ID: Coming to Your State Soon!

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for taking time out to respond, although I get the feeling you may not have had time to read my earlier posts, so a quick summary: ID is only an idea.

I read your posts.

The bill allows benign and legitimate criticisms of standard models to be discussed after the conventional coursework has been nailed, time permitting - but it does not allow any of ID's or anyone elses' religioisity or psuedoscience to be used.

The text of the bill can be found here. Can you please indicate to me where in it the words "benign" or "legitimate" can be found, or where it prohibits ID, religiosity or pseudoscience?

The bill allows for the state school authority to veto any dubious materials, which rules out most current ID books.

Odd take on it. Here's the relevant clause:

5

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook

6 supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks​

7 and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique,​

8 and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city,​

9 parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the​

10 State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
​

​

I see that as somewhat opposite to what you describe: it allows local public school boards free reign to choose whatever "supplemental textbooks" they like, unless specifically prohibited by the State board.

It will not be a free for all and it will not be at the expense of the current requirements. The kids absolutely first and foremost have to demonstrate an understanding of the standard models before all else.

Please indicate where the bill requires students to understand the standard models before all else. I provided the link above.

I must insist that the title of this thread, and the call-to-arms it cites are both disingenuous in using the term "ID", which is not even mentioned in the bill. No dangerous aspect of ID or anything else is allowed under this bill.

I disagree. It's fairly obvious to me that the intent of the bill is to sneak ID into public education as "objective discussion" of evolution. The bill specifically talks about what it's meant to address. Note my bold:

[O]pen and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

If this bill wasn't created with ID specifically in mind, what do you think that the writers of it did have in mind?

The choices of signature that SETI seeks derive from educated guesswork. I have no complaint with that, after all, that's how hypotheses begin, but we must be honest about the testability of this one: there is no scientific way to determine what would constitute falsifiable signs of alien intelligence short of them actually showing up - just as there is no way to scientifically determine what would constitute a sign or mark of an inteligent designer, short of one showing up and telling us. Both camps are following hunches. The SETI crew are explorers that happen to be exploring in a way that can only be done by scientists at this point. Aware of what you've done or not, you have shown what SETI is, and you showed why it is still just an exploratory idea, like ID, string theory, and so on. Thank you.

Yes, the idea behind SETI is an exploratory idea. It's only part of observation, which is only one part of the scientific method, but it is part of it.

And it has direct parallels in other realms of science. Take archaeology: one technique that's used frequently now is satellite imaging. When looking at a dense jungle, computer-enhanced images (either IR or UV, IIRC - I don't know all the details) can show the existence of features that, with a fairly high degree of accuracy, are the remains of Inca and Aztec cities and temples that are hidden to the naked eye. Now... if their methodology ended with "this image looks like a city! We're done - it is a city!", then I wouldn't say it was very scientific. However, at that point, they're not done; they use that process not to decide where the hidden city definitely is, but to decide where to dig.

SETI is a very similar process: an ordered-looking signal doesn't automatically imply that it was deliberately sent by some intelligence, but it's a good first step. If that ordered-looking signal does arrive, then the other elements takes over: astronomers train their telescopes on the source of the signal looking for life, linguists and mathematicians analyze the signal for actual signs of intelligence, and most importantly, armies of scientists start looking for some explanation for the signal that doesn't involve aliens.

So... SETI doesn't encapsulate the entire scientific method by itself, but it is part of it. How can ID be integrated into the scientific method?

In actual fact, many IDers accept much of standard evolutionary theory, far more so than most YECers.

Yes, they accept what pleases them, and then disregard the science when it disagrees with their religion.

Actually, I think in many ways, Young Earth Creationism has more intellectual honesty than ID: the YECs are very up-front about the source of their ideas and open about the fact that they'll disregard any data or theory that disagrees with them. I think the idea of Young Earth Creationism is horribly flawed and mistaken, certainly, but it lacks the hipocrisy inherent in the ID movement.

Regardless, the only aspect of it allowed under this bill is where it highlights possible difficulties with the standard model. Nothing more than that - indeed, the critical questions can come from any source provided nothing is introduced that interferes with the kids current education.

Please point out where the bill places the limits you describe on what can be discussed.

Keep in mind that I never said there was one.

If there isn't one, or can't be one, then it's not science.

Keep in mind that I was showing that there are already ideas in the classroom that can't be falsified, like SETI.

The difference is that SETI is not pretending to be a complete theory of anything. It's an element of a methodology, nothing more.

The companion question I asked was what would happen if we found a natural source of the emissions that SETI is looking for. Both questions should be taken together if you want to see my point.

If they find a natural source of the emissions that SETI is looking for, they would re-think and adapt their strategy. And I don't see your point; SETI and ID are not analogous with each other.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. I think you may have confused that which some hoped/dreaded the bill may have represented with what actually passed almost unanimously through both houses.

No, I know exactly what it is. I know the movement that brought it into being, and I can see its marks in the text of the final product. The intent of this bill is to undermine science and to introduce religion into the classroom.
​

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don't see what all the fuss over education is about. So what if we regress a wee bit. The Middle Ages weren't all that bad.

The Middle Ages weren't all that bad. The DARK Ages, though - well - that is a different story.

 

[Sunstone]

The Middle Ages weren't all that bad. The DARK Ages, though - well - that is a different story.

Now, now, TVOR.... No age is truly dark when you can see well enough by the light of burning heretics.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Now, now, TVOR.... No age is truly dark when you can see well enough by the light of burning heretics.

"Quickly now, put the torch to the wood, to show this witch the evil of her ways." - Bishop Cauchon (1431)

"Quickly now, put the torch to those science books, to rid us of the evil name of Charles Darwin". - Kent Hovind (2008)

A way to light the world, indeed.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I read your posts.



The text of the bill can be found here. Can you please indicate to me where in it the words "benign" or "legitimate" can be found, or where it prohibits ID, religiosity or pseudoscience?

6

supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks

7 ​

and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique,

8 ​

and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city,

9 ​

parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the
10 State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.​

Who is this ("Parish") that is mentioned here? Sounds like "The Church".....to me. Well it could mean (county). This bill is no more than the re-introduction of ID (creationism) to schools. It didn't work for Dover so they're at it again.​

This creation myth along with the rest of them belong in a history class and not a science class.​

I have yet to see churches teaching ID (creationism) in their Sunday schools from the Hindu or Pagan point of view. Even though were they would be used as an example to show that they were myths all the while asserting their creation story as fact.....​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who is this ("Parish") that is mentioned here? Sounds like "The Church".....to me.

In Louisiana, the term "parish" is used like "county" is in other parts of the US. While the roots of the term are in the times when there was a closer relationship between church and state, it's used as a secular term now... at least in this context.

 

[McBell]

Thanks. Seriously though, I'm sure a person of your calibre knows the other definition of the word humour, so if you kindly will this time: why exactly shouldn't something like Meyers paper be allowed as a supplemental topic for discussion in a science class? It was peer reviewed in a respectable journal, makes no mention of God etc and attempts no silly psuedoscientific 'evidences'. It is an interesting idea, part of a long line of them, (the kind that people everywhere wonder about in their day to day life), and with plenty of legitimate questions about the standard model to encourage critical thinking. Seriously, what's wrong with that?

Well it's bedtime here in Oz so maybe I'll check your homework in the morning (just kidding)

“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists. This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile. Only through this route — convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas — can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.
Source
​

 

[Dunemeister]

“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists. This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile. Only through this route — convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas — can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.
Source
​

I read a book sometime back in 2000 or so edited by some bigwig in the ID field. The book contained lots of articles articulating various ID theories. Tellingly, it contained a chapter at the end where the contributors actually discussed quite openly and with great candor the problems with ID, including the problem of evil, its lack of penetration into the mainstream scientific world, a too-close association with fundagelical Christianity and so on. The contributors went on to say that they hoped that these obstacles could be overcome by more concerted efforts, especially in intellectual areas such as philosophy and scientific methodology. (Dang, I wish I'd kept that book.)

Anyway, it looks like they've made a lot of progress in the intervening years, and I think that's good for science. I honestly believe that if the ID movement can make a scientific case, then they should do so. Until now, the whole thing has been motivated by a deep dissatisfaction with evolutionary theory, and the proponents have been casting about this way and that for alternatives. It looks like they've settled down a bit and actually done some science. Good on them.

 

[McBell]

I read a book sometime back in 2000 or so edited by some bigwig in the ID field. The book contained lots of articles articulating various ID theories. Tellingly, it contained a chapter at the end where the contributors actually discussed quite openly and with great candor the problems with ID, including the problem of evil, its lack of penetration into the mainstream scientific world, a too-close association with fundagelical Christianity and so on. The contributors went on to say that they hoped that these obstacles could be overcome by more concerted efforts, especially in intellectual areas such as philosophy and scientific methodology. (Dang, I wish I'd kept that book.)

Anyway, it looks like they've made a lot of progress in the intervening years, and I think that's good for science. I honestly believe that if the ID movement can make a scientific case, then they should do so. Until now, the whole thing has been motivated by a deep dissatisfaction with evolutionary theory, and the proponents have been casting about this way and that for alternatives. It looks like they've settled down a bit and actually done some science. Good on them.

You did not read the source of what you quoted.

The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyer’s paper. The fact that the paper is both out of the journal’s typical sphere of publication, as well as dismal scientifically, raises the question of how it made it past peer review. The answer probably lies in the editor, Richard von Sternberg. Sternberg happens to be a creationist and ID fellow traveler who is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College in Tennessee. (The BSG is a research group devoted to the determination of the created kinds of Genesis. We are NOT making this up!) Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement. [3] Given R. v. Sternberg’s creationist leanings, it seems plausible to surmise that the paper received some editorial shepherding through the peer review process. Given the abysmal quality of the science surrounding both information theory and the Cambrian explosion, it seems unlikely that it received review by experts in those fields. One wonders if the paper saw peer review at all.
​

and

Regardless, once the press releases start to fly, responses to the paper should be careful to not assume facts not in evidence (such as the review, or lack thereof, of Meyer’s paper), and should be careful to distinguish between issues that are scientifically important and unimportant.
​

Also of note:

1. Meyer gives no support for his assertion that PE proponents proposed species selection to account for “large morphological jumps”. (Use of the singular, “punctuated equilibrium”, is a common feature of antievolution writing. It is relatively less common among evolutionary biologists, who utilize the plural form, “punctuated equilibria”, as it was introduced by Eldredge and Gould in 1972.)

2. Meyer makes the false claim that PE was supposed to address the problem of the origin of biological information or form. As Gould and Eldredge 1977 noted, PE is a theory about speciation. It is an application of Ernst Mayr’s theory of allopatric speciation — a theory at the core of the Modern Synthesis — to the fossil record. Any discussion of PE that doesn’t mention allopatric speciation or something similar is ignoring the concept’s original meaning.

3. Meyer also makes the false claim that PE was supposed to address the origin of taxa higher than species. This class of error was specifically addressed in Gould and Eldredge 1977. PE is about the pattern of speciation observed in the fossil record, not about taxa other than species.

4. Meyer makes the false claim that genetic algorithms require a “target sequence” to work. Meyer cites two of his own articles as the relevant authority in this matter. However, when one examines these sources, one finds that what is cited in both of these earlier essays is a block of three paragraphs, the content of which is almost identical in the two essays. Meyer bases his denunciation of genetic algorithms as a field upon a superficial examination of two cases. While some genetic algorithm simulations for pedagogy do incorporate a “target sequence”, it is utterly false to say that all genetic algorithms do so. Meyer was in attendance at the NTSE in 1997 when one of us [WRE] brought up a genetic algorithm to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem, which was an example where no “target sequence” was available. Whole fields of evolutionary computation are completely overlooked by Meyer. Two citations relevant to Meyer’s claims are Chellapilla and Fogel (2001) and Stanley and Miikkulainen (2002). (That Meyer overlooks Chelapilla and Fogel 2001 is even more baffling given that Dembski 2002 discussed the work.) Bibliographies for the entirely neglected fields of artificial life and genetic programming are available at these sites:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econec/alife.html
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~wbl/biblio/gp-bibliography.html.
​

A bibliography of genetic algorithms and artificial neural networks is available here.
​

So as we can see, there are many many problems with this particular "peer reviewed" article.

 

[Dunemeister]

You did not read the source of what you quoted.

True 'nuff. Never mind what I said.

 

[McBell]

True 'nuff. Never mind what I said.

Do not get me wrong, though.
IF what rocketman has been claiming were true, I would not have a problem with it.
However, What rocketman is claiming is simply not true.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Anyway, it looks like they've made a lot of progress in the intervening years, and I think that's good for science. I honestly believe that if the ID movement can make a scientific case, then they should do so.

I agree, ID really has no place in the science curriculla of secondary schools until it has established itself as a solid theory. It must stand the test of time like any other good theory. So long as there are scientists willing to work at proving the theory and organizations willing to pay for it, then ID will have the oppertunity to stand up to the test of time. But until it has been established by sound scientific methodology and evidence, or rejected on the same grounds, it has no place in secondary schools.

 

[McBell]

But until it has been established by sound scientific methodology and evidence, or rejected on the same grounds, it has no place in secondary schools.

I am not sure if I agree or not.
If you were to specify that it has no place in science class until it meets said requirements, I agree completely.
However, to say that it does not belong in schools at all..I am not so sure on that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, ID really has no place in the science curriculla of secondary schools until it has established itself as a solid theory. It must stand the test of time like any other good theory. So long as there are scientists willing to work at proving the theory and organizations willing to pay for it, then ID will have the oppertunity to stand up to the test of time. But until it has been established by sound scientific methodology and evidence, or rejected on the same grounds, it has no place in secondary schools.

Which it will never do, since ID has no testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and is therefore not a scientific theory at all, let alone a solid one.

 

[rocketman]

If you truly believe ID has nothing to do with religion .....

I'm not saying that it's non-religious as a whole DP. I'm saying that there are elements of it that are non-religious that might be worth discussing, like the paper I cited.

 

[rocketman]

I read your posts.The text of the bill can be found here. Can you please indicate to me where in it the words "benign" or "legitimate" can be found, or where it prohibits ID, religiosity or pseudoscience? Odd take on it. Here's the relevant clause:

It's not my take. Perhaps you are not familiar with how such legislation works. You have to understand that laws do not work in isolation. You must take this Act in conjunction with existing Acts which lay down the requirements for education standards in that state. You need to know that all of the existing State Board limitations still apply. Taken as a whole therefore what I said is true. You can check the bill again for yourself and see that there are no strikethroughs of existing law. The whole thing is supplemental in nature and tightly controlled. And bravo I say.

Please indicate where the bill requires students to understand the standard models before all else. I provided the link above.

And you also provided the answer: "....and thereafter..." in legal speak and in conjunction with existing laws it says what I said.

I disagree. It's fairly obvious to me that the intent of the bill is to sneak ID into public education as "objective discussion" of evolution. The bill specifically talks about what it's meant to address. Note my bold:
If this bill wasn't created with ID specifically in mind, what do you think that the writers of it did have in mind?

According to your own quote: Evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.....
You have highlighted the word evolution in bold implying that means ID. In this bill what it actually means are any elements of ID (or anything else) that provide critical insight into standard models.

SETI is a very similar process: an ordered-looking signal doesn't automatically imply that it was deliberately sent by some intelligence, but it's a good first step.

Be very careful here my friend. By that logic one could say that " an ordered-looking structure doesn't automatically imply that it was deliberately designed by some intelligence, but it's a good first step..." You keep reinforcing my point over and over. I think Michael Chrichton was on the right track about SETI.

If there isn't one, or can't be one, then it's not science.

The difference is that SETI is not pretending to be a complete theory of anything. It's an element of a methodology, nothing more.

???????????????? Beeeeeeeeeep Uh oh, my double standard alarm just went off.

SETI is looking for something that simply may NOT EVEN BE THERE. It is not looking for the cause of an effect, because it still hasn't found the EFFECT. Science seeks to explain. SETI is exploration not explanation.

The intent of this bill is to undermine science and to introduce religion into the classroom.

And just how on earth are they going to do that within the legal framework the bill provides?

 

[rocketman]

Do not get me wrong, though.
IF what rocketman has been claiming were true, I would not have a problem with it.
However, What rocketman is claiming is simply not true.

Exactly what did I say that wasn't true?

 

[Runlikethewind]

If you were to specify that it has no place in science class until it meets said requirements, I agree completely.

That's basically what I was getting at.

However, to say that it does not belong in schools at all..I am not so sure on that.

I agree, in the proper context studying ID could be a very benificial excersice. It would certainly be a good topic of discussion in a philosophy class or in a class geared toward the history and nature of science. Or even in an advanced, college or university level, science class. It would be a great excersice for graduate students in biology to look at ID so that they know what it is and can address it in an informed and intelligent manner instead of rejecting it out of hand without knowing the first thing about it.

 

[Quiddity]

I agree, in the proper context studying ID could be a very benificial excersice. It would certainly be a good topic of discussion in a philosophy class or in a class geared toward the history and nature of science. Or even in an advanced, college or university level, science class. It would be a great excersice for graduate students in biology to look at ID so that they know what it is and can address it in an informed and intelligent manner instead of rejecting it out of hand without knowing the first thing about it.

If I was a bettin man I can almost assure you that is what happens. Rejecting ID is almost the default answer in schools now. Even though they haven't the slightest idea what it might be. They just know crazy religious people have something to do with it and that's enough to reject it. :cover:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If I was a bettin man I can almost assure you that is what happens. Rejecting ID is almost the default answer in schools now. Even though they haven't the slightest idea what it might be. They just know crazy religious people have something to do with it and that's enough to reject it. :cover:

You simply do not understand the basis of science, or you are gladly embracing ignorance of what science is.

ID cannot be taught in a science class. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. It does not belong in a high school science curriculum, it does not belong in a college science curriculum, it does not belong anywhere that science is discussed. It is not falsifiable, and it assumes the answer before it asks the question. It is driven by a supernatural power that science cannot address.

And yes, as long as people that don't understand what science is, or how it works, continue to insist on equal billing, they (and their "theory") will continue to be rejected out of hand.