Re: [asa] New foray by the DISCOVER Institute

So we have religion is child abuse (although this is a somewhat poor
paraphrasing of Dawkins [1]) and Darwinism is the cause of all bad
things, both seem to have some problems although I can appreciate the
position of Dawkins to leave the decision of religion to a child when
growing up, not just a label that is attached and find the latest ID
focus on blaming Darwinism of all that is immoral a far worse problem.
So what is really the controversy? That people disagree about
religious concepts. So what?

[1] To slap a label on a child at birth - to announce, in advance, as
a matter of hereditary presumption if not determinate certainty, an
infant's opinions on the cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives,
on sexual ethics, abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child
abuse.

and

'Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I
suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse
of having been brought up Catholic in the first place. the mental
abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and
terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be
more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme
threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is.

On Dec 22, 2007 6:31 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As it is framed currently, I agreed with you on this point.
>
> But as I said, there is a more valid controversy (i.e. evolution=atheism +
> religion=child abuse) that could be taught however if we weren't hung on
> denying science and trying to legislate certain fundamental interpretations
> of the Bible.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:25 PM
> To: John Walley
> Cc: j burg; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] New foray by the DISCOVER Institute
>
>
> As the following letter so clearly explains, the 'teach the controversy' is
> a fallacious argument
>
>
> <quote>
> Dr. Daniel I. Bolnick
> Section of Integrative Biology
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, Texas, 78701 512-471-2824
> danbolnick@mail.utexas.edu
>
> Dear Mr. Scott,
>
> Thank you for your reply to the biologists' letter concerning the TEA's
> "neutrality" regarding evolution and intelligent design. I have forwarded
> your response to my colleagues. I believe I can speak for most of the
> faculty who signed the letter (now over 150), when I say that the work that
> you and the TEA do to strengthen K-12 education in Texas is appreciated. It
> is precisely because we recognize your efforts that we felt it would be
> helpful to contact you with our concerns as professional educators and
> researchers in the biological sciences.
>
> I and the other signers of the biologists' letter recognize the distinction
> between the policy-setting role of the Board of Education and the
> implementation duties of the TEA. As public bodies, both must be responsive
> to the public's concerns. However, it is also essential that these public
> bodies stand for the highest educational standards that reflect the current
> state of scientific knowledge. Listening to the public is essential, but the
> public is not always fully informed or correct when it comes to technical
> matters like the content of a science curriculum.
>
> There is an old joke about the tendency of elected bodies such as school
> boards to want to compromise: If group A thinks that 2 + 2 is 4, and group B
> thinks 2 + 2 is 6, the school board will declare that 2
> + 2 is 5. (My favorite historical example is the Indiana State
> Legislature's House Bill No. 246, which passed 67 to 0 and redefined the
> mathematical constant pi to be 3.2, rather than 3.14159., at the urging of a
> doctor and amateur mathematician Dr. Edwin Goodwin.) There are times when 2
> + 2 simply has to equal 4, and pi does not equal 3.2 no matter what the
> House Bill said.
>
> Likewise, evolution has overwhelming empirical support, while there is zero
> original empirical research supporting intelligent design, and no credible
> evidence against evolution.
>
> You write "that anything said will be scrutinized and may be interpreted as
> representing a position of the agency or State Board of Education." The
> Board's position on science education should be to provide the best and most
> accurate science possible, regardless of the political consequences. There
> are times when public bodies need to lead, and this is one of them. Speaking
> on behalf of my colleagues, I urge both the Board and the TEA to exercise
> such leadership by issuing statements that unambiguously support the
> teaching of evolution and omission of intelligent design in public
> classrooms. The full weight of scientific evidence would be on your side.
> The scientific community is agreed that evolution should not only be taught,
> but taught in a straightforward manner, unqualified by alleged "weaknesses"
> that are invariably based on faulty logic or misrepresentations of available
> data.
>
> This is emphatically not an attempt to suppress contrary viewpoints. Rather,
> it is a professional judgment that the claims of "weaknesses" in evolution
> are based on shoddy scholarship. We wish to assure you that not a single
> so-called weakness promoted by anti-evolutionists has passed scientific
> muster. For example, the Discovery Institute's recent publication Exploring
> Evolution: The Arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism, which was written to
> facilitate classroom discussions of "weaknesses," is demonstrably full of
> factual errors and logical fallacies. We would be more than happy to help
> you understand the flaws in any of the "weakness" arguments that you or
> members of the Board are uncertain about.
>
> This is not to say that there are no controversies in evolution. But the
> genuine controversies concern esoteric points about how evolution works, not
> whether it works. Such debates are a normal component of active research in
> any scientific field, and do not signify the existence of "weaknesses". For
> example, there is currently a vigorous debate over whether coding or
> regulatory genetic changes contribute more to evolution. Coding changes
> alter the structure of proteins and their functions; regulatory changes
> alter when and where a given protein is produced. Clear instances of both
> types of evolutionary change have been documented, but their relative
> importance is a subject of active research. Personally, I would love to see
> these kinds of debates taught in science classes, but they do not represent
> "weaknesses" in evolution as a whole. The difficulty is that understanding
> these topics requires a substantial level of background knowledge. In the
> case I just outlined, students must understand how coding and regulatory
> genes work, but gene regulation is not covered until university-level
> biology courses, so students are not equipped to investigate this topic
> until late in their undergraduate careers. The same pedagogical problem
> arises for many of the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution described in
> creationist sources like Explore Evolution
>
> In your response to the biologists' letter, you mentioned Process Skill 3A,
> which taken on its face, is innocuous and seems to be admirable pedagogy:
> "The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make
> informed decisions. The student is expected
> to: (A) analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations including
> hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using
> scientific evidence and information." You correctly identified 3A as being
> applied to all science standards from 3rd grade through the
> discipline-related standards for high school. From its ubiquity across the
> curriculum, we assume that the purpose of 3A is to encourage students to
> exercise scientific reasoning, which is quite appropriate. However, you
> probably recall that in 2003, during the textbook adoption hearings, the
> evolution-related standards were the only standards to which 3A directly was
> applied, in an effort to weaken the coverage of evolution in the books. An
> attempt to force textbook publishers to rewrite their textbooks to include
> non-existent "weaknesses" almost succeeded. This would have resulted in
> students in Texas and nationally being miseducated about evolution. Upon
> entry to university science classes, they would have to unlearn the spurious
> "weaknesses" they had been taught in high school, which is profoundly unfair
> to them.
>
> We look forward to working with the SBoE to rephrase 3A to encourage
> critical thinking in all the sciences, without providing a backdoor for
> scientifically unsound "weaknesses" that are currently being promoted by the
> Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations. Dropping the
> "strengths and weaknesses" language from the TEKS is an important first
> step. I and others of my colleagues are willing to assist the TEA or the
> TEKS reviewing committees in this effort. Having science standards that
> accurately reflect the scientific community's consensus is essential to the
> successful education of Texas students.
>
> In conclusion, biology faculty around the state are deeply concerned that
> next year Texas will be a battleground where creationists (including
> advocates of intelligent design and "weaknesses" of
> evolution) try to water down evolution education. This would harm public
> understanding of biology (already poor), weaken the quality of
> university-bound biology students, and undermine Texas's ability to compete
> in tomorrow's biotechnology-driven economy. I hope that as the TEKS
> revisions move forward, both the TEA and the Board adopt firm stances in
> support of improving evolution education. I also hope that the the Board
> consults more extensively with Ph.D. biologists among the highly qualified
> research and teaching faculty at universities around Texas. Finally, on
> behalf of all my co-signers, I extend an invitation to you to discuss
> details of evolutionary biology with faculty from any of the universities in
> Texas. There is a vast reserve of knowledge about science and in particular
> about evolution in this state that is at your disposal as you and the the
> Board work to understand the current state of knowledge on this topic.
> Please avail yourself of this resource, and take a firm stand in support of
> increased quality of evolution education in Texas.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dr. Daniel Bolnick, University of Texas at Austin
>
> P.S. You commented on the disclaimer in our original letter, that the letter
> reflected our own professional opinions. I should point out that this was
> only added because the ouster of Ms. Comer created an atmosphere of
> intimidation. A number of faculty expressed concern over possible
> retribution from their state employers for signing the letter. Some chose
> not to sign for fear of their jobs, others signed on the condition that the
> disclaimer be added. </quote> On Dec 22, 2007 2:30 PM, John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >. The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed
> > >evolutionary
> > explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features
> > >. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian
> > evolution
> > >. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal
> > >common
> > descent
> > >. The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the
> > genetic code
> > >. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate
> > >embryos
> > diverge from the beginning of development.
> >
> > I think some of these are valid unknowns and significant challenges to
> > a non-theistic evolutionary paradigm, and these could be valuable
> > contributions to a "teach the controversy" approach, but the problem
> > with this negative attack on the unknowns while dismissing the known
> > evidences for evolution leaving only their alternative for special
> > creation discredits and taints anything positive they may stumble
> > upon.
> >
> > All of these questions above could be used effectively by TE's to show
> > why Dawkins' AE position is a matter of faith, and could be used as a
> > very strong support for a creator and a Christian worldview, but we
> > can't because ID keeps screwing it up with these childish, negative,
> > anti-science attacks. They are confusing and missing the distinction
> > between evolution as a mechanism and the philosophical baggage that
> > Dawkins and others are adding on to it. This is the real controversy
> > that should be taught. But this shows that they are not interested in
> > defending God or the Truth, just their own spiritually prideful
> > interpretation of special creation.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> > On Behalf Of j burg
> > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 11:56 AM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: [asa] New foray by the DISCOVER Institute
> >
> >
> >
> > Just noted today:
> >
> >
> >
> > From the Christian Post:
> >
> > An intelligent design think tank has launched a new website recounting
> > the failures of Darwinism that were left unmentioned by study
> > materials on a PBS documentary covering the 2005 Dover trial.
> >
> >
> > Related
> > Intelligent Design Group Accuses PBS of Promoting Unconstitutional
> > Teaching
> >
> > The Discovery Institute plans to post a slide show presentation
> > critiquing the online materials from PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day:
> > Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary on www.judgingpbs.com.
> >
> > The presentation, entitled "Darwin's Failed Predictions," challenges
> > an assertion made by PBS that evidence "unequivocally supports the
> > theory of evolution by natural selection."
> >
> > "The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical
> > that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change,"
> > according to Anika Smith, a contributor for the group's Center for
> > Science & Culture.
> >
> > "Moreover, key postulates of Darwin's theory - universal common
> > descent, the continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record
> > - have come under intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of
> > fields, including molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics,
> > biochemistry, and paleontology," Smith added.
> >
> > According to the website, some of Darwin's failed predictions include:
> >
> > . The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary
> > explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features . The
> > failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian
> > evolution . The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for
> > universal common descent
> > . The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the
> genetic
> > code
> > . The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos
> > diverge from the beginning of development.
> >
> >
> >
> > Burgy
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 23 00:05:30 2007