Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » HOME ED AND ID

HOME ED AND ID

Filed at 5:48 pm under by dcobranchi

My two favorite blogging topics collide in this Inky piece. I’ve got no problem with home educators teaching creationism. It’s not science, but c’est la vie. It doesn’t belong in the g-schools, though. Not unless the people pushing for it would be comfortable with schools pushing Islam, Buddhism, or FSMism.

_____________________________________________
When done with certifications like 70-536 or even the advanced 9A0-045, one can deem himself adequate to learn 1Y0-614.

32 Responses to “HOME ED AND ID”


Comment by
Speedwell
November 1st, 2005
at 10:34 am

Hey, what’s the ruckus? When I was growing up, MY school served spaghetti ALL the time, and I turned out OK!


Comment by
Dave
November 1st, 2005
at 3:53 pm

You’re setting up a false strawman, IMHO. I know, you don’t accept their arguments at face value, they are lying, as you put it.

ID != Biblical Creationism

Daryl seems to have said he’s a theistic evolutionist, and so is Michael Behe, who is one of the leading design proponents. So, where do they disagree? They disagree that you can infer “design” from the biological evidence.

What’s funny is that the evidence at hand is much more supportive of design than evolution for specific biological systems. Until science can explain a naturalistic cause, we have to assume these systems (those that are irreducibly complex) were designed. Science can’t be based on what we hope to be true or what we expect to be true. It has to be based upon the evidence. What are some of those systems? Protein synthesis, vision, blood clotting, baterial flagellum, … Don’t assert that these systems evolved until you have evidence!

To censor the possibility of design, and only accept arguments from the position of naturalism is not science, its totalitarian dogma.

Anyway, definitions are key, and everyone knows that he who controls the definitions wins the debate.

Daryle says science = methodological naturalism.

Others say science is the study of nature, follow the evidence where it may lead. One branch of that is of course methodological naturalism, but to assume that is the only course of scientific inquiry is to me absurd.

So, if you accept Daryl’s definition, then yes, ID is not science, but recognize that MN is for convenience sake. And, recognize that evolution (all of it from goo to you) is assumed to be a fact because the definition of science has been rigged to allow no other possible explanation.

Me thinks 450 scientists on DI’s growing list is sufficient evidence of a controversy and that efforts on the part of Daryl to censor those folks is even more evidence, because as every good debater knows, if you don’t have a case, you resort to strawman arguments and ad-hominem attacks.


Comment by
Daryl
November 1st, 2005
at 4:37 pm

Sorry- you’re wrong on oh so many counts.

1) I’ve never stated my position. Don’t assume.

2) ID is indeed creationism. The first two editions of Pandas and People used the word creationism. In editions 3 and later the word was replaced with ID. Otherwise, identical text.

3) Yes, the DI lies. Read the Wedge document.

4) The definition of science is what is is. It has not been rigged to favor evolution. What? Do you think biology is all of science? It just so happens that ID (and astrology) don’t fit the accepted definition. Too bad for your side.

5) It’s 400 and going down (as people withdraw their names). There are tens of thousands of biologists and in three years they’ve rounded up about 70. I don’t think that is a groundswell of support.

6) I’ll put the science (and predictions) behind evolution up against ID any day of the week. What predictions has ID made? What papers has it led to? None and none.


Comment by
Jeanne
November 1st, 2005
at 5:25 pm

Dave said, Daryl says “science = methodological naturalism.
Others say science is the study of nature, follow the evidence where it may lead. One branch of that is of course methodological naturalism, but to assume that is the only course of scientific inquiry is to me absurd.
So, if you accept Daryl’s definition, then yes, ID is not science, but recognize that MN is for convenience sake. And, recognize that evolution (all of it from goo to you) is assumed to be a fact because the definition of science has been rigged to allow no other possible explanation.” (end of Dave’s comment)

I will absolutely buy some of this this, but not the “for convenience sake” part. It’s not convenience, it’s for the sake of rationality – the human part of us that is mind not spirit.

If scientists begin to define science any other way, they might be shamans or priests or wizards, but they won’t be scientists any more. There are many of us who think they should stick with the whole Reason Thing. I think your use of the loaded word “rigged” is a problem, but nonetheless, I’ll accept the fact that since science is based on methodological naturalism, evolution is the reasoned outcome.

Yep, I’m buying some of this.

Now, if we’re going to talk about logic and evidence, then we’re going to have a bit of a problem with statements like “to assume that (methodological naturalism) is the only course of scientific inquiry is to me absurd.”

That, I ain’t buying.

Here’s this other thing, Dave. What I can’t get is WHY this is so important to some people. I often feel like saying, “O ye of little faith” — if the creation myths in the Bible aren’t literally true, then the Whole Thing is a farce? I want to suggest to these folks, who seem to be so anxious for evolutionists to look beyond “the rational,” to have a little heart for metaphor, squeeze in a little faith in The Word, open up to poetry and infinity and Spirit.

Because trying to interpret the Bible as literal misses so many points — and seems to me to offer ONLY the possibility that these incredible stories are “methodological.” (Hint: This argument should feel familiar.)

The smallness of this approach — and its demand that others succumb to the same smallness or be excluded from righteousness — is something that has broken my heart many times since I was in the seventh grade.

Which is why I don’t want children taught this in schools that are funded by my husband-the-factory-manager’s hard earned tax dollars.

Perhaps if children don’t hear ideas from government authorities that they should limit God’s Word in that way, they will retain Story and Wisdom and Curiosity enough to seek Spiritual Truth.

And perhaps if children don’t hear ideas from government authorities that they should limit science by applying God’s Word in that way, they will Story and Wisdom and Curiosity enough to seek Scientific Truth.


Comment by
Daryl
November 1st, 2005
at 8:14 pm

Jeanne,

Well said. I think I said something similar (though not nearly so eloquently) in a comment a while back. The IDers seem to believe in a small, incompetent God of the (ever-shrinking) gaps. And the thought of all life evolving over aeons just is too big an idea for their tiny faith. Pretty sad.


Comment by
Annette
November 2nd, 2005
at 4:36 pm

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Gen. 1:1

Dr. Compton spoke the following to a group of scientists during a presentation (referring to Genesis 1:1): “For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence–an orderly unfolding universe testifies of the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered: “In the beginning God…”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Every great discovery I ever made, I gambled that the truth was there, and then I acted in faith until I could prove its existence.”
Arthur H. Compton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Beyond the nature that science teaches is the Spirit of God that gives order and meaning and purpose to human life.”
Arthur H. Compton
Winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics

Daryl, there is coming a time, that the idea that God is responsible for creation at all–no matter how long it took—will be scoffed to high heaven in the same spirit you scoff at YEC’ers. Save your pity.


Comment by
Daryl
November 2nd, 2005
at 5:33 pm

Daryl, there is coming a time, that the idea that God is responsible for creation at all–no matter how long it took—will be scoffed to high heaven in the same spirit you scoff at YEC’ers.

And the point is?


Comment by
Annette
November 2nd, 2005
at 7:20 pm

Don’t worry about how small the faith is of YEC’ists. Faith is something that is exercised day by day in the practical matters of life. Whether or not you or I believe millions of years or thousands of years, it doesn’t really have much bearing on our faith in God. A case could be made either way about how much faith it takes to be an evolutionist or a creationist. I assume you consider yourself of greater faith than YE’ers? At any rate, in the end, as we go thru this journey of life our faith will be proven in matters mostly the non-scientific realm. Don’t ya think?


Comment by
Daryl
November 2nd, 2005
at 7:30 pm

A case could be made either way about how much faith it takes to be an evolutionist or a creationist. I assume you consider yourself of greater faith than YE’ers?

If faith is belief in the unseen, I need none nor claim any. I’m a scientist. Faith in science has nothing to do with it.


Comment by
Annette
November 2nd, 2005
at 8:25 pm

Well, I know of a Nobel Prize winner who said differently.

“Every great discovery I ever made, I gambled that the truth was there, and then I acted in faith until I could prove its existence.”
Arthur H. Compton


Comment by
Annette
November 2nd, 2005
at 10:08 pm

I guess I am of the same gambling kind as a Nobel Prize winner who probably would be dubbed as an “Intelligent Design” proponent today. How’s about that?


Comment by
Alex
November 2nd, 2005
at 11:08 pm

This is a great thread – I find it very rare to encounter a discussion at this level where ID supporters, skeptics, and creationists can dialog in an open and respectful manner. Kudos to you all at HE&OS.

I think some of you misunderstood Dave’s comments – he is saying that ID is not equal to creationism, and if you read the definitions at the Discovery Institute, you’ll see that ID does not seek to identify the designer, it merely seeks scientifically valid ways of inferring design. Biblical creationism accepts the literal account of creation in the bible and interprets all evidence in that context. ID makes no such apriori assumption.

Interestingly, science, as per Daryl’s definition, also makes an apriori assumption, that of naturalism.

I don’t want to parse Dave’s comments to strictly, but he makes a good point or two. Especially when he points out that Daryl’s definition of science excludes the logical possibility of design.

This topic does not belong in science classes (yet), but it is one that should be discussed in the g-schools, perhaps in a science, philosophy and religion course, so that students can turn on their baloney detectors when they read claims of “goo to you” (that’s funny!) and other nonsense in their biology texts.


Comment by
Daryl
November 3rd, 2005
at 1:58 am

This topic does not belong in science classes (yet), but it is one that should be discussed in the g-schools, perhaps in a science, philosophy and religion course

I agree. It doesn’t belong in a science class (yet if ever). And if the DI (which lies about their intnetions– just see Kansas for example after example) would quit playing political games about teaching the non-existent “controversy,” scientists would have no trouble with ID. If Behe and Dembski want to waste their time with it, have at it. And maybe 50 or 100 or 500 years from now ID might actually be a scientific theory worthy of mention in science texts. Right now it’s only worth mentioning in the same sentence as phlogiston and astrology.

The ball really is in the DI’s court. Do science and quit doing politics and scientists will leave them alone. Continue on their current path, and we’ll continue to make them look like idiots in court.


Comment by
Trina
November 3rd, 2005
at 4:22 pm

It’s so refreshing to see people debate creationism, science and religion in an intelligent (no, I daresay intellectual), informed, and non-histrionic manner. Please do go on, we bystanders are considering all your points to see which ones we will apply in our own honeschooling contexts.


Comment by
Alex
November 3rd, 2005
at 10:47 pm

When Stephen Meyer published his paper that was supportive or suggestive of ID, he and the editor of the journal that published it were vilified. Regardless of your position on the topic, Meyer’s article is thought provoking and gives pause to those that would assume that Darwinian evolution (or any evolutionary mechansim) can adequately explain all of what we see in life. Its hard for me to see a clear difference between the DI and organizations such as NCSE and ACLU when it comes to this topic.


Comment by
Daryl
November 4th, 2005
at 5:42 am

I call “Bullshit!” Meyer’s paper was a piece of junk that was published in an inappropriate journal by an editor who bent the editorial process to publish it. The editor also has some rather strange ties with a group of YECs. He denies that he’s one of them but he has given talks at their meetings.

The DI and IDers are desperate to publish in referreed journals. This time they were a little too desperate.


Comment by
Annette
November 4th, 2005
at 4:53 pm

Of course, scientists that are creationists often do publish in peer-review journals–just not about the subject of creation.


Comment by
Daryl
November 4th, 2005
at 5:32 pm

Well, just as you wouldn’t expect Answers in Genesis to publish a scientific article, why would you expect a peer-reviewed journal to publish non-scientific material?

Are some scientists creationists? Sure. And they all are Fellows for the DI. 🙂


Comment by
Annette
November 4th, 2005
at 7:04 pm

Daryl,
I decided to go to Discovery and check to see if this scientist was a fellow. I don’t see that he is. These are real scientists doing real scientific work and which are society often benefits from their work. And “Answers in Genesis” Technical journals do publish scientific articles. How could they not when they have access to great minds as they do? Are you sure you have ever read an “Answers in Genesis” technical journal before?
This scientist below is listed with ICR but you can often find many of those same scientists on “Answers in Genesis” articles and website.

icr.or...biosci

icr.or...ermans

Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Biology from Asbury College, a M.S. in Soil Microbiology from the University of Kentucky, a Ph.D. in Microbiology (Microbiology, Limnology, Ecology) from Indiana University, and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the National Institutes of Health, University of Minnesota. Dr. Fliermans is a microbial ecologist with the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. in South Carolina. He has published over sixty publications including papers in Protozoology and the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. Dr. Fliermans is a Legionella bacterium (Legionnaires Disease) expert and has served as an expert witness in many litigations. His lab was the first to isolate the bacterium in the natural environment, and he has twenty publications on Legionella as well. He has been part of grants and contracts totaling over twenty-two million dollars. Some of this work has included using microbes to detect land mines for the U.S. Department of Defense and being program technical director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface” program. Dr. Fliermans has also served as a consultant to over ninety universities, companies, and organizations including Harvard Medical School, EPA, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation.


Comment by
Daryl
November 4th, 2005
at 7:35 pm

I wouldn’t put too much stock in Fliermans’ curriculum vitae. DuPont hasn’t run the Savannah River Plant in at least 15 years. The most recent paper I find with his name on it was 1988.

I said “scientific” article. I didn’t see anything in TJ that qualifies.

Seriously, Annette, no self-respecting scientist would publish anything that would lend credence to the anti-science creationists.


Comment by
Annette
November 4th, 2005
at 8:58 pm

Daryl,
You are such a riot! If you want me to take your critique of these scientists seriously as you have done with this person and Dr. Raymond V. Damadian awhile back, then put your mouth where your self-respecting beliefs are. Make a commitment to never avail yourself of MRI technology to which he invented and holds a patent for. 🙂

Daryl, could it be that Fliermans has a difficult time getting papers published in the peer-review journals you read, because he has come out of the closet? I do think your attitude of these scientists who reject evolution is of the same vein as those who control those particular peer review journals. You see what you want to see. You are dismissing people for what they believe, regardless of what they have accomplished in life and in their scientific field. How about you forget (your prejudice) they are creationists and then judge their work? I bet you aren’t as quick to judge the curriculum vitae of scientists in the peer review journals you read.
🙂 Okay, I wrote a lot–don’t get mad and swear. I’m having fun still. Hope you can too.


Comment by
Daryl
November 4th, 2005
at 9:04 pm

Daryl, could it be that Fliermans has a difficult time getting papers published in the peer-review journals you read, because he has come out of the closet?

Not likely. Scientists don’t generally give a crap about another scientist’s beliefs as long as the science is good. My point was that he’s not exactly active in the scientific community and his CV is 15 years (at least) out of date. That doesn’t exactly make the AiG website MORE credible, does it?

I’ll give up MRI if you give up the flu vaccine. That’s evolution in action.


Comment by
Daryl
November 4th, 2005
at 9:12 pm

Oops– looks like I won’t have to give up MRI as he didn’t invent it.

You don’t have to give up flu vaccines; I won’t tell any other YECs.


Comment by
Annette
November 4th, 2005
at 9:43 pm

LOL–I’ll reply tomorrow. Wikipedia!!!


Comment by
Daryl
November 4th, 2005
at 10:01 pm

Well, you’re free to correct whatever errors you find in there.


Comment by
speedwell
November 5th, 2005
at 3:20 am

Gosh, is this the same Annette who successfully challenged me to put down the vitriolic pen of ideology and play fair? Maybe aliens took over her body. I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.


Comment by
Annette
November 5th, 2005
at 8:27 am

Thanks Speedwell :),
When I want to know something I may go to Wikipedia but I don’t stop there because “Wikipedia is a free, open content, community-built encyclopedia that anyone can edit”.


Comment by
Annette
November 5th, 2005
at 8:35 am

ciber....;id=70
1977
Magnetic resonance imaging invented by Raymond V. Damadian
Magnetic resonance imaging or scanning (MRI ) is a method of looking inside the body without using surgery, harmful dyes or x-rays. The MRI scanner uses magnetism and radio waves to produce clear pictures of the human anatomy. MRI is based on a physics phenomenon discovered in the 1930s, called nuclear magnetic resonance or NMR, in which magnetic fields and radio waves cause atoms to give off tiny radio signals. Felix Bloch, working at Stanford University, and Edward Purcell, from Harvard University, discovered NMR. NMR spectroscopy was then used as means to study the composition of chemical compounds.>>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be honest, I know nothing about this site:
armeni...8.html

Was Inventor of the MRI denied Nobel Because of Creationism Beliefs?
July 16, 2004 00:28:04

War book: Damadian Nobel Prize 7/15/2004 SH BT CL

Was the Inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging not Awarded the Nobel
Prize Because of His Creationism Beliefs?

Jerry Bergman Ph.D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
web.mi...A.html
Raymond Damadian Invented MRI Machine for Scanning Human Body–Enabled Early Detection of Cancer and other Diseases


Comment by
Daryl
November 5th, 2005
at 9:24 am

He had a patent that covered wholebody NMR for the purpose of medical dignosis. There is no mention of imaging in the original patent. I don’t think it’s legitimate to claim that he invented MRI.


Comment by
Annette
November 5th, 2005
at 2:30 pm

In 2004, Damadian won the Benjamin Franklin Medal and Bower award for Business Leadership for his
**development** and commercialization of magnetic resonance imaging.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
smiths...t.html
Prize Fight
Raymond Damadian refuses to take his failure to win a Nobel Prize, for a prototype MRI machine, lying down

**snip**
Lauterbur and Mansfield who made the system medically practicable.
**snip**
In order for Damadian’s technology to become clinically useful, it absolutely had to be improved upon by Lauterbur and Mansfield. And in the continuum from basic physics to early prototype to modern medical imaging, it may be that the Nobel Assembly simply felt more comfortable drawing the line beginning at point B rather than point A.
**snip**
But it is difficult not to at least consider another explanation: that scientists on the assembly or in other positions of influence could not abide Damadian’s staunch support for “creationist science.”

talkor...2.html
They might simply have screwed up.

metane...p?8759
The Nobel Prize in Medicine – Was there a Religious Factor in this Year’s (Non) Selection? by Michael Ruse

**snip**
Although he was the inventor of the first machine that discovers cancers through magnetic resonance imaging, the award went to two other and somewhat subsequent scientists, Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield.
**snip**
But perhaps Dr. Damadian does have reason to feel having been slighted for the wrong reasons. He is not just an inventor, but also a very prominent Christian. And not just a Christian of any bland kind, but a Creation Scientist – one of those people who believes that the Bible, especially including Genesis, is absolutely literally true – six days of creation, Adam and Eve the first humans, universal flood, and all of the rest. It is as least as likely a hypothesis that Damadian was ignored by the Nobel committee because they did not want to award a Prize to an American fundamentalist Christian as that they did not think his work merited the fullest accolade. In the eyes of rational Europeans – and Swedes are nothing if not rational Europeans – it is bad enough that such people exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach their silly ideas. Especially a scientific pedestal from which to preach their silly anti-science ideas.
Is this unfair? One certainly feels a certain sympathy for the Nobel committee. Creation science is wrong and (if taught to young people as the truth) dangerous. It does represent everything against which good science stands. However, even the best scientists believe some very strange things, and if we start judging one area of their work in terms of other beliefs that they have, we could well do more harm than good. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of them all, had some very strange views about the proper interpretation of such Biblical books as Daniel and Revelation, and in respects believed things about the universe – its past and its future – that make today’s Creation Scientists seem comparatively mild. More recently, Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection along with Charles Darwin, became an enthusiast for spiritualism, believing that there are hidden forces controlling every aspect of life. People knew this and were embarrassed by it, but it did not stop them from celebrating and praising Wallace’s great scientific work. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society, and given Britain’s greatest award for achievement, the Order of Merit.

All of my life I have fought for evolution and against Creationism – in writings, on the podium, and in court in 1981 as a witness in Arkansas against a law demanding that Creation Science be taught alongside evolution in the state supported schools. But as one who loves science above all and thinks it the greatest triumph of the human spirit – as one who has no religious beliefs whatsoever – I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to ***deny merit** for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community. >>>>>>>>>>

Note Ruse called the winners “subsequent scientists”.
***I think Michael Ruse has some valid concerns here. Daryl, I sure would like you to come around to Ruse’s way of thinking. I don’t think you would have wanted Damadian to win the Nobel Prize because he is a creationist.


Comment by
Daryl
November 5th, 2005
at 2:48 pm

That’s likely why he didn’t win the Nobel. Development and commercialization don’t get a whole lot of respect in the (academic) scientific community.

I don’t necessarily agree with it. But it’s the truth.


Comment by
Annette
November 5th, 2005
at 6:46 pm

hmmm…not to be difficult but….

Websters Dictionary,
develop: 3. To bring (something latent or hypothetical) into activity or reality.

Damadian DID propose the hypothetical AND he developed it. This was HIS all the way around. The other two scientists basically tweaked his work—and they were rewarded for it.

(snip -also above)
>>In order for Damadian’s technology to become clinically useful, it absolutely had to be improved upon by Lauterbur and Mansfield. And in the continuum from basic physics to early prototype to modern medical imaging, it may be that the Nobel Assembly simply felt more comfortable drawing the line beginning at point B rather than point A. >>>

At any rate, my point isn’t that Damadian should or shouldn’t get the Nobel Prize or even respect for that matter. I’m concerned about intellectual freedom. I feel it is being threatened for certain scientists who believe a certain way and for students in government schools. I don’t want ID or creationism taught. But I don’t see any harm in a school board member saying, “Not everyone agrees evolution has it all wrapped up. Here’s a book you can pick up in the library if you are interested.”
I also don’t see any harm in students doing research on science topics that are of interest to the evolutionist or the creationist. Let students debate it out amongst themselves. They should be taught how to debate as well as not to make things personal. Let the students venture online to “Answers in Genesis”, and “ICR”, and “Talk Origins” and wherever else they want to ask questions and learn from. Let them discover without the freakish-control. It shouldn’t be a legal battle. It shouldn’t be a school board/ps teacher battle. It should be the kids exploring, learning to think for themselves, and just learning about science.
IMHO.