Dumbing it Down

"Standards? What standards?":

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

No, the purpose of education is to educate. Not all "ideas" are equal, and science is not a popularity contest in which everyone gets a vote.

The main problem with teaching intelligent design in science class is that intelligent design is not science.  How can I be so sure?  For starters, intelligent design still hasn't proposed a hypothesis that can be proven false -- a basic requirement of a scientific theory -- much less proposed a test that might be used to falsify that theory.

I've written on this before.  See also Jason Rosenhouse's careful arguments in the wake of the Kansas school board hearings; they read, in part:

What are the chief claims of Intelligent Design Theory? It can't simply be that there is some higher intelligence responsible for the presence and structure of life on Earth, for that idea is entirely consistent with evolution. If that is all Diepenbrock has in mind then he has not presented an alternative to evolution.

Surely he has in mind the stronger claim that there are certain biological structures that are so complex that it is simply impossible to attribute them to nonintelligent causes. That being the case, there simply must be a higher intelligence that is responsible for them. That claim has been defended by people like Michael Behe and William Dembski. Is that the alternative to evolution Diepnbrock wants presented?

If it is, then the reason for excluding it is very simple: the claim is false. I'm sure Diepenbrock, and all sensible people, agree that we should not be presenting false information in science classes.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

3legcat: Anything as exciting as this should be explored by kids

Let's move that theory over into sex education classes, where it belongs.

[cleek]

3legcat, re: Andrew Bird. and i in turn thank a sampler CD from an issue of Paste magazine that mysteriously showed up in my mailbox last month. decent magazine, too.

[von]

You ought to run this argument by the many scientists who seem to feel that they have, in fact, PROVEN FALSE various assertions made by ID theorists. (I.e., there are any number of articles, available on the Internet, purporting to disprove Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity, or Bill Dembski's mathematical theorems, etc., etc.)

Good point, Functional. My criticism was overly broad.

[bernard Yomtov]

when ID claims that evolution is incapable of creating such structures. If evolutionists respond and DISPROVE such allegations, then so much the worse for ID. And -- THIS IS MY WHOLE POINT -- it would be IMPOSSIBLE for evolutionists to do that if ID never made falsifiable claims.

But these are not claims of ID. They are claims of "not-evolution." And they never end until biology has determined how everything on earth evolved.

The critical question, it seems to me, is what testable claim is ID prepared to make that, if refuted, would cause its proponents to concede it is simply wrong. I don't think there is any such claim.

[Donald Johnson]

There is one area in or on the boundary of evolutionary biology where I have some sympathy with the creationists. Sympathy, mind you--I don't agree with them. That's the origin of life question, where it's my impression that the popular level treatments of the subject give the innocent layperson the idea that the problem is nearly solved, while the real experts tear each other's theories apart and there are huge gaps and problems with all of them. (I'm not a creationist and am rooting for the Cairns-Smith clay theory, which I think is kinda cool, but it's considered a long-shot.) I suppose an ID advocate could predict that several decades from now we'll be no closer to understanding the origin of life than we are now.

In fact, maybe that's how ID should be presented--as a claim that there are some problems that science (if science is defined as a purely naturalistic enterprise) will never be able to solve. Some philosophers claim that consciousness is in that category (while others vehemently disagree). It seems like a respectable intellectual position to take so long as God isn't mentioned. One doesn't even have to claim that God or some superhuman power is the solution--one could simply argue that the human mind is not up to the challenge of solving certain problems.

I don't agree with it (well, I have some sympathy with claims that consciousness can't be explained, but won't pretend I can argue the case), but it doesn't seem silly to take such a position.

Getting back to what should be taught in classes, if biology teachers do teach origin of life theories, they should include all the criticisms made by other mainstream non-creationist scientists. And the result might turn out to be a roomful of creationists.

[Donald Johnson]

That last sentence was probably unnecessarily provocative. Fortunately, the thread is probably dying anyway.

[3legcat]

eh, i'm still reading and learning

[3legcat]

statements like these :

ID is not science
It is stupid to teach ID alongside evolution.
ID is endorsed by a small number of moonbat professors
Teachers don't have time to waste on false science

will surely backfire.

school boards, curriculum coordinators, and text book review boards will certainly find this argument from the discovery institute more compelling:

As a general approach, Discovery Institute favors teaching students more about evolution, not less. We think students deserve to know not only about the strengths of modern evolutionary theory, but also about some of the theory's weaknesses and unresolved issues. In other words, students should be taught that evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, continues to be open to analysis and critical scrutiny. According to opinion polls, this approach is favored by the overwhelming majority of the American public, and it has also been endorsed by the U.S. Congress in report language attached to the No Child Left Behind Act Conference Report.

personally i favor an education that does not "protect" school kids from the war of ideas, protecting kids from the forbidden topic gives more credibility to the idea than it has earned.

Anarch nicely described ID's three prong approach above:

1 evidence of design (being falsified by miller and others as Functional has been arguing)

2 highlighting the lack of evidence for random mutation alone to account for complex structures, like wings on flies, i.e. why would selection favor half of a non functioning proto wing? (again plausible assertions are being made here as well: scaffolding, disappearing redundancy, dual use and others)

3. i see design, there must be a designer, this is the part we all react to of course and is not science and has no place in the science classroom, so the ID movement never pushes it to schools.

to my ears #2 is what IDers do best, they raise provocative and challenging questions, exposing the limits of our understanding and that is a good thing. they certainly have reinvigorated the age old debate, again a good thing.

by the way the discovery institute has compiled a list of 400 professors who are serious dissenters of Darwinism including those from all you favorite new england schools. is your old professor on the list?

personally i trust science teachers enough to handle these topics well. but i am certain that knee jerk reactions of "ID is for zealots and liars" isn't gonna play well in Peoria and it certainly isn't going to get a Democrat into the Whitehouse

[felixrayman]

by the way the discovery institute has compiled a list of 400 professors who are serious dissenters of Darwinism

Why one should take an aerospace engineer or an atmospheric researcher from "Geronimo Creek Observatory" as authorities to whom to appeal on the merits of contemporary evolutionary theory is, apparently left as an exercise for the reader. When one approaches ideologically motivated organizations without a skeptical eye, 3legcat, one often comes away looking foolish.

[Donald Johnson]

I agree completely, 3legcat, but unfortunately the debate is part of the culture war now (most, but not all of the blame for that goes to the ID movement) and therefore there can be no weak-kneed compromise such as you suggest, even if kids would gain a deeper understanding of evolutionary theory, the history of science, and of philosophical issues which might otherwise put them to sleep and so forth. That there might be an interesting and very complex history behind why current scientific practice separates science from religion is something that should not be allowed to enter their innocent little minds. Heaven (or someone) forbid that anything interdisciplinary ever happen in a classroom.

Incidentally, here's a relevant little tidbit from the history of science--Pasteur's motivation for trying to disprove spontaneous generation in the laboratory was his belief that life can only come from life. In the mid 1800's (though not through most of history), belief in spontaneous generation was linked to atheism. Pasteur thought that if life could come from self-organizing matter then the concept of God was useless, or so he said in a lecture to the Sorbonne in 1864. (I'm taking all this from Iris Fry's book "The Emergence of Life on Earth"). So one could say that Pasteur did make a prediction from his version of intelligent design theory--if only God can bring life from dead matter, you don't expect bacteria to spontaneously appear in beef broth or whatever it was he studied.

[3legcat]

felix

one often comes away looking foolish

good grief,

i think there might be ten or so more you can pick out for having unrelated degrees on top of those two, damn them for not having an even 400.

cheap answer, first year law school trick.

perhaps you did not read my earlier posts, i am extremely skeptical of the discovery institute, in fact that is entirely my point, they are being allowed to shape the debate, and opponents in the school board debates need a better articulated and easily understood response. certainly better than "aerospace engineer or an atmospheric researcher from "Geronimo Creek Observatory" have no say in the matter.

[lschander]

3legcat - The statement the discovery institute got their dissenters to sign is very well written from a political viewpoint. As a scientific dissent from modern evolutionary theory it is nonsense.

The 400 may well be all creationists for all I know. They may well all be intelligent design fans. That poll however cannot tell us what they think as most if not all evolutionary biologists would sign it on its merits ( but refuse to do so because it is a fairly transparent attempt to provide a creationist talking point).

It would be like asking a physics prof if s/he thought Newtons theories were sufficient, and when they say 'no' claiming that as a reason to throw out Newtonian physics in toto.

None of my old teachers are on the list, but (OT and shameless plug)Kim Sterelny, my old old philosophy lecturer just got given the Lakatos award for his work on the evolution of cognition. Unless he has been struck by lightening or brain tumours in the last ten years I dont think his answer is anything that could be confused with "goddidit".

Sorry about the clumsiness of the following (must learn linky things...)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0631188878/qid%3D1100668247/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fka%5Fb%5F2%5F1/002-6860039-0445633

[Slartibartfast]

To befair, 3legcat, that isn't a list of 400 professors, it's a list of 400 people with Ph.D behind their name, some (many, even, I'd guess about half) of which are professors of any level. Appeal to authority works much better, though, when the people whose opinions are being used for said appeal are actual authorities. A Ph.D isn't immunization against being wrong. A Ph.D in an unrelated discipline isn't entirely worthless, but it's not exactly the authority you want.

I'd say something to the effect that I'm skeptical of the notion that the TOE has fully explained the development of life on the planet, but I'd need to caveat that statement with:

1) I'm unaware of a better scientific explanation, and

2) TOE is sufficiently complicated in the details that I simply lack the education to fully understand what it does claim to explain.

[lschander]

Oh and I realise you do not agree with the DI at all, if that was not clear.

They are very sneeksy , much moreso than scientists. I am not sure how to stop them either.

[3legcat]

lschander,

The statement the discovery institute got their dissenters to sign is very well written from a political viewpoint. As a scientific dissent from modern evolutionary theory it is nonsense

of course it proves nothing, they have created this list in direct response to one of the criticisms lobed at them before the Ohio State School Board, that only a few loony scientists have a major problem with evolution as the sole explanation for all origin of life.

frankly i just threw list that in to my post because it is funny, not an endorsement of anything

[felixrayman]

i think there might be ten or so more you can pick out for having unrelated degrees on top of those two

Would you like to put money down on whether I can pick more than ten more? Heck there's probably 10 computer scientists on there. Materials science? Metallurgy? Oceanography? The Space Institute? Fiber Science? Nuclear Engineering? Mechanical Engineering? Electrical Engineering? Instrumentation and Automatic Control? University Level Science Education? Affiliate Professor of Earth and Space Sciences? Anthropology?

Heck I know some math, some computer science, am I now eminently qualified to comment on evolutionary science? Cause if I am, where do I sign to say that ID is a crock of s**t? And would that make you be more likely to change your mind on the matter? Or does that only work if I put the PhD in back of my name?

So...if you're the betting type...

[3legcat]

wow how did this happen?

maybe a brief recap will help

me:
i think ID is a crock of sh*t

DI's list proves nothing

i respect IDer's ability to shine a light on what is yet to be learned, but i disagree with all of their conclusions.

we (you and me, felix) need a better response than my scientists are better than your scientists.

the discovery institute is doing a (scary) good job of moving the debate their way despite being completely wrong as a handicap.

[Larv]

3legcat,

of course it proves nothing, they have created this list in direct response to one of the criticisms lobed at them before the Ohio State School Board, that only a few loony scientists have a major problem with evolution as the sole explanation for all origin of life.

While this list with this specific wording seems to be new, the "list of scientists" tactic is an old anti-evolution standard. In response, the National Center for Science Education created Project Steve.

[hilzoy]

I have a Ph.D., but no one asked me. She sighed.

[Slartibartfast]

I have a Ph.D., but no one asked me. She sighed.

I'm sure your name would occupy a second list, offered alongside the first, in the name of scientific impartiality.

Assuming certain facts, naturally.

[Slartibartfast]

Ah, the current list of Steves.

[Tad Brennan]

hilzoy--

you know, I have a feeling that if you were willing to sign onto the Creationists' list, they would even be willing to overlook the subject of your PhD, and just refer to you as a scientist. Look, another Scientist who doubts evolution! And she has a PhD, too!

In fact, now that they have started an in-house journal, in order to debase the currency of refereed publication, how soon can it be before they start their own degree-mill as well?

[Tad Brennan]

idioms jumbled--"how *long* can it be" is what I should have written.

[CharleyCarp]

Just to prove that world's collide, I attach this opinion (pdf) from the Dover PA ID case involving reporters privilege. It's about RP, not ID.

[felixrayman]

DI's list proves nothing

Why bring it up then? And why try and defend the list after it was criticized, without EVEN LOOKING AT IT? Cause if you looked at it, you wouldn't claim, "i think there might be ten or so more you can pick out for having unrelated degrees on top of those two". And if you disagree with that, hey, the betting window is still open.

we (you and me, felix) need a better response than my scientists are better than your scientists.

No, I think we have all the tools we need now. A scientific process, peer-reviewed journals, healthy skepticism, etc. You aren't going to find truth in a committee meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.

[3legcat]

Why bring it up then?

i prefaced that list with "by the way" or in other words, as an aside, here is a curiosity, do you know any of these people? i thought it was obvious, i wish i had been more clear.

why try and defend the list after it was criticized

i knee jerked as i often do when someone calls Me a "fool" before they have learned how big a fool i really am, it is a weakness of mine, and for that i apologize.

the betting window is still open.

"you wanna bet?"
gosh, now i'm all misty for a cold Moxie and a game of wiffle ball.

hey, it turns out i do know how to count! *puts shoes back on*

biology - 135
chemists - 70
physicists - 50
mathematics - 19
computer science - 12
veterinarians - 6
psychology - 6
philosophy - 4
dead - 1
others (mostly engineers, pharmacists, medical doctors, and a few "unusual" degrees) - 102

total 405

clearly, a lot more than a dozen unrelated specialties, i guess you won that bet, dang.

You aren't going to find truth in a committee meeting of the Kansas Board of Education

vexing that they never seem interested in what us smart guys have to say, huh?

it is strange though, all of the school board members i know seem to have the best interest of the kid's education at heart, but then, i have never been to kansas. so perhaps you are right, they must be only interested in the advancement of ignorance.

[Tad Brennan]

Yglesias has a post up on TAPPED that is interesting and provocative. (Side note--that kid is *really* impressive. I just worry that he's going to get sucked into the punditry game and never really master a field properly, which would make him far less useful to the commonwealth in the long run. Anyone want to start a "Send Matt to Grad School" fund?)

He claims that the evolution issue is just not something liberals should worry about:

"[N]othing whatsoever of practical importance hinges on whether or not life on earth originated as a result of intelligent design. The theory is exceedingly silly pseudo-science, but it doesn't actually threaten anything. There is, moreoever, no reason to think it's especially crucial for the average citizen to have an accurate grasp of state-of-the-art biological theory. Most people don't understand quantum mechanics, general relativity, or any number of other scientific and technical topics and life goes on just fine....If you must worry about social conservatives, worry about women's reproductive rights and basic equality for gays and lesbians. There's just no there there in the evolution issue."

Lotta truth in all that. Still, I can't quite share his equanimity. Why?

I think it's because the evolution issue is part of a pattern of denying science, evidence, expertise, and so on--the global warming scam, Frist's lies about AIDS and Schiavo, the up-is-downism on economic policy and SS, and so on. The trampling on scientific panels. In a way, it's a continuation of Big Tobacco's long-running use of the Big Lie about cancer.

Add to that a sort of proto-fascist romance with irrational thought that privileges irrationality ("my gut" "my judgement", etc.) over rational reflection, experience, and articulate debate. (We have seen this before; pointy-headed intellectuals are despised as effete, unmanly, and Jewish; real men, men of the people and men of the soil, are men of impulse and action.) We are merely supposed to have faith in our strong leaders, and not ask questions--expressions of doubt are met with accusations of treason.

And these issues *do* have concrete consequences, in exactly the areas Yglesias is talking about. So I suppose that I care about evolution in part because it is part of this pattern.

Still, Yglesias might counter, fighting by pattern is not wise. If you think the lies about evolution are part of a patten of lies about WMD, or birth-control, or the environment, then fight *those* lies, and ignore the ones that have no comparable consequences.

Is MY right? Is it really of no consequence in itself?

[Phil]

He's certainly wrong to the extent that a great deal -- a great, great deal -- of matters of practical importance hinge on whether the public schools are going to be required to teach children (future participants in our democracy, one hopes) the state of the art in each subject they may encounter in school, or whether we're going to dumb down and alter and accommodate until nobody is learning anything anymore.

Otherwise, what Tad said.

[Slartibartfast]

I dunno, on the one hand, Matt's saying scientific inquiry doesn't matter. On the other hand...now I forgot what I was going to say.

[Slartibartfast]

That last was kidding, BTW: I recognize that most kids never get the idea of scientific inquiry to begin with, and the ones that do get it and do care can probably see the holes for themselves. Still, disheartening to hear that it's all so trivial.

[Tad Brennan]

Looks like Krugman is thinking along these same lines.

I.e.--the current scam of promoting creationism is just part and parcel of the broader, anti-science, anti-econ Big Lie machine.

I'm not sure Krugman does any better than I did in answering MY's challenge, which is: don't just show me that creationism/ID is part of a pattern along with other worrisome things, show me why it is worrisome in itself. Otherwise, it is more a diversion than an appropriate target.

[felixrayman]

hey, it turns out i do know how to count!

Impressive. Thanks for the totals. I really hope you did that at work. ;)

it is strange though, all of the school board members i know seem to have the best interest of the kid's education at heart

Do you think school boards ever have a conflict with what they believe "children's" best interest is, and "the truth"?

[3legcat]

I really hope you did that at work. ;)
thanks, i did and i really needed a good laugh, so thanks for that. ;)

[3legcat]

worry about women's reproductive rights and basic equality for gays and lesbians. There's just no there there in the evolution issue."

i think it matters, it is the box spring of the bed we make, it is the one of the really Big ideas in the war of ideas, but more to the point it does determine (or at least color) the debate of abortion, stem cells and gay rights. at some point in anyone's life (often high school) they must define for themselves the beginning of human life. is it the magic of conception or organized electrical current in nervous tissue? what is the purpose of life? meme replication or stewardship of the life granted by the creator (or alien designer).

social conservatives have been fighting this battle on every idea and sticking to the never give an inch war plan for some time now. who would have thought it would have such big payoffs so soon? yet here we are though, we elected an inarticulate failed businessman to be president on a slim majority by voters who voted against their own best interests and now social conservatives get to interpret the constitution for all of us.

[Tad Brennan]

surprisingly sharp editorial on the ID scam from a small Michigan newspaper.

[3legcat]

Rick Santorum on NPR discussing ID and Roberts

parroting the Discovery Institute

[3legcat]

science fridays November 8, 2002 ·

Stephen Meyer
* Discovery Institute
Kenneth Miller
* Professor, Biology
Lawrence Krauss
* Professor of Physics
Deborah Owens Fink
* Elected Member, Ohio State Board of Education

science fridays November 19, 2004

Kenneth Miller
Professor of biology

Charles Haynes
First Amendment Center.

David K. DeWolf
attorney, professor of law

Nick Matkze
National Center for Science Education

Jeff and Carol Brown
board members (both recently resigned), Dover Area School District in Dover, Penn.

[Anarch]

Functional: And if ID is [PROVEN] false, then it is absurd to claim that ID is incapable of being proven false. This is one of the most elementary principles of logic.

Yes, you've now uttered a tautology. You've also completely obliterated whatever substantive point you were trying to make; congratulations?

There now.

I don't think that means what you think it means, at least in this context.