Looney
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 month ago
in Image of the Day on Notes From Off Center
Of course, we must note that the Goddess of Liberty means different things to different people. To the extent that Liberty is the pursuit of unbridled licentiousness and the extermination of religion, I would be happy to help Sarah mount the head on the wall. There are other aspects of Liberty that are more precious which I don't believe Sarah is a threat to.
1 reply
Drew Tatusko
Extermination of religion is unconstitutional and there is no current sociological theory that would support that this is a trend. Unbridled licentiousness is, of course, a matter of criteria for what that actually means. I look at the statue as a symbol of freedom for immigrants escaping economic and religious persecution that diminished freedom of conscience - the same reasons why this country was founded.
3 months ago
in Smuggling Creationism into Science Class on Notes From Off Center
Of course I don't believe ID is science either, but the Scopes Trial topic is one that I always like to remember:
In 1928, the primary college text for support of evolution was "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom", 1896, by Andrew White, prof of History; president and founder of Cornell. This was long before the discovery of proteins and DNA, so the argument basically boiled down to this: "Evolution is science, because scientists say 'so', and if you don't believe, then you are one of those flat earth fools. So accept it. Or Else!". White, as a history expert, cited Washington Irving's creative version of the flat earth story as genuine history, putting it into my textbooks that I was given not far from where the Scopes Trial was held in Tennessee. As the founder of America's first 'secular' university, White was also in a position to make implied threats real. Whether evolution has a solid scientific basis today will always hit considerable skepticism due to the methods of White and others.
This would, of course, be another reason for disjoining origins speculation from science in the class room: Both sides have an extensive track record of victory at all costs and by any means.
In 1928, the primary college text for support of evolution was "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom", 1896, by Andrew White, prof of History; president and founder of Cornell. This was long before the discovery of proteins and DNA, so the argument basically boiled down to this: "Evolution is science, because scientists say 'so', and if you don't believe, then you are one of those flat earth fools. So accept it. Or Else!". White, as a history expert, cited Washington Irving's creative version of the flat earth story as genuine history, putting it into my textbooks that I was given not far from where the Scopes Trial was held in Tennessee. As the founder of America's first 'secular' university, White was also in a position to make implied threats real. Whether evolution has a solid scientific basis today will always hit considerable skepticism due to the methods of White and others.
This would, of course, be another reason for disjoining origins speculation from science in the class room: Both sides have an extensive track record of victory at all costs and by any means.
2 replies
Drew Tatusko
White founded Cornell with Ezra Cornell who floated the bill.
The first real secular program of study was through Charles Eliot at Harvard. Eliot was the first founder of the secular program of study.
Union College was technically the first non-sectarian college. Johns Hopkins was the first to be founded with a non-sectarian religious purpose. Cornell's curriculum had the openness of a Quaker curriculum even if White (who was a classmate of Gilman who founded JHU) was adamant about a non-dogmatic perspective. Religion was not the issue for White as much as dogmatism. For any of these the influence of the Society of Friends on the curriculum and the trajectory of the early history is palpable.
Are you deriving this from a particular source? I am not sure it is accurate. Suggest you read Veysey's book and Reuben's book for better information on this account. Marsden is also very good here as well as Ringenber and Rudolph.
Again, idea that evolution is an ideological claim rather than a scientific basis for theorizing is an assertion without evidence you continue to make.
The first real secular program of study was through Charles Eliot at Harvard. Eliot was the first founder of the secular program of study.
Union College was technically the first non-sectarian college. Johns Hopkins was the first to be founded with a non-sectarian religious purpose. Cornell's curriculum had the openness of a Quaker curriculum even if White (who was a classmate of Gilman who founded JHU) was adamant about a non-dogmatic perspective. Religion was not the issue for White as much as dogmatism. For any of these the influence of the Society of Friends on the curriculum and the trajectory of the early history is palpable.
Are you deriving this from a particular source? I am not sure it is accurate. Suggest you read Veysey's book and Reuben's book for better information on this account. Marsden is also very good here as well as Ringenber and Rudolph.
Again, idea that evolution is an ideological claim rather than a scientific basis for theorizing is an assertion without evidence you continue to make.
Alan
I don't know what you mean by "origins speculation". Do you mean the origin of life in general, or the origins of species?
I am certianly not sure about pedagological history, but Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species would, even today, be an exemplary text for the teaching of evolution in a college classroom. I would have thought that it would have been used that way back then.
I am certianly not sure about pedagological history, but Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species would, even today, be an exemplary text for the teaching of evolution in a college classroom. I would have thought that it would have been used that way back then.
3 months ago
in Evolution is Theory, Not Doctrine on Notes From Off Center
Yes, the talk origins makes an attempt to explain beginning with "when non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition". Of course this is silly, since Darwin's only achievement was to bundle various ideas together and label them a single, scientific theory of evolution. According to the philosophy of science, a theory should not be multifarious, but deal with exactly one phenomenon at a time and the very first sentence acknowledges that evolution is multifarious. That was my original objection. By utilizing and verifying biological theory number 2,343,444, I have only verified theory number 2,343,444. The "theory of evolution" wasn't utilized and should get exactly zero credit. Or perhaps the points awarded for a correct answer by one student in class get awarded to the student who didn't show up for the test?
1 reply
Drew Tatusko
Whose philosophy of science? Again, "all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history" is a fact. There are numerous theories from paleontology, biology, genetics, etc. that substantiate this. It's still not "doctrine" and it's not an article of faith. Nor is it an ideological claim or something improbable. It is a scientific claim derived through scientific means - many different scientific means which only further substantiates tha claim that it is correct. I am just not sure you have much of a point here. So I shall refer to evolution as a fact from now on. Thanks.
3 months ago
in Evolution is Theory, Not Doctrine on Notes From Off Center
Well, I guess I still find this puzzling. I read one of Dawkins books, but never found a point in the text where he referred to a theory of evolution that had any resemblance to the kind that I use daily: measurable quantities, fixed relations. It was all hand waving. My molecular biology books mention the theory of evolution, but if you go through them page by page you will find stuff from physical chemistry or math, but nothing directly or indirectly related to a theory of evolution.
My kids A'ced California AP Biology, but they can't identify a tangible theory of evolution either. Could you tell me what the measurable quantities are and what the fixed relation is that has been in use since 1859 when it was first derived by Darwin?
Some have claimed that the measurable quantity was "alleles", but these weren't discovered until almost a century after the scientific theory of evolution was established and there are innumerable relationships regarding how alleles change, so that any reference to them would result in hundreds of theories, all of which would be distinct from each other and from the "scientific theory of evolution" which existed at the time of the Scopes Trial.
I haven't disagreed that theories have been verified, only that researchers have verified other theories and then falsely credited a non-existent "theory of evolution". Having worked with researchers for 30 years, I assure you that it takes very little peer pressure to get someone to do something unethical with regard to who gets the credit. Within a few days of my first job, I came across identical documents with completely different author lists. The copied document had UC Berkeley ph.d's for the authors, but the original (which was copied word for word) came from a consulting company.
My kids A'ced California AP Biology, but they can't identify a tangible theory of evolution either. Could you tell me what the measurable quantities are and what the fixed relation is that has been in use since 1859 when it was first derived by Darwin?
Some have claimed that the measurable quantity was "alleles", but these weren't discovered until almost a century after the scientific theory of evolution was established and there are innumerable relationships regarding how alleles change, so that any reference to them would result in hundreds of theories, all of which would be distinct from each other and from the "scientific theory of evolution" which existed at the time of the Scopes Trial.
I haven't disagreed that theories have been verified, only that researchers have verified other theories and then falsely credited a non-existent "theory of evolution". Having worked with researchers for 30 years, I assure you that it takes very little peer pressure to get someone to do something unethical with regard to who gets the credit. Within a few days of my first job, I came across identical documents with completely different author lists. The copied document had UC Berkeley ph.d's for the authors, but the original (which was copied word for word) came from a consulting company.
1 reply
Drew Tatusko
This is sounding very semantic and not all that helpful. But in general we can define the theory of evolution as the following, "all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history". Surely there are different ways to substantiate this which spin off into other theories tied to different mechanisms. However, this definition exists as a fact in the scientific community. That's why the theory of evolution is so foundational.
But to your point we could just call it a fact rather than a theory since that seems to be more accurate anyway. So evolution is a fact not a doctrine. Makes the point even more solid actually. Thanks.
For more on this and where I got that definition, check here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact....
But to your point we could just call it a fact rather than a theory since that seems to be more accurate anyway. So evolution is a fact not a doctrine. Makes the point even more solid actually. Thanks.
For more on this and where I got that definition, check here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact....
3 months ago
in Evolution is Theory, Not Doctrine on Notes From Off Center
Drew, let me explain differently, since I know how science R&D goes.
If you poke around the labs at Berkeley, you will find researchers who have many completely different kinds of measurable quantities and innumerable equations that to relate them which are being tested, discarded, and new ones concocted every day. A biology department probably works with thousands of theories, and each theory is distinct and unique. If I have a success, I say something like "wow! look what theory number 5,232,383.3b succeeded in doing!" If a biologist has a success with theory number 2,485,902.27fq31, he says "wow! look what the theory of evolution succeeded in doing!". If there is credit to be given, why not just give it to the correct theory? Why credit a phantom theory which doesn't even exist?
If you poke around the labs at Berkeley, you will find researchers who have many completely different kinds of measurable quantities and innumerable equations that to relate them which are being tested, discarded, and new ones concocted every day. A biology department probably works with thousands of theories, and each theory is distinct and unique. If I have a success, I say something like "wow! look what theory number 5,232,383.3b succeeded in doing!" If a biologist has a success with theory number 2,485,902.27fq31, he says "wow! look what the theory of evolution succeeded in doing!". If there is credit to be given, why not just give it to the correct theory? Why credit a phantom theory which doesn't even exist?
1 reply
Drew Tatusko
Because it exists. It's not just one mathematical theorem that some mathemetician goes "aha!" with. That theorem need to then withstand scrutiny and external validity. Evoltuon, when tested continues to do it which is why it is so foundational.
Evolution is a synthesis of theories that are related to countervailing sources of evidence. Genetic research continues to bear this out in terms of gene mutations. No you cannot observe transitions that occur over billions of years. You can observe the effects of those transitions with the geological and paleontological record among other sources. You know that scientists do not use the term theory lightly. Gravity is to physicists what evolution is to biologists. We cannot "see" gravity, but can mathematically compute its effects to a sickeningly accurate degree.
The alternatives are that this is some conspiracy to get rid of God (which I have heard before) or that these so-called evolutionary biologists are plain incompetents and are not scientists at all. But this is a baseless assertion so best not to go there. Perhaps you want to tell Francis Collins or Kenneth Brown why this is not science. I am sure they would respond in kind and can actually produce the evidence that substantiates the various hypotheses that construct the theory of evolution. They are academics and so, you can probably locate their email addresses on the web.
I again implore you to dig just a bit deeper here because you really seem to be ignoring the evidence which is the heart of not only doing bad science, but not doing science at all. If any other biologists can explain the obvious here, please feel free.
You are building a very fragile strawman with this and continue to do so in spite of the obvious truth that aspects of evolution are facts and aspects are foundational theories.
Evolution is a synthesis of theories that are related to countervailing sources of evidence. Genetic research continues to bear this out in terms of gene mutations. No you cannot observe transitions that occur over billions of years. You can observe the effects of those transitions with the geological and paleontological record among other sources. You know that scientists do not use the term theory lightly. Gravity is to physicists what evolution is to biologists. We cannot "see" gravity, but can mathematically compute its effects to a sickeningly accurate degree.
The alternatives are that this is some conspiracy to get rid of God (which I have heard before) or that these so-called evolutionary biologists are plain incompetents and are not scientists at all. But this is a baseless assertion so best not to go there. Perhaps you want to tell Francis Collins or Kenneth Brown why this is not science. I am sure they would respond in kind and can actually produce the evidence that substantiates the various hypotheses that construct the theory of evolution. They are academics and so, you can probably locate their email addresses on the web.
I again implore you to dig just a bit deeper here because you really seem to be ignoring the evidence which is the heart of not only doing bad science, but not doing science at all. If any other biologists can explain the obvious here, please feel free.
You are building a very fragile strawman with this and continue to do so in spite of the obvious truth that aspects of evolution are facts and aspects are foundational theories.
3 months ago
in Evolution is Theory, Not Doctrine on Notes From Off Center
Again, being in high tech, all scientific theories must share two characteristics: 1) they must involve measurable quantities and 2) they must involve a fixed, relationship. Even quantum mechanics meets this, since it involves measurable statistics and fixed relationships on how those statistics transform. Evolution will never meet either of the requirements, hence it is not a 'scientific theory', nor will it ever become one.
1 reply
Drew Tatusko
Um. Measurable quantities and a fixed relationship.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/articl...
I can feed you some more as well. I suggest reading Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller as well. Evolution would not be a theory unless it was based on the kind of evidence that you are saying it does not. You might also take a stroll through the Natural History Museums in DC or New York. You can actually see some of that evidence displayed! It's quite amazing.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/articl...
I can feed you some more as well. I suggest reading Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller as well. Evolution would not be a theory unless it was based on the kind of evidence that you are saying it does not. You might also take a stroll through the Natural History Museums in DC or New York. You can actually see some of that evidence displayed! It's quite amazing.
