2), can someone here express the “refried creationism” criticism succinctly, in a short propositional form (i.e., as an argument) explaining why scientific topics that may have been discussed in creationist writings are nevertheless illegitimate material for science instruction?

Thanks.  I'd also value the comments of anyone on whatever formulations of RC are posted.

I can't believe you are playing this childish game, Paul. You've gone from Young Earth Creationist to Used Car Salesman.

How about this, Paul?

1. You make a lovely flowerbed, and put up notice saying 'DO NOT WALK ON THE FLOWERBED'.
2. I tie newspapers to my feet, and trample your flowers.
3. When asked, I tell you that I was actually walking on newspapers, not your flowerbed.

Do you honestly believe we can't see you're playing the same game? You disgust me.

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,12:52   

Alb,

Let's take a specific example to focus the discussion.  Suppose Topic A is stasis of form (either in fossil lineages, or from fossil-to-extant taxa), which I mentioned above.

Page 25 of EE illustrates this phenomenon or pattern with nautiloids, comb jellies, and ginkgo leaves.  My grandfather's creationist book After Its Kind featured many similar illustrations.

But here in my office I also have Eldredge and Stanley's classic monograph Living Fossils (Springer, 1984), and papers are published all the time in the primary literature on stasis and living fossils.

So, is the topic "What is stasis of form, and what might it mean for understanding of the history of life?" a fit topic for a public school biology textbook?

I hope, since you're thinking about this, that you could express your view of "refried creationism" (RC) in succinct propositional form, with the premises numbered or clearly distinguished -- helps in the discussion.

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,12:57   

Leftfield wrote:

Quote
I think step 1A in the RC argument is that the creationist perspective on topic A is not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific publications.


Well, that's where RC becomes problematic, as I think Alb and the other professional biologists reading this thread know.

I appreciate the amplification.  We'll come to to the peer-reviewed business further on, I expect.

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,13:06   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:52)
Alb,

Let's take a specific example to focus the discussion.  Suppose Topic A is stasis of form (either in fossil lineages, or from fossil-to-extant taxa), which I mentioned above.

Page 25 of EE illustrates this phenomenon or pattern with nautiloids, comb jellies, and ginkgo leaves.  My grandfather's creationist book After Its Kind featured many similar illustrations.

But here in my office I also have Eldredge and Stanley's classic monograph Living Fossils (Springer, 1984), and papers are published all the time in the primary literature on stasis and living fossils.

So, is the topic "What is stasis of form, and what might it mean for understanding of the history of life?" a fit topic for a public school biology textbook?

I hope, since you're thinking about this, that you could express your view of "refried creationism" (RC) in succinct propositional form, with the premises numbered or clearly distinguished -- helps in the discussion.

Paul, I suspect you know fully well that there is nothing logically or legally 'wrong' with what you're doing. That's the whole point of 'critical analysis' of evolution - it's a cheap, twisted way to game the system. You have taken a bunch of creationist arguments and renamed them 'critical analysis'. Your whole book comprises this.

It isn't illegal, but it is morally wrong to deceive people in this way. You know, morals? I think Jesus mentioned them once or twice?

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,13:33   

Venus,

Is it morally wrong to evaluate current theories of evolution, in the light of the available evidence?

Before you answer, try this experiment, without using Google or other search engines to identify the source and author. Read the following passage, and ask yourself whether you'd allow this material in a public school science classroom, strictly in terms of its content.  Lay aside for the moment the identity of the author, his/her theoretical commitments, and the publication venue:

 
Quote
The popular theory of evolution is the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism), based on changes in populations underpinned by the mathematics of allelic variation and driven by natural selection.  It accounts more for adaptive changes in the colouration of moths, than in explaining why there are moths at all.  This theory does not predict why there were only 50 or so modal body plans, nor does it provide a basis for rapid, large scale innovations.  It lacks significant connection with embryogenesis and hence there is no nexus to the evolution of form.  It fails to address the question of why the anatomical gaps between phyla are no wider today than they were at their Cambrian appearance.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,14:00   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:52)
Alb,

Let's take a specific example to focus the discussion.  Suppose Topic A is stasis of form (either in fossil lineages, or from fossil-to-extant taxa), which I mentioned above.

Page 25 of EE illustrates this phenomenon or pattern with nautiloids, comb jellies, and ginkgo leaves.  My grandfather's creationist book After Its Kind featured many similar illustrations.

But here in my office I also have Eldredge and Stanley's classic monograph Living Fossils (Springer, 1984), and papers are published all the time in the primary literature on stasis and living fossils.

So, is the topic "What is stasis of form, and what might it mean for understanding of the history of life?" a fit topic for a public school biology textbook?

I hope, since you're thinking about this, that you could express your view of "refried creationism" (RC) in succinct propositional form, with the premises numbered or clearly distinguished -- helps in the discussion.

Paul

Stasis of forms has been refuted as an argument against evolution. Evolutionary theory is perfectly capable of accommodating the observations. So to pretend that stasis is STILL an argument against evolutionary theory is disingenuous.

Secondly, I'll substitute the term "refuted creationism" for your RC acronym. Then if we modify your paradigm thusly (my additions in bold):

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2. Topic A has been shown to be a quote-mine, a strawman, easily accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, or otherwise non-controversial in the minds of modern evolutionary biologists.

3. No new data relevant to Topic A, either casting new doubt on modern evolutionary theory or that is unable to be accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, has been provided by competent scientists and published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

4.
 Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

we now have something that I hope we can all agree to.

I also hope this helps you understand why refuted creationism (RC) is attracting so much attention here.

I also hope that you can provide some answers to the previously posted questions as well. What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,14:19   

Paul, why are there moths at all?  Does your critical analysis derive a theory that explains this burning question?  Do the tools provided by your Of Pandas And People Explore Evolution book give anyone the necessary concepts and methods for answering this burning question?

Intelligent Design Creationism is in flames.  I am glad that you are going to give scientists and lawyers the opportunity to unzip and do the right thing.  You are a fraud.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,14:25   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,13:33)
Venus,

Is it morally wrong to evaluate current theories of evolution, in the light of the available evidence?

Before you answer, try this experiment, without using Google or other search engines to identify the source and author. Read the following passage, and ask yourself whether you'd allow this material in a public school science classroom, strictly in terms of its content.  Lay aside for the moment the identity of the author, his/her theoretical commitments, and the publication venue:

   
Quote
The popular theory of evolution is the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism), based on changes in populations underpinned by the mathematics of allelic variation and driven by natural selection.  It accounts more for adaptive changes in the colouration of moths, than in explaining why there are moths at all.  This theory does not predict why there were only 50 or so modal body plans, nor does it provide a basis for rapid, large scale innovations.  It lacks significant connection with embryogenesis and hence there is no nexus to the evolution of form.  It fails to address the question of why the anatomical gaps between phyla are no wider today than they were at their Cambrian appearance.

Paul: no, it isn't morally wrong to evaluate evolution, and that wasn't what I was accusing you of. I was accusing you of deliberately deceiving people by taking creationist arguments, and renaming and changing them to critical analysis (one wonders if we'll see the phrase 'ccritical analysisists' anywhere?)

And once again, I've already said what you're doing is not technically wrong, just like me trampling your flowers. Therefore, your quote probably is acceptable (although I wouldn't bet on it, I'll let people with more knowledge analyse the claims therein.) It's as acceptable as forcing schools to put disclaimer stickers in their textbooks - no reason why you CAN'T, but it clearly shows a lack of care. You don't want to teach kids. You want to stop them from doubting the Bible. Otherwise, I'd expect to see quotes like:

Newton's theory of gravity, while often used in real life, is actually false.

Gravitation theory has no explanation for why gravity occurs, or how the universe was formed. There is no experimental confirmation of gravitons, despite massive detectors having been run for years to detect them.

Intelligent Design does not explain who the designer is, whether it still exists, how many designers there are, what its intent is, where the designer came from, how it designed, or when it designed, nor indeed if design even requires intelligence.

It is not known if Einstein's spacetime is a fully accurate model of gravity.

Thermodynamics is forced to use statistical formulae to model large systems of particles, which cannot give accurate results about single particles.


All of the above are true, Paul, and some are even mentioned in textbooks (it's often important to know the range of validity of a model). My annoyance is at you twisting truths into propaganda at the cost of the education of children. There are a whole bunch of things that evolution does not explain. Some it hasn't explained yet, and some it wasn't ever meant to (it's quite common in the creationist lit for people to confuse the two, which is why Expelled! presents evolution as being abiogenesis).

In short: I'm not objecting to whether what you say is true or legal or not. I'm accusing you of using cheap tricks and loopholes to get what you want, at the cost of anyone who gets in your way - which will probably be children.

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,14:45   

Alb asked,

 
Quote
What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?


We’re juggling relative terms -– “many” versus “some” versus “a few” textbooks have used Haeckel's drawings, or derivatives of them.  I don’t know what textbooks you have in your office.  Are any of them in this brief survey?

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

Donald Prothero just re-published the Romanes 1910 figure, based on Haeckel, although he attributes the material to von Baer; he also supports the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.  So use of the drawings persists.

What needs to be done -– and we’ve haven’t done it -– is a thorough (exhaustive) survey of high school and college textbooks, so that actual frequency of usage of Haeckel-derived drawings, and their context, can be determined.  The document I linked to provides a start, but it’s not exhaustive.

I could see changing “many” (on p. 69) to “some,” but I’d have to persuade my co-authors.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,14:52   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:45)
Alb asked,

 
Quote
What about the problem with the statement in EE about Haeckel's embryos, for example?


We’re juggling relative terms -– “many” versus “some” versus “a few” textbooks have used Haeckel's drawings, or derivatives of them.  I don’t know what textbooks you have in your office.  Are any of them in this brief survey?

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

Donald Prothero just re-published the Romanes 1910 figure, based on Haeckel, although he attributes the material to von Baer; he also supports the validity of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.  So use of the drawings persists.

What needs to be done -– and we’ve haven’t done it -– is a thorough (exhaustive) survey of high school and college textbooks, so that actual frequency of usage of Haeckel-derived drawings, and their context, can be determined.  The document I linked to provides a start, but it’s not exhaustive.

I could see changing “many” (on p. 69) to “some,” but I’d have to persuade my co-authors.

BZZZ- No, I'm sorry Paul, that's not correct.

Haekel's drawings = grasping at straw-men.

Old, tired, and long discounted Paul.

Can anyone else in the class help out poor Paul?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,14:56   

Alb,

Thanks for this formulation:

 
Quote
1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2. Topic A has been shown to be a quote-mine, a strawman, easily accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, or otherwise non-controversial in the minds of modern evolutionary biologists.

3. No new data relevant to Topic A, either casting new doubt on modern evolutionary theory or that is unable to be accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, has been provided by competent scientists and published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

4.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.


"Quote-mine," "strawman," and "easily accomodated" leave considerable room for debate, of course (but that's OK -- debate makes life interesting); in any case, I accept this as grounds for ongoing discussion.

Venus, the author of that passage was evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, from his long paper "Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism," Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 15 (1993):7-41.  The cited material comprises the first five sentences of the paper's abstract.

I'll be out for the remainder of the day, but will try to return to the discussion tomorrow morning.  Thanks to all involved for the exchange.

  
  861 replies since July 13 2007,13:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (29) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]