Rush Holt's Blog | Talking Points Memo | Intelligent Design: It's Not Even Wrong

What a refreshing statement! This is a very important fight for so many reasons. With clever language and framing, the fundamentalist right and the neoconservatives are sowing doubt about evolution, just as they have on a host of other issues. I am a geologist and have studied the evidence for evolution. It is beyond compelling. There is no doubt amongst anyone who actually knows anything about it. What they are counting on is that most people know very little about it and don't really have the curiousity to know more. They use this approach over and over again with great results (sowing doubt about global warming, the swift boat guys, WMD in Iraq, Terrorist connections in Iraq, its all Nagin and Blanco's fault, etc). Just put the misinformation out there and people who are not paying close enough attention will hear it and say, "yeah that sounds right."

The problem is that the fundamentalists have built billion dollar empires that they do not want to see destroyed so they will go to any length to destroy anyone and anything that threatens them.

I was just thinking about this today. What the pro-science side needs is a think tank or two that is devoted to accurately representing current scienitific thinking in the media. We need attractive, well-spoken, well-prepared individuals who can go on television and speak for the science that supports evolution and other issues clearly and correctly with no other baggage attached. They need to know how to handle all of the arguments these people make and how to turn it back against them. All of hte arguments are flawed, but need rehearsed responses. Right now we get people like the president of the American Atheist Society representing us on television. No matter how much I may agree with that person, 85% of the country will automatically dismiss whatever they say.

If we can find a way to win this battle, we can also prevail on a number of issues where the truth has been cast aside.

Posted by Raindog
September 8, 2005 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink

手机铃声铃声下载免费铃声免费铃声下载免费手机铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声手机铃声下载手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声 MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声飞利浦铃声下载特效铃声搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声铃声图片 MMF铃声下载免费手机图片下载免费手机点歌手机短信手机彩信手机彩铃康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载迪比特手机铃声下载手机和旋铃声三星手机铃声三星手机和弦铃声下载波导手机铃声下载熊猫手机铃声下载免费手机铃声科健手机铃声下载海尔手机铃声下载诺基亚手机铃声下载手机和弦铃声手机铃声图片下载飞利浦手机铃声下载手机自编铃声曲谱小灵通手机铃声下载手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载摩托罗拉手机铃声下载联通CDMA手机铃声下载松下手机铃声下载东信手机铃声下载联想手机铃声下载中兴手机铃声下载大显手机铃声下载首信手机铃声下载三星手机自编铃声三星CDMA手机铃声康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载索尼爱立信手机铃声手机铃声大全三星手机铃声图片下载手机特效铃声手机铃声制作三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声松下手机自编铃声飞利浦手机自编铃声诺基亚手机自编铃声摩托罗拉自编铃声三星手机MP3铃声手机MP3铃声制作软件免费MP3铃声下载摩托罗拉MP3铃声三星MP3铃声下载联通MP3铃声下载中国移动铃声下载中国联通手机铃声下载免费联通手机铃声联通铃声联通用户手机铃声下载联通手机和弦铃声下载联通手机铃声图片下载小灵通铃声免费下载和弦铃声免费下载

免费下载三星铃声诺基亚免费铃声下载联通免费铃声下载免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载免费下载铃声手机铃声免费下载松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载免费手机铃声图片下载免费手机铃声下载网站小灵通手机铃声免费下载诺基亚手机铃声免费下载摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载康佳和弦铃声下载迪比特和弦铃声下载阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载夏新和弦铃声下载西门子和弦铃声诺基亚和弦铃声联通和弦铃声三星铃声下载三星和旋铃声三星T108铃声下载三星手机铃声乐园三星CDMA铃声下载三星免费铃声三星真人铃声诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载怎样下载小灵通铃声真人铃声下载真人真唱手机铃声下载联通用户铃声下载联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载飞利浦630铃声下载三星特效铃声手机特效铃声下载搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声免费短信短信笑话幽默短信经典短信谜语短信短信祝福爆笑短信生日短信爱情短信精彩短信情人节短信短信传情节日短信彩信图片彩信动画彩信相册免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信彩信铃声免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃 12530彩铃小灵通彩铃免费三星手机铃声免费和弦铃声手机图铃下载免费图铃下载待机彩图三星手机待机彩图丰胸铃声

网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略 FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

手机铃声手机铃声手机铃声手机铃声手机铃声

免费手机铃声下载免费手机铃声下载免费手机铃声下载免费手机铃声下载免费手机铃声下载

铃声下载铃声下载铃声下载铃声下载铃声下载

三星手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载

手机铃声铃声下载免费铃声免费铃声下载免费手机铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声手机铃声下载手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声 MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声飞利浦铃声下载特效铃声搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声铃声图片 MMF铃声下载免费手机图片下载免费手机点歌手机短信手机彩信手机彩铃康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载迪比特手机铃声下载手机和旋铃声三星手机铃声三星手机和弦铃声下载波导手机铃声下载熊猫手机铃声下载免费手机铃声科健手机铃声下载海尔手机铃声下载诺基亚手机铃声下载手机和弦铃声手机铃声图片下载飞利浦手机铃声下载手机自编铃声曲谱小灵通手机铃声下载手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载摩托罗拉手机铃声下载联通CDMA手机铃声下载松下手机铃声下载东信手机铃声下载联想手机铃声下载中兴手机铃声下载大显手机铃声下载首信手机铃声下载三星手机自编铃声三星CDMA手机铃声康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载索尼爱立信手机铃声手机铃声大全三星手机铃声图片下载手机特效铃声手机铃声制作三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声松下手机自编铃声飞利浦手机自编铃声诺基亚手机自编铃声摩托罗拉自编铃声三星手机MP3铃声手机MP3铃声制作软件免费MP3铃声下载摩托罗拉MP3铃声三星MP3铃声下载联通MP3铃声下载中国移动铃声下载中国联通手机铃声下载免费联通手机铃声联通铃声联通用户手机铃声下载联通手机和弦铃声下载联通手机铃声图片下载小灵通铃声免费下载和弦铃声免费下载

免费下载三星铃声诺基亚免费铃声下载联通免费铃声下载免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载免费下载铃声手机铃声免费下载松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载免费手机铃声图片下载免费手机铃声下载网站小灵通手机铃声免费下载诺基亚手机铃声免费下载摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载康佳和弦铃声下载迪比特和弦铃声下载阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载夏新和弦铃声下载西门子和弦铃声诺基亚和弦铃声联通和弦铃声三星铃声下载三星和旋铃声三星T108铃声下载三星手机铃声乐园三星CDMA铃声下载三星免费铃声三星真人铃声诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载怎样下载小灵通铃声真人铃声下载真人真唱手机铃声下载联通用户铃声下载联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载飞利浦630铃声下载三星特效铃声手机特效铃声下载搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声免费短信短信笑话幽默短信经典短信谜语短信短信祝福爆笑短信生日短信爱情短信精彩短信情人节短信短信传情节日短信彩信图片彩信动画彩信相册免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信彩信铃声免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃 12530彩铃小灵通彩铃免费三星手机铃声免费和弦铃声手机图铃下载免费图铃下载待机彩图三星手机待机彩图丰胸铃声

网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略 FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

Posted by kapian001 in reply to a comment from Raindog
June 2, 2006 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink

I certainly agree that this 'debate' diverts attention from more serious challenges facing us and would like to find someway to defuse it.

To that end I have been trying to find out at what grade level children are currently being introduced to the theory of evolution. Do you know?

I seriously doubt that the other true scientific theories you mention, "atomic theory, the theory of gravity, ... and the theory of the standard model of particle physics" are taught in very many grade schools. Why is evolution an exception?

Why not propose putting a PG-13 or R rating on teaching at least the more controversial part?

Posted by Emma Zahn
September 8, 2005 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink

I am pretty sure that gravity and atomic theory (remember protons, neutrons and electrons) are taught at about the same grade level.

We should not back down from this fight! It is the fight for truth and ultimately the future of the country!

The fundamentalists are right about one thing: if evolution is true (and it is), then the Old Testament cannot be literally true in its entirety. That brings the whole thing into question. If the Old Testament (or at least big parts of it) is not literally true, then how can you use it to control people and sell your right wing agenda to people who are actually harmed by most of the policies? That is why they fear evolution.

Posted by Raindog in reply to a comment from Emma Zahn
September 8, 2005 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink

Raindog
Why is it the fundies aren't after mathematics? Geometry specificly. In the bible, it twice states that pi = 3. A circle 10 paces across is 30 paces (not 31 and a half or even 31) in diameter. It all gets down to not liking the idea that we evolved from "lower" forms, hell the very dirt of the earth!
dc

Posted by davcbr in reply to a comment from Raindog
September 9, 2005 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink

dc

I guess it is a little harder to sow confusion with math (although my kids might disagree!). As Someone chastised me below - proofs are possible in math but not in science. But you make a great point - that one point is not true so that calls the whole thing into question!

Posted by Raindog in reply to a comment from davcbr
September 9, 2005 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink

The old chestnut about the bible declaring pi to be three, raised by raindog, is a straightforward error. The refs are to the measurement around an ornamented vessel, referred to in 1 Kings 7 and 1 Chron 4.

If the measurements (10 cubits and 30 cubits) referred to a single circle, then there would be a basis for speaking of pi being 3. But they don't. It is about a measure around trunk of the vessel, and across the brim. The vessel is explicitly described as having an ornamented lip folding out like petals on a lily. It is described as a handbreadth in thickness. Which ever way you cut it, these are not measures of a single abstract circle, but two independent measures of a physical object with a brim, thickness, and ornamentation. Purplemath (a site for teaching algebra) looks one way this could occur.

Excellent piece by Rep. Holt, by the way. I'm really impressed! This is not a slam on religion, or the bible. It's a slam on pseudoscience, and that's how it should be.

Posted by sylas in reply to a comment from davcbr
September 9, 2005 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink

Why not propose putting a PG-13 or R rating on teaching at least the more controversial part?

This is nothing more than Rush has said above, but you might think of it this way: in grade school we learn all the time that some things we thought were true are not actually true (even if some of it never sinks in; for example, most people still have an Aristotelian model of physics in their heads.) If schoolchildren were to say, "But I really think that there's a kind of invisible, stretchy glue that holds people to the Earth," we'd gently correct them and give them a more correct explanation. Do you think that evolution should be treated differently simply because the parents of schoolchildren are similarly misinformed? That would do everyone a disservice. Teachers shouldn't have to consult a handbook of "evangelical correctness" in order to decide what to say about a subject.

Posted by RSA in reply to a comment from Emma Zahn
September 8, 2005 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink

You'd teach evolution in grade school the same way you teach other science subjects, by introducing ideas and concepts that underlie the topic.

For example, you might spend some time looking at mammals, and noticing that they are all bilaterally symmetric, all have hearts, all have livers and are pretty much put together the same way.

You'd show how bat's wings are just like people's fingers in their structure, that mice and giraffes have the same number of neck bones, that a chicken wing looks just like a human forearm's ulna and radius. (If you're lucky, a kid in the class would have broken an arm recently.)

You'd look at people, and notice that legs and arms or fingers and toes do different things, but they're made of the same bones.

You'd introduce the idea of extinction, talk about the dinosaurs and different time periods. You'd make clear that the existence of dinosaurs and trilobites is not in doubt, the latter were around much longer ago than the former and that there are older and more recent dinosaur species.

You'd also, in math classes, introduce the ideas of really big numbers and probability. The former would allow you to convey the age of the earth. The latter would lay the groundwork for geological time periods. Both ideas are essential anyway.

You'd talk about horsehoe crabs, and how long they've been around, about how tough cockroaches are.

You might do some inheritance experiments with flowers. Or you might just talk about Mendel's pea plants (if it were me, I wouldn't mention Mendel, or anybody in any science topic, for that matter. I'd just introduce the idea of inheritance and maybe dominance of phenotypes without discussing the details.).

The thing you've gotta get out of your head, Emma, is that there is any controversy or doubt about this topic. The evidence is all around us, and would be part of a science curriculum from early grade school. It's not an adult topic. It's not even a PG topic. It's just the way things are. The way you teach evolution in grade school is to teach basic geology, some stuff about fossils, simply morphology and the idea of inherited traits.

Posted by JayAckroyd in reply to a comment from Emma Zahn
September 8, 2005 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink

The thing you've gotta get out of your head, Emma, is that there is any controversy or doubt about this topic.

Then what is everyone fussing about?

I happen to be one of the few people (according to an article in Slate) that believes in both God and evolution. But I do not presume to know how life began. While it might be interesting to know, it is just not that important to me. And I think the primordial soup theory is just as much a creation myth as Genesis.

I recognize that plants and animals have adapted to survive changes in their environments and that mutations occur and persist. I recognize that there are general rules of genetics. But there is still a big gap between what we can reasonably prove and what many dogmatic evolutionistas believe started it all. The Metaphysics of Evolution by Fred Reed explains it better than I can.

...

Posted by Emma Zahn in reply to a comment from JayAckroyd
September 8, 2005 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink

But there is still a big gap between what we can reasonably prove and what many dogmatic evolutionistas believe started it all.

There is no consensus on what started it all. There's no dogmatic evolutionista who will tell you how it all started.

The absence of an explanation for the first replicator doesn't justify lying about what is well understood, which is what the ID folks do.

Moreover, the first replicator is not what the ID people are talking about. If they were to say that schools should be required to say that there is no accepted scientific explanation for the source of the first form of life, you'd hear no objection. (The most common claim--that it came from elsewhere--makes nobody happy. It begs the question from a scientific point of view, and takes the primacy of earth and man's dominion of it out of the question from the IDers point of [which is why they don't talk about this. It doesn't support the God story to find that life started with a meteorite.] But if there's life on Mars (and I'll give you 10-1 that there is), then that's the explanation for the start of life on earth, unsatisfactory as it is.)

This all illustrates that ID is a religious claim; any story about the first replicator doesn't involve intelligent design. And they certainly don't make the claim that the role of the intelligent designer was the creation of the first replicator.

Then what is everyone fussing about?

Because their plan is working. They're creating a controversy where there is none.

Telling students lies is a bad thing. Lying to people about what is known and not known is also a bad thing.

Worst of all is trying to undermine an entire body of human understanding, which is the heart of the agenda, is a very bad thing.

But, most of all, everyone is fussing about the fact their lying about scientists fussing about how multiple clotting agents came about or how complexity in the biochemistry of the cell arose.

BTW, you can also point out that the cosmologists start to stammer and shuffle their feet when you start asking about the time before the big bang, or what initiated the big bang, or what is outside the universe that we see around us. As far as we're concerned (people that is), that's metaphysics and God's as good an explanation as any (they all suffer from infinite regress. But you might sample Lee Smolin's <i>Life of the Cosmos</i> where he uses evolutonary reasoning for how this universe may have come about.)

That's all legitimate commentary. But it doesn't support anything like the God the IDers want to promote, so they don't make these arguments.

Posted by JayAckroyd in reply to a comment from Emma Zahn
September 9, 2005 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink

There are several facets of evolution that cause it to intrude on areas of faith. One, which you and Emma are discussing, is the question of how life began. The lack of scientific consensus doesn't get around the philosophical overtones of asking what put humans here. As I understand it, this is a rather distinct area from evolution as a description of how living things adapt and produce new traits (sorry if I'm using the wrong language, I'm a physicist). Another intensely philosophical area that comes up in the context of evolution is "what makes something alive?"

These questions are contentious precisely because they touch on Rush's notion that science can be used to guide one's understanding of one's own life (and hence one's moral approach to it). The underlying tone of the fundies' battle against evolution is basically about worldview - more than anything it is an attack on the notion that science can be used to guide one's morality (secular materialism and to some degree humanism). These questions are at the fore because of the intense social change the last 50 years have brought - everything from gender roles to race and class relationships to dress to the primacy of elders. Evolution has become a flashpoint for all of these social questions, and ID is appealing to many people precisely because it's pseudo-science and appears to reconcile modernity, so much of which is obviously science-driven, with a religious worldview.

But even without asking these philosophical questions about what life is, and whether science can tells us how to best live it, evolution as the dynamics of adaption is so profoundly important to biology that it merits being taught fully, and I think it can be reasonably well taught with only ginger exploration of its more philosophical questions - even if that requires straying away from some questions, or saying explicitly: this may conflict with your faith, and it's up to you how to sort it out in your own life. One approach would simply be to talk about things another poster was mentioning: how bats' wings are similar to human fingers, the role of bones, etc., etc. and only at the very end approach the idea that there's a root to the tree of changes.

I'm more of an agnostic than anything, but I have seen my share of evolution dogmatists scoff at the notion that anything but some combination of energy, chance and chemistry put us here, and in doing so have effectively elevated that question well above evolution-as-dynamics.

Posted by electroniceric in reply to a comment from JayAckroyd
September 9, 2005 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink

I think the ID debate points up not only the weakness in science education in America, but the weakness of our education per se, and the ways in which it fails to provide students the logical skills necessary to function in a democracy.

I'm utterly inexpert in any of the relevant scientific fields, but it seems to me that there are two ways in which ID fundamentally distorts the questions it deals with.

First, it raises issues of what gets to count as evidence. The only source of support for ID seems to be negative: it is predicated on the supposed failures of evolutionary theory. ID points to the explanatory gaps in evolution - things like the supposed irreducible complexity of cells - as evidence for design. As far as I know, I don't think there's any question that there are such gaps, places in which the explanatory power of evolutionary theory, at present, seems to fall short (never mind that its reach has extended considerably since Darwin). But to offer these as support for ID is to give these gaps the same role in theory building as positive physical evidence. Explanatory failure can be a defensible reason to reject a theory, but not to accept one. ID would seem to say that, because it is in essence the opposite of evolution in key respects, evidence that evolution is false is evidence that ID is true. If we as a nation can't see that this isn't science, moreover that this isn't good reasoning, then something has gone wrong.

At a deeper level, I suspect that support for ID taps into a sort of hostility to inductive reasoning. At any point in the history of science, you can point to hypotheses that have evidentiary support, but which seem to be unable to explain all the relevant facts. Indeed, it seems reasonable to me to think that, at any point in the history of any hypothesis, there will be some vexing questions left. Theories are established on the principle that the evidence supports them over alternative hypotheses. By denigrating the positive evidence, it seems to me, ID is really a sort of attack on the reliability of induction. To accept ID on the grounds it offers is to say that the physical evidence just isn't good enough. In this, ID offers a sort of bait-and-switch: it claims to be scientific, but judges its rival by non-scientific criteria. It seems to make logical completeness, rather than evidentiary support and explanatory power, the standard for judging a theory. ID has no explanatory gaps, by definition.

Evidentiary support never amounts to deductive certainty; there is always some equivalent of Rep. Holt's angels beating their wings that could be true (that is, explain the same set of observations), Occam's razor be damned. ID seems at a root to be uncomfortable with this, demanding more of evolution than it is reasonable to expect. If so, this is a fearsomely pre-modern agenda in more than just its religious dimensions - it gives primacy of place to philosophical methods of inquiry that are markedly less productive than those of science.

The success of its proponents is troubling not only for the scientific ignorance it seems to reveal, and the remedy is more complex than just shoring up basic science education. We need to teach our children not only the scientific method, through science classes, but something about why the scientific method is reliable, and how it fits within the broader spectrum of human inquiry. This is the task of another kind of class. To have the confidence to dispel the doubts ID types will try to sow, students need to understand the limitations of science - and to understand that we have learned exponentially more about the universe by adopting less exacting standards of certainty that might have satisfied an Aristotle, say. (And damn, they really need to understand that 'theory' has more than one definition.)

It seems to me that the stakes are much higher than just the evolution debate. If the methods of ID are allowed to take hold, I wonder how long it will be before it blossoms into a wholesale attack on science. Many scientists may believe in god, but science itself is thoroughly materialistic; this is surely perceived as a grave threat by those who are behind ID (as a dogmatic materialist, I can't blame anyone for feeling threatened). Nobody has a decent theory of consciousness, but most scientists and philosophers agree - and disagree with many religious thinkers - in the assumption that it can be reduced to material facts about the brain. We haven't connected all the dots that unite the sciences, but if we did, wouldn't materialism be more or less complete? Perhaps it's the relative obscurity of these issues that keeps the Discovery Institute from going after them. But if ID and its proponents win political ground, how long before they start coming for the psychologists and the physicists, too?

Those whose political agenda is thwarted by science will always have recourse to sophistic attacks on the reliability of the available evidence. And when their audience is already hostile to science, it's easy to turn this skepticism about the thing they attack into belief in the alternative they offer. (What about the Germ Theory of Disease? Sure, you have some facts to support your "theory," but can you show me a germ causing me to get the flu? And anyway, my God's Wrath Theory of Disease offers a more satisfying explanation of why I always seem to get sick after I have too much to drink.)

Posted by Devon in reply to a comment from electroniceric
September 9, 2005 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink

Emma
You more or less stated this yourself. Metaphysics. This is not science. And the point being discussed is the teaching of science. I have absolutely no problem (and somewhat share your beliefs) with teaching various philosophies, and indeed I believe THAT should be done in a thorough manner (not just "Christian"). There were "unexplained big gaps" in physics at the start of the last century ( also in other times and today ) and this is what makes science exciting. It did not necessitate the idea of "ID"
Let me put it another way. Do you think that your beliefs and knowledge base are adequate to decide what theories should be taught in economics classes? What we have in this discussion are people who have AVOIDED economics deciding they know what should be taught.
This makes me think of Mao's China.
dc

Posted by davcbr in reply to a comment from Emma Zahn
September 9, 2005 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink

At the level of grade school science, I totally agree with Jay - there is absolutely no controversy about the theory of evolution. To say that there is no controversy about the theory at all, however, is a little too simplistic. We know the answers to our questions are there, we trust the theory because it has made so many correct predictions, but we still don't have all the answers.

I'll give you an example. A major question in evolutionary theory (and one that ID'ers like to bring up a lot) is how speciation occurs from genetic changes. We have precious few examples of specifically tying speciation to genetic changes. This year, in the August 5 issue of Science, a paper came out that specifically tied a genetic change (technically the loss of the motif AATTTT upstream of several genes) to several yeast species' abilities to grow with or without oxygen.

These kinds of fundamental issues in biology are only being addressed now (as the biologists are finally taking the role of theory seriously), but as you can see the actual controversy in the theory of evolution is well removed from the so-called 'controversy' due to the intelligent design movement.

Posted by national security junkie in reply to a comment from JayAckroyd
September 9, 2005 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink

To say that there is no controversy about the theory at all, however, is a little too simplistic.

Naturally, I think this statement is a little too simplisitic. There are certainly open questions--the mechanism of speciation is one of them. (I'm rooting for the role of symbiosis, myself, as per Lynn Margulis.)

There are differences of opinion about the agent upon which natural selection acts, the gene (Dawkins) or the phenotypic individual (Mayr).

Even the question of what constitutes a species is pretty fuzzy. There's no hard and fast definition you can come up with that doesn't have a counter-example.

Teaching about these disagreements are useful pedagogical devices for convey evolutionary concepts. But they are not central issues, and certainly don't imply the existence of any controversy about our understanding of natural selection.

Posted by JayAckroyd in reply to a comment from national security junkie
September 9, 2005 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink

Amen (pun intended)! Bush is playing to his Republican base. He doesn't give a darn about evolution or intelligent design. He is trying to fire up people so the Republicans can keep control of Congress after the 2006 elections. Fair lady Katrina may have a say in this, however

Posted by tlees2
September 8, 2005 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink

A proposed sound bite:
Mathematicians decide what gets taught in math class. Historians decide what gets taught in history class. And scientists should decide what gets taught in science class. Not politicians, and not preachers.

Posted by BobN
September 8, 2005 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink

proposed sound bite:
Mathematicians decide what gets taught in math class. Historians decide what gets taught in history class. And scientists should decide what gets taught in science class. Not politicians, and not preachers.

Right On.

Posted by Raindog in reply to a comment from BobN
September 8, 2005 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

What a great post. I'm a great admirer of you, Rep. Holt. As a scientist myself, I feel there is a great need for more scientists to involve themselves in politics.

Two observations:

I think the anti-science types are able to get a lot of traction because the understanding of what science is and how it is done is so poor in this country. We've allowed the word theory to mean "just a guess" without really fighting back. I've actually had to correct other scientists when they've said they have a theory, when in reality, they have a hypothesis. Ironically, ID could actually be an opportunity to educate people about what is and isn't science, by explaining how ID is not a theory. (I also think we should discuss these things in the context of world and American history classes).

My second observation is that the scientific community and its supporters could win this battle by appealing to Americans' sense of fairness. A lot of the support for "teach the controversy" is the misunderstanding that this is just a scientific dispute of competing theories. We could point out that the ID advocates are trying to get around the normal scientific protocols by skipping experimentation and peer review.

Posted by Unstable Isotope
September 8, 2005 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink

Thank you Mr Holt, and Unstable Isotope.

I would like to add one more point to Unstable Isotope's notes. Mr Holt stated "Sure, evolution is a theory, just as gravitation is a theory." This also is part of why it sounds like a debate. Electrons move from one "orbit" to a higher or lower "orbit" in jumps as energy is absorbed or released. It is not an acceleration process where you can observe a transition. It just "happens" and the electron is now in the other "orbit". This is a physical fact. We have a theory to explain this phenominon. In a similar vein, evolution is a fact. There are all kinds of physical evidence out there demononstrating (like electron orbitals) that it occured. Darwin formulated a hypothesis to explain this. Lamark also had a hypothesis. The evidence supported Darwin, and a theory evolved. Creationists also have a hypothethis. You have well explained why their hypothesis leads nowhere.
dc

Posted by davcbr in reply to a comment from Unstable Isotope
September 9, 2005 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink

What amazes me about Intelligent Design is that is hasn't raised the hackles of the likes of Pat Robertson. Where is the outrage among the fundamentalists? They're being force-fed a manufactured creed that in many respects contradicts their own beliefs.

No, the chattering classes of the right know full well that Intelligent Design is not meant for them. Like a pithy David Brooks column, this noise is meant to divert the *rest* of us with a phony dialog about a phony science.

This actually begs the question, is there an authentic conservative voice who articulates authentic conservative principles? I'm just curious...

--Dan

Posted by dbs
September 8, 2005 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

... and its promoters are traitors.

All right, that's a blunt statement but may be this is the only way to present the argument efficiently. And, even if you are totally correct, I'm afraid, Representative Holt, that the crucial semantic difference between the two usages of the word "theory" in science and everyday life is fairly lost on most Americans. And forget about bringing in Karl Popper's epistemology and its falsification principle.

You need to go for the guts.

Most of those who promote Intelligent Design also think of themselves as the only true and through God-fearing honest Americans, wrapping their cause in the Flag, driven by their crusade to make America in a "Christian nation" and pretty drunk on American exceptionalism and quite literal visions of a City upon a Hill. They pretend to make America a better and stronger place with their idiocies. Why don't decent people who defend proper science call them on their nationalistic head trip and - hit them on their supposed strength? Karl Rove would approve.

It's pretty easy to point the crucial role of science in defending the nation against its enemies, whether during World War II, won by sheer industrial might, culminating with the Manhattan project, or the Cold War, with its rockets, its spy satellites, its long-range bombers and atomic submarines or even the Apollo program. Without its hegemony on sciences and technologies, America would now be a shared colony of the Third Reich and the Empire of the Rising Sun or, no better, a Soviet dominion.

Polluting our education with pseudo-sciences like ID is tantamount to unilateral disarmament and capitulation, serving the country on a platter to China and India, two super-power wannabes and two countries who don't tolerate this type of non-sense in their education. Their students learn their math and their sciences straight and so should ours if we want America to remain safe and protected. There is no such thing as faith-based anti-ballistic defense (*).

So, ok, the argument is pretty crass, melodramatic and border-line xenophobic, but given the public that needs to be targeted - scientifically illiterate but often very patriotic and well meaning middle Americans - it is probably one of the few that will work.

[ (*) Err, well, the Bush WH probably didn't get that memo. ]

Posted by Fanfan
September 8, 2005 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink

I got a chuckle out of 'faith-based ballistic missile defense'! However, I think that condescention doesn't really work in the long run. There are so many people who are not stupid, not evangelicals, or rabid political followers---sort of like the 'silent majority' of the 70s. Appealing to people's willingness to be comprehending, intelligent human beings seems more reasonable. I do agree, with another post, that science needs some really good representatives to do this work.

Posted by wmandmary in reply to a comment from Fanfan
September 8, 2005 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink

Wmandmary,

As I stated in preamble, Rush Holt's refutation of ID is correct and is indeed THE correct refutation of ID. Epistemologically, ID is not and cannot be science because it is not testable, nor falsifiable to use Karl Popper's terms (his thinking is not the be-all end-all of epistemology but a very good place to start). And it is very comforting to see somebody in Congress who gets the point in depth, warts and all. And it would awesome if a vast majority of Americans had such a good grasp of what science is.

But, but, but this is at best a long term goal. I have a BS, a dual MS, a post-graduate and a personal interest for epistemology. I know science because this is pretty much what I do for a living. And still, I know how flimsy my grasp of the latter subject is. So, I know that the scientifically correct approach won't work that well in a shouting match at a local board of education.

The people we need to convince have kids to take care of, a mortgage to pay, a gas tank to fill everyday, long stressful hours at work and 90 % of their neurons on strike when they finally get home at night. The only contact they ever got with science was the dumb-down crap they were served in high-school. I'm not condescending with anyone. I'm not blaming them. It's already a miracle a number of them find the time to engage a bit in public life and attend their local board meetings.

The blame for this situation, for the fact that the average citizen doesn't have the time nor the tools to engage seriously and competently in civic life, doesn't lie with them but much more with the state of education, of public services, of labor relations. The incapacity to preserve the condition of liberal democracy in an ever-more complex world is a societal failure on a grand scale that goes way beyond individual failings. I could go on for hours on that subject.

But we have to take stock of the situation on the ground. We are not in some empyrean democracy. When confronting IDers in public life, it is a good thing to explain the epistemological vacuity of their theories but it's not easy to explain in a few minutes why while doubt is the essence of science, there is no doubt on ID. What the average citizen will take out this type of discussion is that there is a complicated controversy going on, and that, out of a sense of fairness, both points of view should be taught. And that's exactly the result we don't want. So we need sledge-hammer arguments to seal the deal, put the IDers on the defensive by attacking their strength and project the image of forcefulness that most often makes the decision above factual arguments in public life. It must be part of the narrative.

My opinion, on that subject, like on many others is that, liberals must learn again to be muscular name-naming loudmouths, take-no-prisoners FU kick-in-the-groin bruisers. This is what works in the current media and political context. See the latest Democratic hero, Paul Hackett. This guy knows how to kick. We can't take the high road all the time. We need to walk both high and low. We need to reconnect with our inner SOB :)

So, sure, it's unfair and disgraceful to use artillery against a charge of cavalry. But you know what? It works.

Posted by Fanfan in reply to a comment from wmandmary
September 9, 2005 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink

Fanfan:
I'm not sure any of my neurons are firing at all at the moment; however, thank you for your well-stated response. As a newbie, I'm blushingly flattered, even though I may have been used as a rebuttal object lesson.

I guess that I'm lucky to have some family in the sciences, a graduate school education, and a respect for intellectual discipline. I find simply that the IDEA of teaching ID in public schools to be a ludicrous proposal, indeed. I also think that it is worthy of mentioning that my father was a well-respected mininster (Ph.D. from NYU) and that I studied theology at the graduate level. I can find no reasonable argument to blend faith and science in such a blatant political way AT ALL, much less to teach this ridulousness to children. Having been an editor in educational publishing, I think we've gone mad.

Perhaps your solution is best; fight fire with fire sort of thing. Everyone has an inner sob, that I know. I hate to imitate my enemy; I just want to best them.

Posted by wmandmary in reply to a comment from Fanfan
September 9, 2005 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink

Since there are no open threads on this site -- I had a question-

Wasnt Fitzgerald supposed to wind up around Labor day?

Posted by mihirbhatia
September 8, 2005 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink

To start a new thread, you'd want to post a discussion. Pick discuss in MYTPMCafe section of the menu bar to your right.

Discussions are moderated by a universe of trusted users, who are selected by an algorithm.

Posted by JayAckroyd in reply to a comment from mihirbhatia
September 8, 2005 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink

Representative Holt, thank you for an insightful and thought-provoking piece on the Intelligent Design debate. The gravity bit was excellent, and needs to be on the lips of every scientist out there on the front lines of this battle.

I just wish you were more visible on a national level on this issue. Again, thank you!

Posted by winstonboy
September 8, 2005 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink

Can anyone enlighten those of us, few in number though we may be, who have no idea of what ID is?

I've heard that it (I don't know what to call it -- argument? narrative? fantasy?) points to unresolved issues in the Theory of Evolution, but does it have any explanatory power? Is it just "turtles all the way down"? only it's not a turtle?

Posted by Ellen
September 8, 2005 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink

Can anyone enlighten those of us, few in number though we may be, who have no idea of what ID is?

Ellen, here's what I was taught in my religion class in my strict Catholic school many years ago: God started the whole process of evolution in motion. The universe and all that is in it is so wonderfully complicated that it had to have been planned by an intelligent being, and that being is God. But this was not science; it was faith.

We were not taught creationism - that we had to believe that the world was literally created in seven days, or that the earth was 6000 years old, or that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans.

In science class, we were taught evolution. For me there was never a conflict between my faith and the theory of evolution.

Posted by janeboatler in reply to a comment from Ellen
September 8, 2005 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink

ID is a repackaging of creationism in pseudo-scientific garb. Essentially, IDers pretend to find biological features which are "so complex" that they "cannot have been evolved". A typical canard concerns the eye, a rather fancy organ whose genesis was indeed puzzling Darwin himself.

How can something so fancy appears all at once? See! Inconceivable! So there must be something/someone which "designed" eyes (but never use the word "God" 'cause, you know, ID is "scientific").

The answer of course is that it did not appear all at once and that actually many stages of eye morphologies exist in nature today. See

that for instance regarding fish eyes.

So the whole trick is to deliberately ignore the science where it exists to present seemingly unsolvable mysteries to Joe Average, who know close to naught about biology, and from there on conclude to the existence of a "designer" rather than, as in good old theocratic creationism, positing the existence of God, the literal truth of the Bible and hence the falsity of science.

Other tactics are, for instance, to pick some minor unsettled issues, put them out of context and hold them as proof that evolutionists do not even agree among themselves and that, hence, evolution is not an established scientific body.

You could say that ID is an evolution of creationism under the adverse external environmental pressure of scientific knowledge :) Evolved BS.

Posted by Fanfan in reply to a comment from Ellen
September 8, 2005 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink

Ellen,

Even better link on eyes.

Posted by Fanfan in reply to a comment from Ellen
September 8, 2005 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink

ID (wiki's summary) is a construct that attempts to deal with the problems presented by creations science or creationism. Creationism was an attempt to claim that the bible is literally true, scientifically true. The amount of evidence that has accumulated about the age of the earth essentially made that a non-starter in science education. You had to accept ideas without any evidentiary foundation, and lots of evidence in oppostion, like people and dinosaurs co-existing.

The ID folks finesse this problem by accepting the evidence of the age of the earth, but restating the argument from design. This argument, first stated in the 19th century by William Paley someone whose name escapes me says that if you find a watch, it's complexity immediately makes it clear that it was designed by someone. People are complex. Therefore they were designed by someone. That someone could only be God.

This is the full extent of the ID argument. They try to make the argument sound more sophisticated by referring to complex processes in unicellular organisms, and, for some reason, make a big fuss about the complexity of blood clotting proteins.

There are obvious logical problems with the argument. It can't be proven, for one thing. And there is an infinite sequence problem (the argument applies to the designer itself.) This is what Rep Holt means when he says it isn't even a theory. Theories can be tested. ID cannot. It's an appeal to intuition rather than a scientific argument ("It's obvious something so complex had to be designed.")

The real goal, as described in a Wedge document is not to actually advance the idea of intelligent design. It's to cast doubt on the truth of evolution. It's a more sophisticated way of saying "It's only a theory." The goal is to introduce the idea that scientists don't all agree that evolution is well established, and that there is controversy in the scientific community that students should be exposed to.

This is simply false to fact. Evolution is as well established as heliocentrism, and better established than Einstein's theory of gravity. They know this, but don't care. The idea, as outlined in the wedge document, is to force schools to teach students that there is some doubt about this question.

Posted by JayAckroyd in reply to a comment from Ellen
September 8, 2005 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink

I hear, "Evolution is only a theory," a lot too. This can only be stated by folks who are completely ignorant about what a scientific theory is. I also hear "They have never found the missing link between apes and man," frequently. Frankly, I find it hard to even discuss the subject when confronting this level of ignorance in supposedly educated people.

Posted by janeboatler in reply to a comment from JayAckroyd
September 8, 2005 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink

Ellen: For background information on ID two good places to start are www.talkorigins.org and www.pandasthumb.org which is a blog on evolution and anti-evolutionary movements maintained by a group of evolutionary biologists. In a nutshell, ID is the well-refuted argument that biology is too complex to have evolved by natural forces and therefore, there must exist an "intelligent designer" who created life and the natural world.

In response to Rush Holt's excellent article I would propose the following strategy for bringing scientific integrity back into secondary schools. Scientists at the leading universities around the country should start demanding of their admissions offices discount or not credit any high school biology or physics curriculum in which evolution is questioned or not taught. If your high school biology class did not properly teach evolution then you might be spending your freshman year taking "remedial biology" or you might not meet the minimum admissions requirements and lose your spot at Harvard or Duke to a student who received a proper biology education in high school.

This might sound harsh. But harsh measures are called for if we want to improve the scientific literacy in this country. Frankly I think nothing would turn these fundamentalist school boards around faster than to be faced with hundreds of furious parents who are outraged that their precious little Emily or Jacob is a step behind the rest of the country in the race to get into Harvard and Stanford because their school board has caved to the local fundamentalists. Right now most parents really don't care about this debate because they really don't think it matters. Make it actually affect their kids future and this sort of nonsense will stop in a heartbeat.

Posted by texasdiver in reply to a comment from Ellen
September 8, 2005 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink

Scientists at the leading universities around the country should start demanding of their admissions offices discount or not credit any high school biology or physics curriculum in which evolution is questioned or not taught.

To some extent, this is already happening, as can be seen in an article from last week that describes a lawsuit the Association of Christian Schools International (a group of 800 high schools) taken out against the University of California system for not certifying their creationist biology courses. Religious discrimination is the claim.

Posted by RSA in reply to a comment from texasdiver
September 9, 2005 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink

You are absolutely correct that intelligent design is not a theory as it predicts nothing that is testable. We must teach science in grade schools. Children must know how to ask testable questions, test their ideas and learn from their results. The ultimate test of a scientific explanation is that it allows us to control and manipulate our environment. People who can do this are critical to our business , technical and medical communities. If we fail to teach and understand science, America will be at a competitive disadvantage. Worse, if we allow politicians to get away with pitting the political or religious thinking of the day against science then we have set the stage for political/sectarian wars that will diminish and divide all sectors of our society. Are we ready to see scientists, doctors and even business people put in jail because their research, teaching or products threaten the world view of a self appointed messenger of god?

Posted by stevie
September 8, 2005 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink

From what everyone's said as to what ID "is" I suspect the ultimate objection to ID is that even were it true, it wouldn't be, in the scientific sense of the word, "interesting." It doesn't appear to explain anything.

How 'bout we let them teach ID in math class; turn this fight over to Godel. :-)

Posted by Ellen
September 8, 2005 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink

From what everyone's said as to what ID "is" I suspect the ultimate objection to ID is that even were it true, it wouldn't be, in the scientific sense of the word, "interesting." It doesn't appear to explain anything.
How 'bout we let them teach ID in math class; turn this fight over to Godel. :-)

Is this really all you got from those posts? If one could scientifically prove the exitstence of God, you don't think that would be interesting to scientists? People have tried to prove the existence of God for millenia. If one was to find any real physcial evidence that there is a supernatural being or to support divine intervention at any point in the history of the universe they would publish on it and become rich and famous overnight.

Posted by Raindog in reply to a comment from Ellen
September 8, 2005 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink

Is this really all you got from those posts? Raindog

Actually, Raindog, what I've gotten out of the posts is that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with a scientific proof of God.

Did I miss something?

Posted by Ellen in reply to a comment from Raindog
September 9, 2005 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink

"If one could scientifically prove the existence of God, you don't think that would be interesting to scientists?"

This is a well-meaning sentence, but displays many popular culture myths about science that should be debunked.

First, science doesn't "prove" anything. There are proofs in mathematics, but not science. The analgous verbs in science are "suggest", "support", etc. As in "the evidence suggests..." or "the evidence supports..."

The phrase "a scientific proof of the existence of God" is ill-formed. Science is not going to "prove" the existence of God because "God" is not a term that is definable in scientific terms, at least not as it is popularly used. Science is the organized effort to try to understand the physical world, by interacting with the physical world.

Intelligent Design is based on the notion of "irreducible complexity". It posits that some physical structures are so complex that they simply could not have occurred by chance. This is a theology, not a scientific theory. Also, it has always struck me as a sign of the limitation of the imagination of the people espousing it. Furthermore, it seems to posit some kind of threshhold of unlikeliness, let's say p_min, whereby events whose likelihood is at least p_min may happen by chance, but events whose likelihood is less than p_min cannot happen by chance. I find the latter idea very silly, and its advancement tends to indicate a real lack of understanding of the physical world.

Rep. Holt, I applaud your work opposing the ID movement. It is important for people to realize that ID threatens the ability of Americans to perform basic science, and undermines public respect for science. As a working scientist, I find it offensive when a theory that is so utterly elementary, in the sense that it might have been crafted by a 8-year old, is held up as "the other side of the argument" in contrast to evolution. Worse, the United States is becoming a laughingstock in the scientific world. In the long run, this development cannot be good for the US as a whole. The US has gotten by since the late 1940s essentially by being the only major nation whose economy wasn't destroyed by WWII. We have slowly let that advantage erode, to the point where our response to a natural disaster is pathetic in comparison to what happens in 3rd world countries facing the same problems.
We've long gotten by with inferior primary and secondary schools, because at the university level and the postgraduate levels, the opportunities for research in the US have been unparalleled. That advantage is not going to persist if the population insists on undermining science. Leading researchers will no longer feel the need to work in the US, but will rather stay in their home countries. One can already see this happening in China, which systematically sent their best scientists to the US for decades to study, but now is well on its way to reaching the scientific level previously occupied only by the G7/8 nations (US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, and Russia).

Posted by Rick in reply to a comment from Raindog
September 9, 2005 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink

Bush getting elected is proof against "Intelligent Design."

Posted by JimG
September 8, 2005 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink

So is the fact that teeth rot when they come into contact with food. Or maybe it's just that god gave me these teeth as a kind of test of faith....

Posted by Devon in reply to a comment from JimG
September 9, 2005 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink

So is the fact that teeth rot when they come into contact with food. Or maybe it's just that god gave me these teeth as a kind of test of faith....

There are so many examples of awful "design" in nature. I always claim that the most brain-dead example of design is the use of the same system for reproduction and toxic-waste disposal. But that method comes naturally under evolution.

Others have given their own examples of bone-headed design.

The creationists object, of course, that there is no way we can know what God would really do. His foolishness is wiser than our wisdom.

It may be true that we can't tell what God would do. In other words, we can't say that God didn't create us last Thursday with memories of a prior history, and everything around us to match. But if we assume that God is honest, competent, sane, etc. then we can predict certain things, such as ruling out Last Thursdayism.

If we see footprints of someone running across the beach, it means that someone ran across the beach. God didn't create the world with footprints of someone running across the beach.

Likewise, if we see a star explode in a supernova in a neighboring galaxy (ie. Supernova 1987A), and look back in earlier photographs of that galaxy and identify the star that exploded, then there was a star, and it really did explode.

God didn't create the universe with light and neutrinos approaching as if from a supernova, and light approaching as if from a star that vanishes just as the supernova occurs.

I read somewhere (Dawkins, I believe) that one thing that motivated Darwin to become an atheist was the observation of the shear cruelty of nature. A type of wasp might paralyze its victim, keeping it alive but motionless, all prepared to serve as food for the wasp's offspring. The wasp may have deposited its offspring inside the victim, ready to burst out.

A good God would not create such a thing. Mindless natural selection just might.

Posted by Hot Young Lib in reply to a comment from Devon
September 9, 2005 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

Rush, I thoroughly enjoyed your post and I could not agree more.

I believe that research and development are exactly what our government should be investing in because it would be an investment in the future of this country.

Some people are proud of this country because of our history of war, but I am proud of this country because of the history of our cutting edge science achievements. Going to the moon may have been a symbolic gesture but we were there first and though some question the value of such things there is little doubt in my mind that the technologies and scientific research that came out of the space program has had a huge impact on our life style, from chips to lightweight and super strong materials to advances in medicine as well as job creation the benefits are great and varied.

If people wish to pursue spiritualism then that is what the church is for. One problem with this idea of teaching intelligent design is that schools are filled with kids who come from all kinds of backgrounds and religions. It will be sure to offend many of them if the schools start teaching creationism from a born-again view which I assume is what Bush has in mind. Even from that perspective it does not make sense. Bush mixed FEMA in with homeland (I hate that word, it sounds too much like fatherland) security and the results in New Orleans is the child of this mismatched marriage. The idea of mixing religion and science is bound to produce similar results.

But the most important factor is that this is far worse than economic isolationism. Turning our backs to science is not just stupid it is economic suicide. This goes way beyond teaching creationism, which in itself is certainly not the end of the world, as what the born-agains want is to abolish all science altogether. If we let them do this to us we shall quickly fall behind Europe and Asia who are not hampered by the dead weight of religious rigmarole. Coddling the insecure and schizophrenic religious maniacs could be the down-fall of our great country.

Posted by west coaster
September 9, 2005 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink

Dear Rep. Holt,

Your essay is right on. I especially enjoyed your "not even wrong" reference. However, sixty-some percent of poll respondents apparently disagree with us.

You have a better idea how to win elections than I do, obviously. Do you have a suggestion for handling this issue as a party? My own thought was a simple statement:

Science should be taught by highly qualified, well compensated and professional science teachers. Religion should be taught by the Church. Seperately.

Posted by suofrank
September 9, 2005 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink

I agree with the suggestion that college admissions discount biology classes where evolution is not taught. The same should be true for geology classes.

If astronomy is taught with a young-universe perspective, that's got to be grossly discounted, because you can only do that by stopping the minds of the students. Astronomy flies so blatantly in the face of a young universe that one can only teach both by stopping students from thinking and making connections.

I think that every science textbook should have a chapter discussing creationism. The perspective should not be limited to the class at hand. For example, biology and geology texts would mention that astronomers detect objects over ten billion light-years away. In other words, the light we detect was emitted over ten billion years ago.

The creationism discussion should not only refute the scientific claims; it should also point out the incompetence and illogic of creationists, and how creationists go outside science.

Creationists often lack concept of science as a developing body of knowledge. They quote century-and-a-half old statements as if they were state of the art. They claim that scientists like Isaac Newton were creationists -- maybe, maybe not, but so what? Isaac Newton lived long before Darwin. He also didn't know anything about quantum theory.

Creationists come up with really crackpot theories, self-contradictory claims. They assert that the Flood turned over miles of rock to bury fossils deep into the ground, yet at the same time assert that the Flood rapidly spread apart the continents and maintained the overall shapes.

Creationists argue against the notion of man descending from an ancestor common to today's primates, yet treat evolution as if all the atoms of a human suddenly spontaneously came together to form a human.

Creationists have actually argued that the Bible is somehow more valid than science because the Bible hasn't changed in thousands of years, while science has changed. For example, three centuries ago the sun may have been thought to be the center of the universe. Now (and two centuries ago) the sun is known to be one star among billions in our own galaxy, one of many thousands of galaxies in the known universe. How can we trust science when it makes such gargantuan shifts?

Unfortunately, the explanation requires more than a sound-byte. And when you explain, you lose.

Scientists must go on the attack.

Posted by Hot Young Lib
September 9, 2005 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink

The position statement should be something like "At a time when American students require a solid grounding in science, when American students consistently underperform other nations in tests of science knowledge, there is no place in the curriculum for teaching material that is not part of the current body of scientific knowledge."

A debate statement should be something like "We shouldn't teach children that Lincoln was the first president of the United States,either.

Seriously, evolution is part of accepted scientific understanding of how the world works and plays a role in contemporary applications of science in the real world. We shouldn't waste time in our children's schools introducing material based not on fact. From PC revisions of American history to micromanagement of science teaching by amateurs, political squabbles belong outside the classroom"

In response to questions about that survey from reporters:

"I also saw a survey where the NSF found that 25% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the earth. We shouldn't teach that alternative point of view, either. We need to stick to solid, well-accepted scientific principles in our classrooms."

Posted by JayAckroyd
September 9, 2005 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink

Creationism and Intelligent Design are part of a much larger problem. Outside the science and engineering community, there are large groups of people fundamentally oblivious to the twentieth century. (I would like to say that they don't live in the twentieth century, but it's too late for that.)

We have economic ideologues (Environmental Creationists) who attack scientific work in global warming and other environmental issues, and who think that the population can grow indefinitely and continue to consume more and more without running out of resources.

There are fringe academics in the humanities who trash science and denegrate the very notion of objective truth. (Is it really true the truth is but a cultural construct? Or is it merely a cultural construct whether or not truth is but a cultural construct? It may be a cultural construct whether or not its a cultural construct whether or not truth is a but a cultural construct.)

Richard Feynman (in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!") described the frustrating experience he had in participating in a (conference? workshop?) with representatives of other disciplines -- International Relations Lawyer, Jesuit priest, etc. He couldn't even communicate and get through to them, and they weren't listening to each other.

I believe that part of the problem is the desire to teach (or indoctrinate) the college student into the classics. Ancient ideas are promoted at the expense of modern ideas, even to the point of worship. At least one classics advocate said that everything since Plato is mere footnote to Plato -- and Aristotle wrote the most footnotes.

Carl Sagan once expressed anger at having to learn Aristotelian mechanics (theories of the motion of objects) in manditory humanities, at the same time that he was learning quantum theory. It would be very unfortunate if all college students were required to learn Aristotelian mechanics while only a small few volunteers actually learn real physics.

I've at times suggested that if the classics are made manditory for college students, the classics should include "The Feynman Lectures on Physics." More seriously, science instructors should counteract the worship of ancient Greek philosophy.

Posted by Hot Young Lib
September 9, 2005 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink

I went to a school with a very strong classics education, and I think that there are enormous benefits to understanding where one comes from by reading a couple thousand years of what your ancestors have written. But as I think about the ID issue, I wonder if you aren't right.

In a post above, I tried to link ID with a sort of pre-modern bias against inductive reasoning. ID exemplifies a skepticism about evidence, really - by taking the explanatory gaps of present-day evolutionary theory as more compelling than the evidentiary record in its favor. In this sense,it seems to reflect a belief that the kinds of deductive proofs you find in mathematics and logic are somehow more respectable than the kind of inductively-derived knowledge that is the hallmark of scientific inquiry. (There's a step missing here, but I can't quite find it.)

I haven't been able to really draw this idea out clearly, but I have this suspicion that the emergence of ID in the popular imagination has its roots in a pre-modern bias in our education system that favors philosophical over scientific methods. But maybe that's just a reflection of the education that I got....

Posted by Devon in reply to a comment from Hot Young Lib
September 9, 2005 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink

"Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing."

Gregory Clark, Professor of Bioengineering, University of Utah in hearings re ID at the Utah school board.

Posted by windje
September 9, 2005 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink

One of the tests of a scientific controversy is how much of the scientific community is addressing it. ID fails this test since there is no one outside of the US paying any attention to creationism and its offshoots.

If this were a serious challenge to Darwinism it would be reflected in discussions worldwide. It is only discussed by a specific set of variants of Protestantism in the US.

So while scientists in the US are being diverted by theology disguised as science the rest of the world is outstripping us in biomedical research. Note that all the recent developments in cloning and related developments are taking place in the UK, Korea and other countries.

We are on the way to becoming a third world power in science.

Not to get too far off topic, but the same arguments can be made for the Laffer curve and trickle down economics. This is also a US "faith based" invention, not taken seriously by world economists elsewhere.

Posted by rdf
September 9, 2005 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink

At the root of this entire argument is a need and desire to promote a lack of understanding and knowledge so that unscrupulous individuals can manipulate the truth.

Any action that obscures any truth serves the purpose of those who wish to hide truth. The greater the public confusion surrounding any manner of truth, the easier it becomes to manipulate the overall reality of our circumstance. If we review all the various attacks focused at democratic opponents in the last election we see many 'truths' used as attack phrases with an escalation of confusion as the numbers increase. The end result is a hopelesly tangled mass that defies understanding and eliminates informed choice. The chaotic representation of truth is the device used to obscure the facts.

thepeoplechoose

Posted by thepeoplechoose
September 9, 2005 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink

Imagine you are a defendant in a criminal trial. You are innocent. But the prosecution brings in the expert witness from the CSI lab to explain the evidence to the jury. Now imagine he starts his testimony with.. "... an intelligent designer would not conceivably put together a human body that could do that..."
dc

Posted by davcbr
September 9, 2005 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink

These days, it's hard to find a politician to support truly.

I'm proud to say I've been a supporter of yours since before your first election, I'm proud to say I know you, and I'm proud that my state has re-elected you over and over again.

Although we are not the same religiously, I know you've got the future of all American children -- theistic or not -- on your mind and in your heart. It's nice to know they have your support.

You've got mine.

Dave Silverman

Posted by Atheistdave
September 9, 2005 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink

Great post, Rush. You have restored my faith in members of Congress. It's so rare to hear a politician speak out honestly and in an informed manner on ID.

Posted by AndyS
September 9, 2005 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink

I'm so happy to have been directed to this web site. I didn't know we had real people in congress. Thank you I now have a place to send others who are confused about ID and evo.. The web sites noted abouve also are good for science but this is for my religious friensds to see what people think who do in fact think. I hope i said that correctly.

When institutions teach confused ideas all they end up with is confused students who will never learn to think for themselves. First comes Intelligent Design (which isn't). Then comes sacred geometry and a return to using cubits. Thanks for speaking with the voice of reason and please get all the scientific community invoved. ID doesn't justify a debate but something has to be done or those of you who are scientists will be receiving students who do not understand science. Thanks again
JIm R.

Posted by James R in reply to a comment from AndyS
September 9, 2005 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink

ID doesn’t belong in science classes. That argument’s been made well in this thread. Accompanying that argument, however, is the idea that ID doesn’t belong in schools because it’s "religion." I’m not sure about that. Although ID is supported mostly by adherents to a particular version of Christianity, it doesn’t directly teach particular religious doctrines. Moreover, it reaches to many key philosophical questions.

Could a place for ID reasonably be made in a humanities or philosophy class? I think so. Moreover, that would help to present an insistence on teaching evolution as "pro-science" rather than "anti-religion." It would be less about censorship or religious discrimination and more about preserving the fundamental characteristics of a given discipline.

That’s probably harder to do in an elementary school — but it does seem like a reasonable middle ground.

Posted by viviane
September 10, 2005 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink

<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span">We need attractive, well-spoken, well-prepared individuals who can go on television and speak for the science that supports evolution and other issues clearly and correctly with no other baggage attached.</blockquote></span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">It's a pity Carl Sagan isn't still alive. He'd have been great for the job. </span&gt

Posted by rhartong
September 10, 2005 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink

If this is the best science that Rush Holt can muster he should resign his position.

He sits back and ignorantly says that intelligent design is not science when the trojan horse of macroevolution is the actual pseudoscience in the debate.

Holt flippantly states that the intelligent design hyposthesis is not testable when we test things for the presence of design all the time. An example is NASA's SETI program. Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity, which is the underpinning of intelligent design, is falsifiable via scientific rigor.

The evolutionist Kenneth Miller has made a valiant attempt to prove that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex in is article at his website http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Now there are several rebuttals to this article that demonstrate Miller has failed to prove his point. However, the fact remains that Miller the evolutionist must believe that intelligent design (irreducible complexity) is indeed falsifiable or he does not know the scientific method himself.

Posted by SciencePlus
September 12, 2005 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink

Can someone answer this question for me? Imagine two universes and both contain human life; Universe One evolved by naturalistic means in much the same way mainstream science states ours has, and Universe Two was designed and created by an intelligent source in much the same way the proponents of ID state ours was. If the scientific community in both universes were forced to use the same scientific method we use today, which has methodological naturalism as one of its foundational tenets, (ie. scientific enquiry can only use naturalistic explanations for all observable events), then how is it possible for the scientists in Universe Two to ever come up with the correct interpretaion of the evidence? Aren't they bound by the limitations of their own scientific method to produce the same naturalistic theory of Evolution as the scientists in Universe One, regardless of what, in reality, is the truth? This being the case, I put as much store in evolution as a reliable scientific theory, as I do in ID, and that is none.

Posted by Samington in reply to a comment from SciencePlus
February 23, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

Well, that's not quite right - there's an ambiguity in your thought experiment. Is the ID universe indistinguishable from ours because an intelligent designer set it up so that evolution would play out the same as it does in the non-ID universe? Or are you specifying that the ID universe has the same evidence patterns as our universe, except that it was created out of whole cloth by the Designer? So no big bang, no evolution, but also no evidence that is any different than what we see in the non-ID world.

If it's the former, I think the point is trivial. Nobody as far as I know says that science proves that the universe wasn't created by the great Designer - nothing can prove that. Any omnipotent anything can, by definition, create the universe that naturalism posits.

If your point is the second, then the evidence is such that the scientists in the ID world rationally conclude that they live in the non-ID world. In which case, what the designer has designed is a misleading universe. Fossils and radio remnants of the big bang are thrown in for decoration, like rich folks supposedly buy old books by the yard to decorate their apartments (and didn't theologians in the 19th century claim just that - that dinosaur bones were embedded by god in deep geological strata as a test of our faith). To be sure, it's also possible that a God would design the world that way, too. It's just not clear why they would bother.

If that's the case, it seems to me that the scientists still rationally conclude that their world is a certain way, but they are misled. And in that case, evolution is still more reliable than ID.

Posted by Devon in reply to a comment from Samington
February 25, 2006 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink