Re: [asa] Kettlewell had design problems

Can I just add that as someone who has been accused by Michael Roberts of
being a "sanctimonious prig" that Michael has done a pretty good job of
fitting that very same description himself.

Pots and kettles and the colour black come very much to mind.

Iain

On Dec 15, 2007 11:11 PM, James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> You may rightly accuse some of falsely accusing Kettlewell of fraud, but
> you are equally wrong in putting too much stock in his experiment. Do read
> a little of background on his work. See
> http://bsgran.people.wm.edu/melanism.pdf in the peer reviewed journals.
> There were some strong design flaws and I suspect his pictures should have
> indicated clearer that they were of pinned moths. His point was to show how
> they blended in with the bark and that was valid but as I understand they
> were not labeled as pinned moths on the bark. [however this is not my area
> and I will not go more into it unless I first read the article and talk to
> an entomology friend.
>
> Unless we actually read the article or look or know something about the
> professional opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of his work, we end up
> being critical or defensive of his work because we like or hate ID and some
> in that camp that have highlighted this as deceptive.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Michael Roberts
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:44 AM
> To: Donald F Calbreath; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
> against harmonizing?
>
>
>
> Donald
>
>
>
> Below is your statement when you accused the late Dr Bernard Kettlewell
> of
>
> fraud.
>
>
>
> I asked you to substantiate your accusation yet you have ignored my
> request.
>
>
>
> If you are unable to show that Kettlewell committed fraud then retract
> your
>
> accusation.
>
>
>
> If you are a Christian then I am sure you will, as no Christian would
> make
>
> such accusations without good reason, as to do so is to break several
>
> commandments .
>
>
>
> So I am waiting either for your retraction that your accusation has no
>
> foundation whatsoever and that you should not have made it in the first
>
> place, or to make a case for your accusation.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:15 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
>
> against harmonizing?
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting ... the last I heard, Jonathan Wells as a Moonie, not a
>
> "born-again evangelical". The peppered-moth fraud was a fraud,
> perpetrated
>
> by the person who published the research in the first place.
>
>
>
> Don
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Michael Roberts [michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:13 AM
>
> To: Donald F Calbreath; asa@calvin.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
>
> against harmonizing?
>
>
>
> Why should one "teach the controversy" when the "controversy" was
> invented
>
> by the ID guys and based on inaccurate arguments like the peppered Moth
>
> fraud put forward by that born-again evangelical Wells :) :)
>
>
>
> Any teacher "teaching the controversy" should be sacked
>
>
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:19 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
>
> against harmonizing?
>
>
>
>
>
> Sounds like what the ID folks have been saying for years - "teach the
>
> controversy".
>
>
>
> Don Calbreath
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf
> Of
>
> Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:04 PM
>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Subject: RE: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
>
> against harmonizing?
>
>
>
> The confusing thing is that for secular humanists and atheists, "no
>
> religion" is their religion. Therefore, when they ignore all religion
> and
>
> claim to be not promoting religion, that is just the consequence of their
>
> belief system. Therefore, they think as long as they make no reference
> to
>
> God at all, they are not being religious. But they make no reference to
> God
>
> because they don't believe in God, then get offended when people do want
> to
>
> talk about God. Therefore, they can be the intolerant ones at times.
>
>
>
> I think the perfect solution is to teach evolution in the science
> classroom,
>
> then talk specifically about popular criticisms of evolution. That can
> only
>
> result in good as it makes people on all sides think. It seems like the
>
> hard-core evolutionists want to shield students from any evolutionary
>
> criticism. I can sense their fear. They would be more noble to address
>
> criticism, as Darwin constantly did.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:42 PM
>
> To: Dehler, Bernie
>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
>
> against harmonizing?
>
>
>
> I should make it clear that the legal question doesn't depend on whether
> the
>
> statement is true or not. It may be that "evolution is not inherently
>
> anti-religious" is a true statement. Either way, it's undoubtedly a
>
> statement that involves the substance of religion, and therefore it is
>
> Constitutionally problematic in a public school context.
>
> On Dec 12, 2007 2:44 PM, Dehler, Bernie
>
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "In this context, the above statement would be a religious viewpoint on
>
> evolution offered by the government that is contrary to the parent's
>
> religion. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I never thought of it like that before. This is weird-I can see both
> sides
>
> simultaneously. It is like looking at one of those pictures that is both
> an
>
> old and young lady, depending on how you look at it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ultimately, I guess it is incorrect to say there is NO religious
> component
>
> to evolution. since some who are religious are opposed to it on religious
>
> grounds. However, those who teach it can also teach it without any
>
> reference to God or anything supernatural, which makes it appear
>
> "non-religious." In addition, Christians may be against evolution for
>
> religious reasons, why other Christians are for evolution for scientific
>
> reasons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Since there are two good ways of looking at this topic, I suppose that
>
> guarantees this issue isn't going away soon and will in fact get hotter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On
>
> Behalf Of David Opderbeck
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:48 AM
>
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg said: For the legal stuff, David O. and Casey have more expertise
> than
>
> any natural scientist at ASA. Let them be sovereign in their sphere (TG
> -->
>
> Abraham K., H.D.)!
>
>
>
> Ha! I've never been sovereign over anything! Seriously, I want to be
> clear
>
> that I don't know exactly what the DI / Lusckin have said, so I'm not
>
> endorsing nor rejecting it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, think about the implications of the statement "The common view
> that
>
> evolution is inherently anti-religious is false " in the context of a
> public
>
> secondary school.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg makes the point that even for many TE's this may depend on how you
>
> define "evolution." But think also about a parent, whether Christian or
>
> not, who in fact believes that any notion of evolution is contrary to her
>
> religion. You, and the local school board, might think that parent is
> dead
>
> wrong. However, neither you nor the local school board have the right to
>
> dictate that parent's religious beliefs. In this context, the above
>
> statement would be a religious viewpoint on evolution offered by the
>
> government that is contrary to the parent's religion. It seems this
> indeed
>
> ought to present an establishment clause problem under the current
>
> jurisprudence.
>
>
>
> - - - - -
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2007 2:09 AM, Gregory Arago
>
> <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca<mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The problem is, David, that you have not spoken (and from all indications
>
> cannot) speak 'objectively' about evolution across the board. At best you
>
> can speak of a stronger or weaker consensus, or 'normal science' in
> Kuhnian
>
> terms, specifically in one or two or a few or even perhaps more than a
> few
>
> scientific fields. Thus, when you speak of the 'natural sciences' ( e.g.
>
> biology, chemistry, geology, anatomy, physiology, etc.) of evolution, you
>
> may find a high level of harmony (even in America, among natural
> scientists,
>
> both theists and non-theists alike).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thus, A. Moorad's: "If by evolution one understands a scientific theory
>
> based on physics and chemistry, as James D. Watson understands it, then I
>
> have no qualms whatsoever."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, and this is a HUGE however, once you include the 'human factor,'
>
> which you have done by briging in 'religion' and 'classrooms,' you simply
>
> must give up your pretensions to objectivity and enter into a dialogue
> with
>
> those whose interpretations (cf. hermeneutic turn) differ from yours. You
>
> cannot dictate the discourse without smuggling in oppression and
> inequality
>
> of access, even if just in the language. This is what I have been
> charging
>
> natural scientists, particularly those at ASA, but also elsewhere, with
>
> doing in the 'controversy' surrounding evolution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Once you acknowledge the philosophical, theological and sociological
>
> dimensions of (claims to) evolution, the 'objectivity' of evolutionary
>
> universalism becomes deeply problematic. Yes, I know this is a challenge
> to
>
> the theistic evolutionary (TE) views that you and others at ASA strongly
> (at
>
> least outwardly) espouse. But in fact, it is the same thing with such a
>
> view: ASA apears to be against harmonizing with views that are not TE/EC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For the legal stuff, David O. and Casey have more expertise than any
> natural
>
> scientist at ASA. Let them be sovereign in their sphere (TG --> Abraham
> K.,
>
> H.D.)!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> G. Arago
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't know the details of what the Discovery Institute did or didn't
> say,
>
> but this isn't too crazy an assertion with respect to public secondary
>
> schools. Establishment clause jurisprudence is a bit of a muddle right
> now,
>
> but essentially the government cannot send any message that the relevant
>
> public would likely perceive as an endorsement of religion. It is very
>
> plausible that a public school teacher who says something like "evolution
> is
>
> compatible with religion" might be sending such a message, intentionally
> or
>
> not. This is particularly true if the teacher backs up this assertion
> with
>
> a little more detail. If the teacher were to suggest, for example, that
> God
>
> can act through secondary causes and yet still remain in control of the
>
> outcomes, that could be perceived as an endorsement of monotheistic
> religion
>
> and of a particular understanding of God. Almost certainly, a public
>
> secondary school teacher who explains a Christian TE position in any
> detail
>
> violates the establishment clause, unless it is in the context of some
> sort
>
> of comparative religion course.
>
>
>
> David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Anyone know more details on the situation? As reported, the Discovery
>
> Institute seems to be claiming that it's unconstitutional to say in a
>
> public classroom that evolution and religion are compatible. So far,
>
> no one has objected or arrested me for saying that in my classes,
>
> though standards for university and grade school are a bit different.
>
> Specifically, teaching materials designed to accompany the "Judgment
>
> Day: Intelligent design on trial" program includes "Q: Can you
>
> accept evolution and still believe in religion? A: Yes. The common
>
> view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false.'
>
>
>
> "According to Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute,
>
> this answer favours one religious viewpoint, arguably violating the US
>
> constitution. 'We're afraid that teachers might get sued, ' he says."
>
>
>
> As they supported the proposed Kansas standards that claimed that
>
> evolution was inherently atheistic, there's some inconsistency here.
>
> As the Judgement Day program does not reflect favorably on ID, the DI
>
> may be trying too hard to cast aspersions on it.
>
>
>
> No doubt the Discovery Institute has their own take on the story which
>
> should be consulted for a more balanced picture than what I have at
>
> hand.
>
>
>
> Objectively it is perfectly possible to have a religious view in
>
> harmony with evolution, so both Dawkins and Johnson are wrong. One
>
> can legitimately debate how well evolution meshes with a particular
>
> religious tradition, but that's not the same question.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. David Campbell
>
> 425 Scientific Collections
>
> University of Alabama
>
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> 498 4th Ave NE
> Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.