Comment Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score 1) 1722
Sorry, but I've been repeatedly smacking my head against a table while reading the comments. It is a fact that there are just as many people who believe evolution is true that have a misunderstanding of intelligent design as there are people who believe creation is true and misunderstand evolution. I have two major issues here...
1) Evolution is a very large topic. In this sort of discussion, people often ambiguate its meaning. On a micro level, it is indisputable. Virii mutate. This is undisputed by intelligent design advocates, creationists, etc. However, the mutations that occur within virii are very different from what is more largely claimed on a macro level. We have evidence that virii mutate, becoming immune to certain vaccines, etc. What we do not have is any inter-species mutations that cause anything other than death. This point is often glossed over, but is important all the same.
2) Intelligent design isn't about teaching Genesis in classrooms (though some people try using it to do such). It's about properly interpretting data. You can, reasonably, look at a complex biological system and come to the conclusion that it evolved via nature selection and random mutations just as well as you could examine it and come to the conclusion that it was designed. Same data. Different conclusions. Intelligent design argues that it is more probable that an intelligence designed the system based upon what we know about complex systems (see The Design Inference by William Dembski, Cambridge University Press).
I have one last illustration regarding much of the frustration that drives the intelligent movement that you brought up quite nicely.
You say:
It's hard to argue against natural selection, since we see it all around us, from the famous moth study to drug resistant microbes.
The "famous spotted moth study" you refer to has been shown to be a fraud (see Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). Oftentimes the tension isn't so much with the scientists doing the research, but the way in which "science" is taught to students. Go out and check any biology textbook. You will find the spotted moth used as an example of natural selection in action. "Proof." As we all know, new editions of these textbooks are printed practically every year, so this isn't a matter of old editions being outdated. Textbooks with 2005 publication dates are using examples that have been proven to be fraudulent. Neither the scientific, nor the academic community seems to care. They don't bother to point out that said example is a fraud in class. Many professors gloss over it because "evolution is proven, after all." Proven. So how do the little details matter? Well, that's what the intelligent design movement is about--the devil is often in the details.
Don't want to believe in a designer? Fine. But believe in academic honesty and original thought. Sticking to the facts in textbooks and admitting that there are biases and philosophic pre-suppositions being used, regardless of background or belief, would go far to easing the tension that exists currently. If sticking to the facts and having academic honesty is anti-science, I'm all for it. But last time I checked, that was what science was supposed to be all about.
1) Evolution is a very large topic. In this sort of discussion, people often ambiguate its meaning. On a micro level, it is indisputable. Virii mutate. This is undisputed by intelligent design advocates, creationists, etc. However, the mutations that occur within virii are very different from what is more largely claimed on a macro level. We have evidence that virii mutate, becoming immune to certain vaccines, etc. What we do not have is any inter-species mutations that cause anything other than death. This point is often glossed over, but is important all the same.
2) Intelligent design isn't about teaching Genesis in classrooms (though some people try using it to do such). It's about properly interpretting data. You can, reasonably, look at a complex biological system and come to the conclusion that it evolved via nature selection and random mutations just as well as you could examine it and come to the conclusion that it was designed. Same data. Different conclusions. Intelligent design argues that it is more probable that an intelligence designed the system based upon what we know about complex systems (see The Design Inference by William Dembski, Cambridge University Press).
I have one last illustration regarding much of the frustration that drives the intelligent movement that you brought up quite nicely.
You say:
It's hard to argue against natural selection, since we see it all around us, from the famous moth study to drug resistant microbes.
The "famous spotted moth study" you refer to has been shown to be a fraud (see Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). Oftentimes the tension isn't so much with the scientists doing the research, but the way in which "science" is taught to students. Go out and check any biology textbook. You will find the spotted moth used as an example of natural selection in action. "Proof." As we all know, new editions of these textbooks are printed practically every year, so this isn't a matter of old editions being outdated. Textbooks with 2005 publication dates are using examples that have been proven to be fraudulent. Neither the scientific, nor the academic community seems to care. They don't bother to point out that said example is a fraud in class. Many professors gloss over it because "evolution is proven, after all." Proven. So how do the little details matter? Well, that's what the intelligent design movement is about--the devil is often in the details.
Don't want to believe in a designer? Fine. But believe in academic honesty and original thought. Sticking to the facts in textbooks and admitting that there are biases and philosophic pre-suppositions being used, regardless of background or belief, would go far to easing the tension that exists currently. If sticking to the facts and having academic honesty is anti-science, I'm all for it. But last time I checked, that was what science was supposed to be all about.
