That was interesting. I especially found this line interesting.
“Some Mormon legislators opposed the bill because they agreed with Mr. Urquhart that science and religion should remain separate, others because they thought intelligent design was not in keeping with traditional Mormon belief.”
I think that’s right.
The most ironic line was this one:
“Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, a research group based in Seattle that has promoted the ideas of intelligent design, called the vote “a loss for scientific education,” but said it was a purely local Utah matter.”
Thank God. Yet more welcome evidence that The West is not The South.
Comment by R.W. Rasband — February 28, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
If I understand correctly, the Utah bill was already much more reasonable than intelligent design bills in the South. It required science teachers merely to give students a disclaimer that evolution is only a “theory” and there is still much debate about it in the scientific community. The bill did not require teachers to say a word about intelligent design as an alternative or competing theory to evolution.
Given that (and I might be mistaken), was the Utah bill really as “out there” as people are depicting here?
The Buttars bill was anti-science in that it singled out the theory of evolution as the one theory that must have its theoreticalness emphasized. It also was a disturbing example of the legislature trying to tell science teachers how to teach science, something it was clear that many legislators are ignorant of. That said, it did not mandate the teaching of any particular alternative, so it certainly could have been dumber than it was.
My favorite comment to come out of this whole episode was a letter to the SLTrib that asked if Buttars, who had sponsored a bill in the past to require school children to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance each day, would sponsor another bill to add a disclaimer after the daily pledge stating that the existence of “God” as defined by the pledge is only a theory and that scientists disagree on the matter.
Comment by a random John — March 1, 2006 @ 12:03 am
Buttars is an idiot.
(I know, you are all thanking me for my substantial addition to the discussion. But he drives me insane. My fondest wish is that he’d relocate to Nauvoo or something. Or Hilldale.)
An idea with such strong public support will probably not just go away. This vote did not really count for much, since the Governer had already announced that he would veto.
What seems more important is that this issue will likely become more strongly polarizing and divisive. Perhaps it will become another “red/blue” political litmus test.
As characterized by the polemics, anyone who tries to direct the teaching of science in public schools must be a fundamentalist religious fanatic with an IQ somewhere near absolute zero. And to those who favored the idea, anyone who teaches children that humans evolved from monkeys must be a godless fool.
I don’t think evolution will ever become like the abortion debate.
The main difficulty anti-evolutionists face is in terms of what constitutes a scientific theory. It is fine and good to say one doesn’t believe it. But if one is teaching science then the standard to include or exclude has to be scientific. And thus far opponents of evolution haven’t been able to say much scientifically.
One big part of what is wrong with this debate is the way arguments are so mischaracterized. In the process of staking out an opinon, one is forced into defending a position that is not truly representative.
In the process of arguing over “evolution”, many of the participants thus have to identify themselves with the polemicized caricatures of the two sides. When in fact, there exist a whole range of viable opinions and degrees of conviction and variability. It almost seems as though the arguments are vastly oversimplified. I do not understand why this happens, but it seems very common in such matters.
In my case, it is wholly inappropriate to identify as “anti-evolution”, since my academic and professional background is rooted in biological sciences and I see living evidences of the process of evolution with my own eyes. On the other hand, I am sympathetic with those who wish to reserve judgement before commiting themselves to atheism on the strength of science-based philosophical arguments. I personally have no problem accomodating a great deal of cognitive noise that seems to emanate from the interface between my science understanding and my religious faith.
In my experience, I believe most people have similar feelings about this matter. It would be accurate to cast most of us somewhere on middle ground, with some equivocation and reservations about everything. But somehow in the course of discussion, we all get tossed out to the far edges. I think this is patently unfair.
Jim, don’t you think it a bit ironic that you complain about oversimplifying and then suggest that the opposing view is merely, “wish[ing] to reserve judgement before commiting themselves to atheism on the strength of science-based philosophical arguments.” That suggests a false dichotomy that evolution entails atheism.
I simply am mystified by this issue. Why is he an idiot? Why don’t you guys want creationism taught in school along with Darwinism? It sounds reasonable to me.
Anne, I think idiot is a tad strong and I actually do agree with Jim that this issue is perhaps over-polarized.
I think though that Buttars in general in Utah tends to be overly concerned with “image bills” that don’t really solve any problems and end up being very expensive since they are immediately challenged in court. That is, I don’t think Buttars is particularly concerned about effective government but rather putting a finger in the eye of anyone who thinks differently from him. And he uses government as a way of doing this. He’s more concerned about PR for his views than being an effective government servant. (All in my opinion, of course)
As for why Creationism shouldn’t be taught, one has to ask, “who’s creationsim?” Do we teach the Creationism of the Catholics? The Creationism of the conservative Protestants? What about the Mormons? Do we include Islam? The Unitarians? The Hindus? What about Buddhists? How about various Native American traditions? Is the evidence for all these traditions equal?
The next question is to ask whether things that aren’t science ought be taught in science class. After all ideally science class ought be about science. Should we be instead teaching religion in science?
The next question is the question of evidence. If we start bringing in religion in science class don’t we inevitably have to raise the issue of evidence (which is key in science). That will frankly lead to the *attacking* of religious views. (Perhaps quite contrary to what some intend) There is considerable evidence for scientific claims. That’s why they are as established as they are. But most religious claims don’t have public evidence of that sort.
Next up is the church’s neutrality on the issue of evolution. Is there even a religious need in Utah for this?
Finally there is the constitutional issue. Similar bills have been raised elsewhere and they are almost always struck down as unconstitutional. Given that the legal fees will rise into the millions is it really a good use of public funds to do this, especially when in Utah schools we (a) aren’t teaching the issue Buttars and others are worried about and (b) already have release time seminary to teach religion in Utah. What exactly is the problem this is designed to solve.
That suggests a false dichotomy that evolution entails atheism.
Making note of this common oversimplification is not me subscribing to it, but certainly this cannot be the first time you’ve ever heard the idea. I suppose Buttars believes he represents people with such concerns. Whether or not this polarized and simplistic thinking is legitimate, it must be addresed in constructive ways. Progress will never be served by calling each other names. Sooner or later the “idiots” that have effectively become your enemies will find a weakness to attack.
It may well be that Buttars is indeed an idiot. I don’t know him, nor have I ever seen any formal metrics applied to his intelligence, so I cannot speak to that question. I’m certainly not defending him. As far as I can tell, as a Utah politician, he is among peers. But it seems inevitable that this trivial debate presages a more destructive antagonism to come, in which there is potential for serious damage to be done. Instead of dismissing as “idiots” the many Utah residents he represents, why not seek a better way to settle the problem now? If it is costs you’re worried about, this would seem like the most efficient and economical time to do so.
OK, my misunderstanding if you weren’t espousing the evolution = atheism view.
Also note that I wasn’t calling Buttars or those who think like him idiots. That was Sue (#8) engaging in what I suspect was a bit of hyperbole.
As to the settling of the problem, isn’t the best way to settle the problem to educate people about evolution? I don’t see how teaching creationism would help. It would only seem to exacerbate the situation.
Scientists change their minds all the time about stuff. Science is never exact. So it doesn’t make sense to me that we are presenting kids with information as fact that may be obsolete next year and refusing to present them with a less “scientific” theory.
I personally believe God used evolution. I have no problem blending the ideas. I don’t care what other people think, it doesn’t affect my beliefs and I would teach my kids at home about my beliefs, regardless what the school taught.
It just doesn’t seem reasonable to reject a whole school of thought, ie creationism. It doesn’t even seem scientific. Surely there is scientific evidence of creationism–mathematically? I’m just guessing.
On the other hand, I don’t know a thing about this guy. I’m taking it on faith that my knowledgeable friends here are to be trusted. And the overwhelming concensus is that he was off track.
Anne, the argument that scientists change their mind about stuff only is significant if we take into consideration what kind of stuff they change their minds about.
I hear frequently the argument that since scientists are sometimes wrong that we therefore shouldn’t trust them and thus evolution is about on par with speculation. But that’s like saying that because I sometimes mistake what I’m seeing in front of me that I should never in any circumstance trust my sight. (Not that you are making this argument – just that it’s an argument I hear in these discussions)
Further when scientists change their minds it is for an other scientific theory. The problem is that creationism isn’t just not a scientific theory, it completely contradicts most of the evidence we have and can’t explain the things that the scientific theories can.
Medicine is a science, Clark, but using your argument, disposing one “truth” for another “truth” doesn’t work for me. It’s contradictory. If what we now know is truth, when what we used to think was truth was false, then what we may learn later, will negate the present truth.
So we’re all seeing through a glass, darkly, in the end.
I think creationism should be given equal time, given the constant re-examination of scientific principles.
I sort of agree with both of you but for different reasons. Giving creationism equal time in a science classroom could actually be quite useful. The problem with science education is that teachers do not teach scientific method. Instead, they teach theories and laws as facts and thereby confuse interpretation (which changes) with evidence (which is unchanging). I think annegb captures this in post #17:
“Scientists change their minds all the time about stuff. Science is never exact. So it doesn’t make sense to me that we are presenting kids with information as fact that may be obsolete next year and refusing to present them with a less “scientific†theory.”
I think teaching creationism could be useful as a foil for teaching scientific method. It might be helpful to show students that creationism starts with a conclusion, then looks for evidence to support it. Science, on the other hand, starts with observed evidence, then attempts to explain it, then tests the explanation. Because creationism starts with a conclusion, its conlcusions never change, unlike science, which must modify conclusions based on newer evidence.
I would just add one thing. You wrote, Science, on the other hand, starts with observed evidence, then attempts to explain it, then tests the explanation. And then it draws inferences that may or may not be sound, and are subject to “debunking” the moment another piece of evidence surfaces to frustrate one of the myriad arguments from silence on which the inferences rely, in addition to the fragmentary evidence.
“He who fears truth as a rational explaination of things will endlessly look anywhere but to the light”
“The evolutionary scientists are not so afriad that there ideas may never pan out, they are afraid that the rational truth might be made known to men and the glory will go to the Father in Heaven and not them”
“Man who takes glory to himself for the cause of the world in his many accomplishments, will never recognize the truth when it is plainly manifest”
“”The pit is getting deeper, and soon, the digger will not be able to pull himself out”
“Unless man turns to God for answers, the mysteries of science will always be compounded”
I was educated k-12 in Utah public schools. It was repeatedly made clear to me exactly what the word “theory” means and how such things come about. Rather than using creationism as an example, which seems like an illustrative example as first blush but is obviously an easy way to invite a law suit, they used actual scientific theories that had been debunked. It was made very clear that theories come and go.
Comment by a random John — March 5, 2006 @ 12:19 am
a random john,
I was also educated–and sometimes miseducated–in Utah’s public K-12. If good scientific method was taught to you, then you are, according to my experience and observations, the exception. And I am not singling out Utah schools or public schools. Most people I talk to about science do not have a good understanding of how science works. Most first-year graduate students in my department still work under false notions, despite having majored in science as undergraduates. Much of the point of graduate school is to teach how to think like and ultimately become a scientist.
I admit that my suggestion in post #20 was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I say “somewhat” because I do believe in the value of foils in general and in this case in particular, though I do not know that I would use creationism, per se, were I teaching in a public school. A student can understand that theories come and go, but I want them to understand why. And that requires a little more “philosophy of science” than most students are taught. (I am not suggesting that you lack this understanding.) Using scientific theories as you point out would of course be valuable.
It’s pretty unusual in general to find the scientific method taught in high school. There is often something *called* the scientific method. (Basically the pick a guess and then test it idea) But of course in real science there is no “scientific method” although it’s a good first order approximation.
I think what’s really needed though it to prepare students by teaching them critical thinking skills. Unless you have those and understand basic problem solving, you can’t really understand the scientific method. (IMO)
I think some shows are helping here. While it’s a tad cheesy, I really credit the show Mythbusters for showing some critical thinking skills and testing.
The biggest problem though (not at all helped by Bush’s No Child Left Behind) is that students are taught to memorize. Thinking really isn’t taught in high school or junior high. Rather thinking of the world in terms of facts is. But that’s not a terribly good way to think about things. Further it is also, I suspect, why many students don’t like science. That’s not to suggest some memorization isn’t important. But when it becomes the main focus, something is wrong.
Further critical thinking skills are tremendously useful in real life. Indeed I’d argue that our democracy really depends upon them.
I was educated in Dallas public schools. We were just taught that Mormons were from Satan.
But as to arJ’s comment 24, I agree that the concept that a scientific theory, such as evolution, is only a theory and not a fact can be adequately demonstrated by teaching about scientific theories that were later discounted even though they were considered sound at the time.
My question to arJ: what did you personally find objectionable in the proposed Utah legislation? If I understand correctly, it did not say anything about creationism as a competing theory to evolution. Rather, it simply would have required teachers discussing evolution to include a disclaimer that evolution is just a theory the aspects of which are still being debated by scientists. Or am I overlooking something?
I think the problem John, is that scientists justifiably worry that it’s “just a theory” is being treated differently from all the other theories. i.e. that it is being presented as a theory different from say the theory of gravitation. In a way it is designed to teach that there isn’t strong evidence for evolution. It’s clearly there to discredit evolution.
Clarke said- #28
“In a way it is designed to teach that there isn’t strong evidence for evolution. It’s clearly there to discredit evolution. ”
I thought that there wasn’t strong evidence for evolution though and that is why the push to not put it in the mostly factual column. I also think that only teaching evolution also discredits the bible. It goes both ways
Rob, I’ll not get into a debate with you on this. However most people who look at the issue would say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and absolutely none for young earth creationism.
“But as to arJ’s comment 24, I agree that the concept that a scientific theory, such as evolution, is only a theory and not a fact….”
I concur with Clark (post #28) and add:
This is an example of my point here about science education. Theories do not graduate into facts (or laws) once they have gained enough proof. That is not the way scientists think or work. ALL scientific theories are subject to rewording / reworking / dismissal / “debunking” should additional evidence promote a better theory. Likewise, ALL scientific laws are subject to reworking, etc, with additional evidence. Strictly speaking, scientists do not confuse “theory” with “fact” or “law” with “fact.”
The Buttar’s Bill promotes the fallacy that scientists think of theories as facts. The “fact” is, we think of theories as explanations of the facts. So the Buttar’s Bill not only promotes bad science, it also promotes bad education.
I read my post and I thought it might have a sharp tone. I hope it isn’t read that way; I meant it as a sincere answer to your sincere question in post #27.
Clarke,
I disagree. I think most people don’t see the evidence for evolution. In fact polls have repeatedly shown most Americans support an intelligent designer over evolution.
In fact the National geographic studied this phenemenon and reported in their magazine that no less than 45 percent of polled Americans showed that they believe man was created in his present form at one point within the last 10000 years. 37 percent believe that there was room for both evolution and God, while only 12 percent believe that we descended from apes with no help from God.
This information is found in the November 2004 issue.
Rob, like others, I’m not sure you’re real. I have a suspicion you’re a product of the same folks being the fictitious “Prudence” character that posted on blogs. But being charitable and assuming your serious and sincere, do you really think polls are a good way of determining truth?
I have to admit some jealousy of Rob–people debating whether or not you are real. Wow! that kind of debate is usually reserved for things like deity, time, quanta.
But now I’m curious, was the issue of his reality ever resolved by taking a poll?
Geoff e-mailed me with the same question I referred him to where I work at vintagejag.com where I have worked for years. I am a real person with real views. And no, I am not just yanking peopls chains.
I belive polls are a good measureing device. I also find it interesting that the evidence gathersd from polls dealing with evolution haven’t really changed in the past 20 years. You would think with all of the new supposed scientific evidence that people would change their minds but we see that Americans really are smart and can see a fable when it’s coming.
BrianJ: it seems to me that one possible motivation behind the Buttars Bill (of which, by the way, I am not a supporter, but I think it is a different species than ID bills elsewhere in the country, such as in Pennsylvania recently) is that science teachers in public education are not teaching evolution with explanations of the scientific method such as yours, which was great. You wrote:
ALL scientific theories are subject to rewording / reworking / dismissal / “debunking†should additional evidence promote a better theory. Likewise, ALL scientific laws are subject to reworking, etc, with additional evidence. Strictly speaking, scientists do not confuse “theory†with “fact†or “law†with “fact.â€
It seems to me that the Buttars Bill was kind of an attempt to get teachers to talk this way about evolution. What am I missing?
I can’t presume to speak for the people who introduced the Buttars Bill and haven’t read the legislative history, but I am wondering if it is a reaction to public school science teachers’ carelessness in teaching specifically human evolution as if it were a fact when it is really only an inference from very incomplete historical data.
(and hence the focus on evolution rather than a broader, general disclaimer about science along the lines that BrianJ mentioned. As a side note, if it had been a bill about a general disclaimer of that nature about science, would there have been the same uproar around here?)
But once again John, how is that different than gravity? Aren’t the theories of gravity equally inferred from limited facts?
I should add that this was also one of the big points that the judge out east made regarding the constitutionality of ID in the schools. If you single out evolution you may well be violating the constitution.
Sorry, I didn’t see that when I wrote my comments.
I think if it was generic and just pointed out science is made up of theories there would be far less controversy. (Indeed as I recall the bill was watered down in that direction – although not enough) Indeed this is something that still ought be taught.
There might still be some consternation about whether the legislature ought be that involved in curriculum. Which would be a valid concern, but perhaps far less controversial.
The point is that schools really ought be teaching what a theory is.
I should add one perhaps area I disagree with BrianJ. I think that science does use the words laws and facts. Perhaps loosely. Although 80 years ago they were more formally used. But today a law or a fact are basically just theories we hold to very strongly. By that measure evolution is both a law and a fact.
It is interesting that The Buttars bill and many others like it around the country do not wish to exclude evolutionary theory, they only wish to add the idea that it is a theory and that there are other theories currently being advanced that perhaps opens the mind a little bit.
There are groups out there that think in the lines of “separation of church and state” but these kind of bills do not even fall into that category, nor is the phrase of separation of church and state found in the constitution. The creation critics view creationism as religion but fail to realize that the same criteria that theu use to classify the creationists into a religion also can be applied directly to themselves.
I see nothing wrong with looking at all pieces of the pie and then leaving it to the students to choose for themselves. I believe it can be done in a classroom setting. The details of God himself do not even need to be discussed. I do think though that children in school do need to be made aware that because biology is so complex that the possibility of randomness could be replaced/ reworked with design from an intelligent designer in mind.
The issue isn’t a vague and overly broad separation of Church and State but what happens when the State teaches a particular religious dogma to the exclusion of others.
Further one can argue that in a science class one ought teach science and not religious dogma.
The original wording of the Buttars’ Bill said, “In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race….†I disagree with this concept because, as Clark has written, it singles out a single area of science and thereby makes evolution seem less accepted than it is and, perhaps worse, it implies that all other scientific theories enjoy consensus.
john f: regarding posts 37 and 39: I admit that I am suspicous of the real intent of Buttars. Nevertheless, I am less interested in the intent of the bill than its effect. And its effect would have been to promote the false notion that scientists do not agree on evolution. While there are many competing theories of evolution, the majority fall under an umbrella that is widely accepted. In other words, 99% of scientists agree that species undergo dramatic change over time, they just don’t agree on how.
Regarding post 40: “As a side note, if it had been a bill about a general disclaimer of that nature about science, would there have been the same uproar around here?†I suspect that I never would have heard about it from the media. I tried reading it after crossing out the language that singles out one field of science, and I think it is more or less what I would be teaching anyway (so no uproar).
Clark Goble (post 43): I did not say “that science does [not] use the words laws and facts.†I said (post #31), that “scientists do not confuse ‘theory’ with ‘fact’ or ‘law’ with ‘fact’†(emphasis added). Of course, informally scientists are sometimes “looseâ€, as you say, with the lingo, and that is why I included the words, “Strictly speaking.†Along those lines, I have caught many a physisist use the word “centrifugal.â€
“Although 80 years ago they were more formally used. But today a law or a fact are basically just theories we hold to very strongly. By that measure evolution is both a law and a fact.â€
Sorry, I should have been more careful in my word choice. What I was objecting to was,
“Theories do not graduate into facts (or laws) once they have gained enough proof. That is not the way scientists think or work. ”
While “enough proof” isn’t something I’d agree with, I think if you changed it to “enough evidence.” Now related to the links you gave, I understand where they are coming from, I’m not at all sure I’d agree how they deal with scientific use rhetorically.
The second link you gave doesn’t address the point I made. Rather it was discussing whether law, theory, and hypothesis were linked in a hierarchy. Which of course I never asserted. I’m more speaking of the difference between talk of theories that aren’t really trusted yet for a variety of reasons versus those that are. The former we’d never call a law. Not because the theory isn’t claiming to represent a law-like structure but because we simply don’t trust it. Once we do we’re willing to use the term law. Now the notion of law is perhaps somewhat antiquated now. Mainly because laws were originally seen to be universal in scope whereas now they are anything but. (i.e. Newton’s Laws) But rhetorically the use continues even if the original philosophical framework has been discarded.
The one paper you gave made this claim, “Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena.”
I can’t accept that. Consider at a minimum Maxwell’s laws. That explained how electricity and magnetism were unified. It was primarily an explanation and not just a description. Although of course the explanation/description distinction is artificial at best since any explanation is itself a description. The difference is generally that we think explanations are more fundamental than the previous description. But that then means something is an explanation only with respect to a particular phenomena. For instance Newton’s Laws explain Galileo’s observations as well as Kepler’s.
I suspect this claim comes out of the covering law thesis of Carl Hemple which has been very influential. This is the idea that any real explanation must contain an empirical law. This was then expanded (and perhaps explained) by Carnap who in a relatively famous paper gave the motivations to the problems with certain biological theories in the 1930′s.
While Hemple and Carnap were very influential (and I suspect DKL will come to their defense given his positivist tendencies) I think that there are a lot of problems with these ideas. If you are interested I can list the problems. It is a very interesting discussion. The basic approach is to make a distinction between explanation and unification. Scientists, especially those who wish to reduce all theories to physics, like the idea of unification. Indeed the search for quantum gravity is the ultimate unification attempt. But one can see that Maxwell’s Laws, Quantum Electrodynamics, and then Quantum Chromodynamics were all laws primarily motivated by unification. They also highlight the problem with explanation. The Standard Theory provided out of QCD pretty well explains everything we need, by and large. But we recognize it doesn’t unify everything. (Well, some might argue that it doesn’t necessarily explain the underlying patterns among fundamental particulars – so one can quibble)
All of this ends up tied to evolution as well. With regards to evolution Hempel stressed that we have to distinguish between the story of evolution and the theory of evolution. That is the narrative of what happened versus the underlying laws. So Hemple, because of his particular requirement for laws would require evolution to be a law or at least contain a law of evolution. Others would not, but then what they call a law is more fluid.
Facts are of course used less often by scientists (and philosophers of science) They did arise back in the more positivist days, mainly because of the theory – observation distinction. However that divide has largely been discredited or at least rendered more problematic. Once again in Hemple we can see that distinction. This once again gets complex and gets into the issue of interpretation and thereby hermeneutics in science.
I think it safe to say that facts are interpretations (especially observational interpretations) we’re confident in. However they are still a class of theories by their very nature. Thus the theory/fact divide is arbitrary and largely rests upon what degree of confidence we have. But in practice it is also tied still to how abstract the theory is. At least in some circles.
Sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent. But it actually is pretty interesting stuff to me. Although I admit I’m a bit rusty.
re 46, BrianJ wrote In other words, 99% of scientists agree that species undergo dramatic change over time, they just don’t agree on how.
If I understand correctly, ID supporters don’t necessarily disagree with this theory at all. Or I should say, people who disagree that the human race is a product of evolution don’t necessarily disagree that the phenomenon of natural selection occurs to change species. So I don’t think that language such as that in the Buttars Bill was aimed at undermining the idea that most scientists agree that species undergo dramatic change over time.
This is where I need to chime in with the same comment that I offer on every evolution thread:
There are three aspects to evolution: (1) the fact of evolution, that it happened; (2) the mechanism of evolution; how it happened which could be natural selection, complexitiy theory, etc.; (3) the path of evolution, which would include man’s evolutionary history.
(1) Is not questioned by anybody at all. This is as well established as any scientific theory or law ever could be.
(2) There is still some debate to be had in this area. Natural selection is currently seen as by far the most powerful mechanism, but some other mechanism could hypothetically surface which could dethrone it as being most important (it will never be proven false). Of course doubt in this area sheds no doubt whatsoever on (1), and any further knowledge in this area, pretty much no matter what it is, will only strengthen (1).
(3) This are will always be debated, for by the very nature of the beast (we are after all speaking of events which have long since been lost to the sands of time) we will never know most of the paths. Paleontology, geography, genetics and the like can help out a lot, but we simply can’t expect knowledge about every evolutionary path way (especially of biochemical systems which do not leave any kind of fossil remains at all, this is Behe’s rock of refuge). What is more than clear is that man descended from previous hominids. Religion is not the only group that takes a greater interest in man than in all other animals, science does to, and their evolutionary path has been mapped about as well as any other species’ have.
In short, there is a lot of theory in the mechanism and paths of evolution, but evolution itself is not a theory, not by a long shot. In fact part of the reason why evolution has not “graduated” to a law is simply because creationists insist upon calling it a theory by refusing to acknowledge not only the immense amounts of evidence in its favor, but the vast progress which has been made in evolutionary biology in the past few decades.
Even (2) probably ought be subdivided. Going back to Hempel we have the history or narrative of evolution and then the laws or structures of evolution. And within the laws there are then subcomponents that are still up for grabs. i.e. one could embrace natural selection as a law in the 1920s but be unaware of DNA and mutation as it relates to this movement.
I suppose it depends upon what one means by path. If by path you mean history, then nothing. I thought by path you meant something closer to possibilities rather than history.
Once again, Clark Goble, in post #50, has not only beat me to the answer, but also worded it better than would I anyway. In post #46, I should have said, “…scientists agree that all species including humans undergo dramatic change over time, they just don’t agree on how or why.”
In the last few days, I have tried to learn what Rep. Buttars has to say. Let me quote directly from Rep. Buttars himself:
“By Chris Buttars
Senator, District 10
“What I have wanted to do all along is stop opinionated teachers from teaching human evolution as fact. Scientists disagree on the origins of humankind. Young students should have a fighting chance to appreciate the difference between theory and law.”
Buttars misrepresents or misunderstands the disagreement among scientists. True: scientists disagree on the origins of mankind–and I think Jeffrey Giliam (post #51, points 1-3) words this (again) better than I could.
Also, john f, I am afraid that I am doing a poor job of explaining why the bill bothered me. How would you feel if similar laws were passed:
In Worlds Religion Class: “When teaching about the religions that follow a centralized governing body, it must be stressed that not all Mormons support Pres Hinckley.” (Why single out Mormons?)
In Physical Education: “When teaching different sports, it must be stressed that not all americans like baseball.” (Why single out baseball?)
It appears that you and I are doing a good job of misreading one another. In order to avoid further misunderstanding, I would like to list some points on which I think we agree, and which are actually on the original topic of this post:
1) The Buttars Bill was wrong to single out one theory of science.
2) The word “theory,†as used by most Americans, means “an idea that is unsupported, conjecture, a guess.†Scientists often use the word differently, and in many cases it refers to an idea that is almost universally accepted among scientists.
3) Scientists do not assert that theories or laws are perfect or unchangeable (aside: Nonetheless, paradigms form).
4) Most scientists believe that evolution applies to all species, not excluding humans.
5) The disagreement among scientists over evolution is “played up†by opponents of the theory. (aside: akin to atheists pointing to the disagreement among religions about God and concluding that this shows there is no God.)
6) (This one I am largely inferring) Students in a science classroom should be taught about science (definitions, critical thinking, testing, scientific method) as well as the prevalent beliefs and findings of science.
Now, to partially respond to your comments:
My misuse of the word “proof†in post #31 was intentional. I was using language that non-scientists incorrectly use when trying to describe how scientists work.
In post #43, when you wrote, “today a law or a fact are basically just theories we hold to very strongly†I took that to mean that you do not think scientists today make any distinction between law, fact, and theory. Based on that understanding, I posted a few links to show that scientists do make a distinction.
Then in post #48, I understand you to be making a different assertion. You wrote: “While “enough proof†isn’t something I’d agree with, I think if you changed it to “enough evidence.â€â€ I now take it that you affirm the following:
“Theories graduate into (or are called) facts or laws once they have gained enough evidence.â€
If that is what you are saying, then we do have a disagreement. I should add that I think Jeffrey Giliam in the last paragraph of post #51 is agreeing with you.
But if that is what you believe, then I am confused by the fourth paragraph of post #48:
“The second link you gave doesn’t address the point I made. Rather it was discussing whether law, theory, and hypothesis were linked in a hierarchy. Which of course I never asserted.â€
I am confused by this statement, because if theories can or should become laws once they have ample evidence, as I thought you and Jeffrey Giliam said, then that implies some kind of hierarchy and progression. It also implies that some laws, such as Newton’s, should be demoted to mere theories once an exception is discovered.
Note: before posting this, I actually wrote a lengthier response to your post #48 and the last paragraph of Jeffrey Giliam’s post #51. I decided against posting, however, for a couple reasons. One, it was a really lengthy post, even longer than yours {smile}. Two, based on my first sentence of this post, I’m not sure if we’re understanding one another well enough to have any disagreement.
Clark, Here’s the N.Y. Times take on the story. There’s a much more LDS slant in the NY Times version than the Tribune.
Comment by Guy Murray — February 28, 2006 @ 12:15 am
That was interesting. I especially found this line interesting.
“Some Mormon legislators opposed the bill because they agreed with Mr. Urquhart that science and religion should remain separate, others because they thought intelligent design was not in keeping with traditional Mormon belief.”
I think that’s right.
The most ironic line was this one:
“Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, a research group based in Seattle that has promoted the ideas of intelligent design, called the vote “a loss for scientific education,” but said it was a purely local Utah matter.”
A loss for science education? Wow…
Comment by Clark Goble — February 28, 2006 @ 12:41 am
Good riddance! I am pleased, and a little surprised, to see cooler heads prevail.
Comment by a random John — February 28, 2006 @ 1:04 am
The quote from the original post sounds like pure Aaron Cox.
It is funny to hear some other intitution use the “local matter” card.
Comment by J. Stapley — February 28, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Thank God. Yet more welcome evidence that The West is not The South.
Comment by R.W. Rasband — February 28, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
If I understand correctly, the Utah bill was already much more reasonable than intelligent design bills in the South. It required science teachers merely to give students a disclaimer that evolution is only a “theory” and there is still much debate about it in the scientific community. The bill did not require teachers to say a word about intelligent design as an alternative or competing theory to evolution.
Given that (and I might be mistaken), was the Utah bill really as “out there” as people are depicting here?
Comment by john f. — February 28, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
john f.
The Buttars bill was anti-science in that it singled out the theory of evolution as the one theory that must have its theoreticalness emphasized. It also was a disturbing example of the legislature trying to tell science teachers how to teach science, something it was clear that many legislators are ignorant of. That said, it did not mandate the teaching of any particular alternative, so it certainly could have been dumber than it was.
My favorite comment to come out of this whole episode was a letter to the SLTrib that asked if Buttars, who had sponsored a bill in the past to require school children to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance each day, would sponsor another bill to add a disclaimer after the daily pledge stating that the existence of “God” as defined by the pledge is only a theory and that scientists disagree on the matter.
Comment by a random John — March 1, 2006 @ 12:03 am
Buttars is an idiot.
(I know, you are all thanking me for my substantial addition to the discussion. But he drives me insane. My fondest wish is that he’d relocate to Nauvoo or something. Or Hilldale.)
Comment by sue — March 1, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Turning down the measure is obviously a political solution, since local news polls showed strong support for the bill from a significant majority.
23 Feb Deseret News Poll
An idea with such strong public support will probably not just go away. This vote did not really count for much, since the Governer had already announced that he would veto.
What seems more important is that this issue will likely become more strongly polarizing and divisive. Perhaps it will become another “red/blue” political litmus test.
As characterized by the polemics, anyone who tries to direct the teaching of science in public schools must be a fundamentalist religious fanatic with an IQ somewhere near absolute zero. And to those who favored the idea, anyone who teaches children that humans evolved from monkeys must be a godless fool.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 2, 2006 @ 1:12 am
I don’t think evolution will ever become like the abortion debate.
The main difficulty anti-evolutionists face is in terms of what constitutes a scientific theory. It is fine and good to say one doesn’t believe it. But if one is teaching science then the standard to include or exclude has to be scientific. And thus far opponents of evolution haven’t been able to say much scientifically.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 2, 2006 @ 2:27 am
One big part of what is wrong with this debate is the way arguments are so mischaracterized. In the process of staking out an opinon, one is forced into defending a position that is not truly representative.
In the process of arguing over “evolution”, many of the participants thus have to identify themselves with the polemicized caricatures of the two sides. When in fact, there exist a whole range of viable opinions and degrees of conviction and variability. It almost seems as though the arguments are vastly oversimplified. I do not understand why this happens, but it seems very common in such matters.
In my case, it is wholly inappropriate to identify as “anti-evolution”, since my academic and professional background is rooted in biological sciences and I see living evidences of the process of evolution with my own eyes. On the other hand, I am sympathetic with those who wish to reserve judgement before commiting themselves to atheism on the strength of science-based philosophical arguments. I personally have no problem accomodating a great deal of cognitive noise that seems to emanate from the interface between my science understanding and my religious faith.
In my experience, I believe most people have similar feelings about this matter. It would be accurate to cast most of us somewhere on middle ground, with some equivocation and reservations about everything. But somehow in the course of discussion, we all get tossed out to the far edges. I think this is patently unfair.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 2, 2006 @ 10:55 am
Jim, don’t you think it a bit ironic that you complain about oversimplifying and then suggest that the opposing view is merely, “wish[ing] to reserve judgement before commiting themselves to atheism on the strength of science-based philosophical arguments.” That suggests a false dichotomy that evolution entails atheism.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 2, 2006 @ 11:55 am
I simply am mystified by this issue. Why is he an idiot? Why don’t you guys want creationism taught in school along with Darwinism? It sounds reasonable to me.
Comment by annegb — March 2, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Anne, I think idiot is a tad strong and I actually do agree with Jim that this issue is perhaps over-polarized.
I think though that Buttars in general in Utah tends to be overly concerned with “image bills” that don’t really solve any problems and end up being very expensive since they are immediately challenged in court. That is, I don’t think Buttars is particularly concerned about effective government but rather putting a finger in the eye of anyone who thinks differently from him. And he uses government as a way of doing this. He’s more concerned about PR for his views than being an effective government servant. (All in my opinion, of course)
As for why Creationism shouldn’t be taught, one has to ask, “who’s creationsim?” Do we teach the Creationism of the Catholics? The Creationism of the conservative Protestants? What about the Mormons? Do we include Islam? The Unitarians? The Hindus? What about Buddhists? How about various Native American traditions? Is the evidence for all these traditions equal?
The next question is to ask whether things that aren’t science ought be taught in science class. After all ideally science class ought be about science. Should we be instead teaching religion in science?
The next question is the question of evidence. If we start bringing in religion in science class don’t we inevitably have to raise the issue of evidence (which is key in science). That will frankly lead to the *attacking* of religious views. (Perhaps quite contrary to what some intend) There is considerable evidence for scientific claims. That’s why they are as established as they are. But most religious claims don’t have public evidence of that sort.
Next up is the church’s neutrality on the issue of evolution. Is there even a religious need in Utah for this?
Finally there is the constitutional issue. Similar bills have been raised elsewhere and they are almost always struck down as unconstitutional. Given that the legal fees will rise into the millions is it really a good use of public funds to do this, especially when in Utah schools we (a) aren’t teaching the issue Buttars and others are worried about and (b) already have release time seminary to teach religion in Utah. What exactly is the problem this is designed to solve.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 2, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Clark:
Making note of this common oversimplification is not me subscribing to it, but certainly this cannot be the first time you’ve ever heard the idea. I suppose Buttars believes he represents people with such concerns. Whether or not this polarized and simplistic thinking is legitimate, it must be addresed in constructive ways. Progress will never be served by calling each other names. Sooner or later the “idiots” that have effectively become your enemies will find a weakness to attack.
It may well be that Buttars is indeed an idiot. I don’t know him, nor have I ever seen any formal metrics applied to his intelligence, so I cannot speak to that question. I’m certainly not defending him. As far as I can tell, as a Utah politician, he is among peers. But it seems inevitable that this trivial debate presages a more destructive antagonism to come, in which there is potential for serious damage to be done. Instead of dismissing as “idiots” the many Utah residents he represents, why not seek a better way to settle the problem now? If it is costs you’re worried about, this would seem like the most efficient and economical time to do so.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 2, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
OK, my misunderstanding if you weren’t espousing the evolution = atheism view.
Also note that I wasn’t calling Buttars or those who think like him idiots. That was Sue (#8) engaging in what I suspect was a bit of hyperbole.
As to the settling of the problem, isn’t the best way to settle the problem to educate people about evolution? I don’t see how teaching creationism would help. It would only seem to exacerbate the situation.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 2, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
Scientists change their minds all the time about stuff. Science is never exact. So it doesn’t make sense to me that we are presenting kids with information as fact that may be obsolete next year and refusing to present them with a less “scientific” theory.
I personally believe God used evolution. I have no problem blending the ideas. I don’t care what other people think, it doesn’t affect my beliefs and I would teach my kids at home about my beliefs, regardless what the school taught.
It just doesn’t seem reasonable to reject a whole school of thought, ie creationism. It doesn’t even seem scientific. Surely there is scientific evidence of creationism–mathematically? I’m just guessing.
On the other hand, I don’t know a thing about this guy. I’m taking it on faith that my knowledgeable friends here are to be trusted. And the overwhelming concensus is that he was off track.
Comment by annegb — March 2, 2006 @ 11:36 pm
Anne, the argument that scientists change their mind about stuff only is significant if we take into consideration what kind of stuff they change their minds about.
I hear frequently the argument that since scientists are sometimes wrong that we therefore shouldn’t trust them and thus evolution is about on par with speculation. But that’s like saying that because I sometimes mistake what I’m seeing in front of me that I should never in any circumstance trust my sight. (Not that you are making this argument – just that it’s an argument I hear in these discussions)
Further when scientists change their minds it is for an other scientific theory. The problem is that creationism isn’t just not a scientific theory, it completely contradicts most of the evidence we have and can’t explain the things that the scientific theories can.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 3, 2006 @ 12:06 am
Medicine is a science, Clark, but using your argument, disposing one “truth” for another “truth” doesn’t work for me. It’s contradictory. If what we now know is truth, when what we used to think was truth was false, then what we may learn later, will negate the present truth.
So we’re all seeing through a glass, darkly, in the end.
I think creationism should be given equal time, given the constant re-examination of scientific principles.
Comment by annegb — March 3, 2006 @ 3:43 am
annegb and Clark Goble,
I sort of agree with both of you but for different reasons. Giving creationism equal time in a science classroom could actually be quite useful. The problem with science education is that teachers do not teach scientific method. Instead, they teach theories and laws as facts and thereby confuse interpretation (which changes) with evidence (which is unchanging). I think annegb captures this in post #17:
“Scientists change their minds all the time about stuff. Science is never exact. So it doesn’t make sense to me that we are presenting kids with information as fact that may be obsolete next year and refusing to present them with a less “scientific†theory.”
I think teaching creationism could be useful as a foil for teaching scientific method. It might be helpful to show students that creationism starts with a conclusion, then looks for evidence to support it. Science, on the other hand, starts with observed evidence, then attempts to explain it, then tests the explanation. Because creationism starts with a conclusion, its conlcusions never change, unlike science, which must modify conclusions based on newer evidence.
Comment by BrianJ — March 3, 2006 @ 10:31 am
Brian, I liked your insight.
I would just add one thing. You wrote, Science, on the other hand, starts with observed evidence, then attempts to explain it, then tests the explanation. And then it draws inferences that may or may not be sound, and are subject to “debunking” the moment another piece of evidence surfaces to frustrate one of the myriad arguments from silence on which the inferences rely, in addition to the fragmentary evidence.
Comment by john f. — March 3, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Wouldn’t it be cool to have a teacher who was unafraid to explore these things? cool for the kids? I loved those kinds of teachers.
Comment by annegb — March 3, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
“He who fears truth as a rational explaination of things will endlessly look anywhere but to the light”
“The evolutionary scientists are not so afriad that there ideas may never pan out, they are afraid that the rational truth might be made known to men and the glory will go to the Father in Heaven and not them”
“Man who takes glory to himself for the cause of the world in his many accomplishments, will never recognize the truth when it is plainly manifest”
“”The pit is getting deeper, and soon, the digger will not be able to pull himself out”
“Unless man turns to God for answers, the mysteries of science will always be compounded”
…musings of a mad and crazy thinker….
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 4, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Brian J and John F,
I was educated k-12 in Utah public schools. It was repeatedly made clear to me exactly what the word “theory” means and how such things come about. Rather than using creationism as an example, which seems like an illustrative example as first blush but is obviously an easy way to invite a law suit, they used actual scientific theories that had been debunked. It was made very clear that theories come and go.
Comment by a random John — March 5, 2006 @ 12:19 am
a random john,
I was also educated–and sometimes miseducated–in Utah’s public K-12. If good scientific method was taught to you, then you are, according to my experience and observations, the exception. And I am not singling out Utah schools or public schools. Most people I talk to about science do not have a good understanding of how science works. Most first-year graduate students in my department still work under false notions, despite having majored in science as undergraduates. Much of the point of graduate school is to teach how to think like and ultimately become a scientist.
I admit that my suggestion in post #20 was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I say “somewhat” because I do believe in the value of foils in general and in this case in particular, though I do not know that I would use creationism, per se, were I teaching in a public school. A student can understand that theories come and go, but I want them to understand why. And that requires a little more “philosophy of science” than most students are taught. (I am not suggesting that you lack this understanding.) Using scientific theories as you point out would of course be valuable.
Comment by BrianJ — March 5, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
It’s pretty unusual in general to find the scientific method taught in high school. There is often something *called* the scientific method. (Basically the pick a guess and then test it idea) But of course in real science there is no “scientific method” although it’s a good first order approximation.
I think what’s really needed though it to prepare students by teaching them critical thinking skills. Unless you have those and understand basic problem solving, you can’t really understand the scientific method. (IMO)
I think some shows are helping here. While it’s a tad cheesy, I really credit the show Mythbusters for showing some critical thinking skills and testing.
The biggest problem though (not at all helped by Bush’s No Child Left Behind) is that students are taught to memorize. Thinking really isn’t taught in high school or junior high. Rather thinking of the world in terms of facts is. But that’s not a terribly good way to think about things. Further it is also, I suspect, why many students don’t like science. That’s not to suggest some memorization isn’t important. But when it becomes the main focus, something is wrong.
Further critical thinking skills are tremendously useful in real life. Indeed I’d argue that our democracy really depends upon them.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 6, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
I was educated in Dallas public schools. We were just taught that Mormons were from Satan.
But as to arJ’s comment 24, I agree that the concept that a scientific theory, such as evolution, is only a theory and not a fact can be adequately demonstrated by teaching about scientific theories that were later discounted even though they were considered sound at the time.
My question to arJ: what did you personally find objectionable in the proposed Utah legislation? If I understand correctly, it did not say anything about creationism as a competing theory to evolution. Rather, it simply would have required teachers discussing evolution to include a disclaimer that evolution is just a theory the aspects of which are still being debated by scientists. Or am I overlooking something?
Comment by john f. — March 6, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
I think the problem John, is that scientists justifiably worry that it’s “just a theory” is being treated differently from all the other theories. i.e. that it is being presented as a theory different from say the theory of gravitation. In a way it is designed to teach that there isn’t strong evidence for evolution. It’s clearly there to discredit evolution.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 6, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Clarke said- #28
“In a way it is designed to teach that there isn’t strong evidence for evolution. It’s clearly there to discredit evolution. ”
I thought that there wasn’t strong evidence for evolution though and that is why the push to not put it in the mostly factual column. I also think that only teaching evolution also discredits the bible. It goes both ways
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 6, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Rob, I’ll not get into a debate with you on this. However most people who look at the issue would say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and absolutely none for young earth creationism.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 6, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
john f:
“But as to arJ’s comment 24, I agree that the concept that a scientific theory, such as evolution, is only a theory and not a fact….”
I concur with Clark (post #28) and add:
This is an example of my point here about science education. Theories do not graduate into facts (or laws) once they have gained enough proof. That is not the way scientists think or work. ALL scientific theories are subject to rewording / reworking / dismissal / “debunking” should additional evidence promote a better theory. Likewise, ALL scientific laws are subject to reworking, etc, with additional evidence. Strictly speaking, scientists do not confuse “theory” with “fact” or “law” with “fact.”
The Buttar’s Bill promotes the fallacy that scientists think of theories as facts. The “fact” is, we think of theories as explanations of the facts. So the Buttar’s Bill not only promotes bad science, it also promotes bad education.
Comment by BrianJ — March 6, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
John F:
I read my post and I thought it might have a sharp tone. I hope it isn’t read that way; I meant it as a sincere answer to your sincere question in post #27.
Comment by BrianJ — March 6, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
Clarke,
I disagree. I think most people don’t see the evidence for evolution. In fact polls have repeatedly shown most Americans support an intelligent designer over evolution.
In fact the National geographic studied this phenemenon and reported in their magazine that no less than 45 percent of polled Americans showed that they believe man was created in his present form at one point within the last 10000 years. 37 percent believe that there was room for both evolution and God, while only 12 percent believe that we descended from apes with no help from God.
This information is found in the November 2004 issue.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 7, 2006 @ 12:05 am
Rob, like others, I’m not sure you’re real. I have a suspicion you’re a product of the same folks being the fictitious “Prudence” character that posted on blogs. But being charitable and assuming your serious and sincere, do you really think polls are a good way of determining truth?
Comment by Clark Goble — March 7, 2006 @ 12:52 am
Clark Goble,
I have to admit some jealousy of Rob–people debating whether or not you are real. Wow! that kind of debate is usually reserved for things like deity, time, quanta.
But now I’m curious, was the issue of his reality ever resolved by taking a poll?
Comment by BrianJ — March 7, 2006 @ 8:27 am
Geoff e-mailed me with the same question I referred him to where I work at vintagejag.com where I have worked for years. I am a real person with real views. And no, I am not just yanking peopls chains.
I belive polls are a good measureing device. I also find it interesting that the evidence gathersd from polls dealing with evolution haven’t really changed in the past 20 years. You would think with all of the new supposed scientific evidence that people would change their minds but we see that Americans really are smart and can see a fable when it’s coming.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 7, 2006 @ 10:42 am
BrianJ: it seems to me that one possible motivation behind the Buttars Bill (of which, by the way, I am not a supporter, but I think it is a different species than ID bills elsewhere in the country, such as in Pennsylvania recently) is that science teachers in public education are not teaching evolution with explanations of the scientific method such as yours, which was great. You wrote:
It seems to me that the Buttars Bill was kind of an attempt to get teachers to talk this way about evolution. What am I missing?
Comment by john f. — March 7, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
If Buttar’s bill were simply to teach about theories then they wouldn’t be singling out evolution. Why is evolution more special than gravity?
Comment by Clark Goble — March 7, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
I can’t presume to speak for the people who introduced the Buttars Bill and haven’t read the legislative history, but I am wondering if it is a reaction to public school science teachers’ carelessness in teaching specifically human evolution as if it were a fact when it is really only an inference from very incomplete historical data.
Comment by john f. — March 7, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
(and hence the focus on evolution rather than a broader, general disclaimer about science along the lines that BrianJ mentioned. As a side note, if it had been a bill about a general disclaimer of that nature about science, would there have been the same uproar around here?)
Comment by john f. — March 7, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
But once again John, how is that different than gravity? Aren’t the theories of gravity equally inferred from limited facts?
I should add that this was also one of the big points that the judge out east made regarding the constitutionality of ID in the schools. If you single out evolution you may well be violating the constitution.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 7, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
Clark, but see my comment 40.
Comment by john f. — March 7, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Sorry, I didn’t see that when I wrote my comments.
I think if it was generic and just pointed out science is made up of theories there would be far less controversy. (Indeed as I recall the bill was watered down in that direction – although not enough) Indeed this is something that still ought be taught.
There might still be some consternation about whether the legislature ought be that involved in curriculum. Which would be a valid concern, but perhaps far less controversial.
The point is that schools really ought be teaching what a theory is.
I should add one perhaps area I disagree with BrianJ. I think that science does use the words laws and facts. Perhaps loosely. Although 80 years ago they were more formally used. But today a law or a fact are basically just theories we hold to very strongly. By that measure evolution is both a law and a fact.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 7, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
It is interesting that The Buttars bill and many others like it around the country do not wish to exclude evolutionary theory, they only wish to add the idea that it is a theory and that there are other theories currently being advanced that perhaps opens the mind a little bit.
There are groups out there that think in the lines of “separation of church and state” but these kind of bills do not even fall into that category, nor is the phrase of separation of church and state found in the constitution. The creation critics view creationism as religion but fail to realize that the same criteria that theu use to classify the creationists into a religion also can be applied directly to themselves.
I see nothing wrong with looking at all pieces of the pie and then leaving it to the students to choose for themselves. I believe it can be done in a classroom setting. The details of God himself do not even need to be discussed. I do think though that children in school do need to be made aware that because biology is so complex that the possibility of randomness could be replaced/ reworked with design from an intelligent designer in mind.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 8, 2006 @ 12:02 am
The issue isn’t a vague and overly broad separation of Church and State but what happens when the State teaches a particular religious dogma to the exclusion of others.
Further one can argue that in a science class one ought teach science and not religious dogma.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 8, 2006 @ 12:20 am
The original wording of the Buttars’ Bill said, “In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race….†I disagree with this concept because, as Clark has written, it singles out a single area of science and thereby makes evolution seem less accepted than it is and, perhaps worse, it implies that all other scientific theories enjoy consensus.
john f: regarding posts 37 and 39: I admit that I am suspicous of the real intent of Buttars. Nevertheless, I am less interested in the intent of the bill than its effect. And its effect would have been to promote the false notion that scientists do not agree on evolution. While there are many competing theories of evolution, the majority fall under an umbrella that is widely accepted. In other words, 99% of scientists agree that species undergo dramatic change over time, they just don’t agree on how.
Regarding post 40: “As a side note, if it had been a bill about a general disclaimer of that nature about science, would there have been the same uproar around here?†I suspect that I never would have heard about it from the media. I tried reading it after crossing out the language that singles out one field of science, and I think it is more or less what I would be teaching anyway (so no uproar).
Clark Goble (post 43): I did not say “that science does [not] use the words laws and facts.†I said (post #31), that “scientists do not confuse ‘theory’ with ‘fact’ or ‘law’ with ‘fact’†(emphasis added). Of course, informally scientists are sometimes “looseâ€, as you say, with the lingo, and that is why I included the words, “Strictly speaking.†Along those lines, I have caught many a physisist use the word “centrifugal.â€
“Although 80 years ago they were more formally used. But today a law or a fact are basically just theories we hold to very strongly. By that measure evolution is both a law and a fact.â€
Follow this link ( http://fermat.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol5.html ) to a book published just 8 years ago by the National Academy of the Sciences. Read the whole page, or just search for “Fact or Theory.†Another good article is: http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html
Also see (but it’s a bit denser): http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
Comment by BrianJ — March 8, 2006 @ 12:38 am
sorry, that link to the NAS book isn’t working, try this: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html
Comment by BrianJ — March 8, 2006 @ 12:46 am
Sorry, I should have been more careful in my word choice. What I was objecting to was,
“Theories do not graduate into facts (or laws) once they have gained enough proof. That is not the way scientists think or work. ”
While “enough proof” isn’t something I’d agree with, I think if you changed it to “enough evidence.” Now related to the links you gave, I understand where they are coming from, I’m not at all sure I’d agree how they deal with scientific use rhetorically.
The second link you gave doesn’t address the point I made. Rather it was discussing whether law, theory, and hypothesis were linked in a hierarchy. Which of course I never asserted. I’m more speaking of the difference between talk of theories that aren’t really trusted yet for a variety of reasons versus those that are. The former we’d never call a law. Not because the theory isn’t claiming to represent a law-like structure but because we simply don’t trust it. Once we do we’re willing to use the term law. Now the notion of law is perhaps somewhat antiquated now. Mainly because laws were originally seen to be universal in scope whereas now they are anything but. (i.e. Newton’s Laws) But rhetorically the use continues even if the original philosophical framework has been discarded.
The one paper you gave made this claim, “Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena.”
I can’t accept that. Consider at a minimum Maxwell’s laws. That explained how electricity and magnetism were unified. It was primarily an explanation and not just a description. Although of course the explanation/description distinction is artificial at best since any explanation is itself a description. The difference is generally that we think explanations are more fundamental than the previous description. But that then means something is an explanation only with respect to a particular phenomena. For instance Newton’s Laws explain Galileo’s observations as well as Kepler’s.
I suspect this claim comes out of the covering law thesis of Carl Hemple which has been very influential. This is the idea that any real explanation must contain an empirical law. This was then expanded (and perhaps explained) by Carnap who in a relatively famous paper gave the motivations to the problems with certain biological theories in the 1930′s.
While Hemple and Carnap were very influential (and I suspect DKL will come to their defense given his positivist tendencies) I think that there are a lot of problems with these ideas. If you are interested I can list the problems. It is a very interesting discussion. The basic approach is to make a distinction between explanation and unification. Scientists, especially those who wish to reduce all theories to physics, like the idea of unification. Indeed the search for quantum gravity is the ultimate unification attempt. But one can see that Maxwell’s Laws, Quantum Electrodynamics, and then Quantum Chromodynamics were all laws primarily motivated by unification. They also highlight the problem with explanation. The Standard Theory provided out of QCD pretty well explains everything we need, by and large. But we recognize it doesn’t unify everything. (Well, some might argue that it doesn’t necessarily explain the underlying patterns among fundamental particulars – so one can quibble)
All of this ends up tied to evolution as well. With regards to evolution Hempel stressed that we have to distinguish between the story of evolution and the theory of evolution. That is the narrative of what happened versus the underlying laws. So Hemple, because of his particular requirement for laws would require evolution to be a law or at least contain a law of evolution. Others would not, but then what they call a law is more fluid.
Facts are of course used less often by scientists (and philosophers of science) They did arise back in the more positivist days, mainly because of the theory – observation distinction. However that divide has largely been discredited or at least rendered more problematic. Once again in Hemple we can see that distinction. This once again gets complex and gets into the issue of interpretation and thereby hermeneutics in science.
I think it safe to say that facts are interpretations (especially observational interpretations) we’re confident in. However they are still a class of theories by their very nature. Thus the theory/fact divide is arbitrary and largely rests upon what degree of confidence we have. But in practice it is also tied still to how abstract the theory is. At least in some circles.
Sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent. But it actually is pretty interesting stuff to me. Although I admit I’m a bit rusty.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 8, 2006 @ 1:18 am
re 46, BrianJ wrote In other words, 99% of scientists agree that species undergo dramatic change over time, they just don’t agree on how.
If I understand correctly, ID supporters don’t necessarily disagree with this theory at all. Or I should say, people who disagree that the human race is a product of evolution don’t necessarily disagree that the phenomenon of natural selection occurs to change species. So I don’t think that language such as that in the Buttars Bill was aimed at undermining the idea that most scientists agree that species undergo dramatic change over time.
Comment by john f. — March 8, 2006 @ 10:16 am
John, I think the language was designed to undermine the idea that humans arose out of that process.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 8, 2006 @ 11:40 am
This is where I need to chime in with the same comment that I offer on every evolution thread:
There are three aspects to evolution: (1) the fact of evolution, that it happened; (2) the mechanism of evolution; how it happened which could be natural selection, complexitiy theory, etc.; (3) the path of evolution, which would include man’s evolutionary history.
(1) Is not questioned by anybody at all. This is as well established as any scientific theory or law ever could be.
(2) There is still some debate to be had in this area. Natural selection is currently seen as by far the most powerful mechanism, but some other mechanism could hypothetically surface which could dethrone it as being most important (it will never be proven false). Of course doubt in this area sheds no doubt whatsoever on (1), and any further knowledge in this area, pretty much no matter what it is, will only strengthen (1).
(3) This are will always be debated, for by the very nature of the beast (we are after all speaking of events which have long since been lost to the sands of time) we will never know most of the paths. Paleontology, geography, genetics and the like can help out a lot, but we simply can’t expect knowledge about every evolutionary path way (especially of biochemical systems which do not leave any kind of fossil remains at all, this is Behe’s rock of refuge). What is more than clear is that man descended from previous hominids. Religion is not the only group that takes a greater interest in man than in all other animals, science does to, and their evolutionary path has been mapped about as well as any other species’ have.
In short, there is a lot of theory in the mechanism and paths of evolution, but evolution itself is not a theory, not by a long shot. In fact part of the reason why evolution has not “graduated” to a law is simply because creationists insist upon calling it a theory by refusing to acknowledge not only the immense amounts of evidence in its favor, but the vast progress which has been made in evolutionary biology in the past few decades.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — March 8, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Even (2) probably ought be subdivided. Going back to Hempel we have the history or narrative of evolution and then the laws or structures of evolution. And within the laws there are then subcomponents that are still up for grabs. i.e. one could embrace natural selection as a law in the 1920s but be unaware of DNA and mutation as it relates to this movement.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 8, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
How is the “history or narrative of evolution” different from the path of evolution?
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — March 8, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
I suppose it depends upon what one means by path. If by path you mean history, then nothing. I thought by path you meant something closer to possibilities rather than history.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 8, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
john f, re post #49:
Once again, Clark Goble, in post #50, has not only beat me to the answer, but also worded it better than would I anyway. In post #46, I should have said, “…scientists agree that all species including humans undergo dramatic change over time, they just don’t agree on how or why.”
In the last few days, I have tried to learn what Rep. Buttars has to say. Let me quote directly from Rep. Buttars himself:
“By Chris Buttars
Senator, District 10
“What I have wanted to do all along is stop opinionated teachers from teaching human evolution as fact. Scientists disagree on the origins of humankind. Young students should have a fighting chance to appreciate the difference between theory and law.”
Buttars misrepresents or misunderstands the disagreement among scientists. True: scientists disagree on the origins of mankind–and I think Jeffrey Giliam (post #51, points 1-3) words this (again) better than I could.
Also, john f, I am afraid that I am doing a poor job of explaining why the bill bothered me. How would you feel if similar laws were passed:
In Worlds Religion Class: “When teaching about the religions that follow a centralized governing body, it must be stressed that not all Mormons support Pres Hinckley.” (Why single out Mormons?)
In Physical Education: “When teaching different sports, it must be stressed that not all americans like baseball.” (Why single out baseball?)
Comment by BrianJ — March 8, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Yeah, by path, I meant history.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — March 8, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Clark Goble,
It appears that you and I are doing a good job of misreading one another. In order to avoid further misunderstanding, I would like to list some points on which I think we agree, and which are actually on the original topic of this post:
1) The Buttars Bill was wrong to single out one theory of science.
2) The word “theory,†as used by most Americans, means “an idea that is unsupported, conjecture, a guess.†Scientists often use the word differently, and in many cases it refers to an idea that is almost universally accepted among scientists.
3) Scientists do not assert that theories or laws are perfect or unchangeable (aside: Nonetheless, paradigms form).
4) Most scientists believe that evolution applies to all species, not excluding humans.
5) The disagreement among scientists over evolution is “played up†by opponents of the theory. (aside: akin to atheists pointing to the disagreement among religions about God and concluding that this shows there is no God.)
6) (This one I am largely inferring) Students in a science classroom should be taught about science (definitions, critical thinking, testing, scientific method) as well as the prevalent beliefs and findings of science.
Now, to partially respond to your comments:
My misuse of the word “proof†in post #31 was intentional. I was using language that non-scientists incorrectly use when trying to describe how scientists work.
In post #43, when you wrote, “today a law or a fact are basically just theories we hold to very strongly†I took that to mean that you do not think scientists today make any distinction between law, fact, and theory. Based on that understanding, I posted a few links to show that scientists do make a distinction.
Then in post #48, I understand you to be making a different assertion. You wrote: “While “enough proof†isn’t something I’d agree with, I think if you changed it to “enough evidence.â€â€ I now take it that you affirm the following:
“Theories graduate into (or are called) facts or laws once they have gained enough evidence.â€
If that is what you are saying, then we do have a disagreement. I should add that I think Jeffrey Giliam in the last paragraph of post #51 is agreeing with you.
But if that is what you believe, then I am confused by the fourth paragraph of post #48:
“The second link you gave doesn’t address the point I made. Rather it was discussing whether law, theory, and hypothesis were linked in a hierarchy. Which of course I never asserted.â€
I am confused by this statement, because if theories can or should become laws once they have ample evidence, as I thought you and Jeffrey Giliam said, then that implies some kind of hierarchy and progression. It also implies that some laws, such as Newton’s, should be demoted to mere theories once an exception is discovered.
Note: before posting this, I actually wrote a lengthier response to your post #48 and the last paragraph of Jeffrey Giliam’s post #51. I decided against posting, however, for a couple reasons. One, it was a really lengthy post, even longer than yours {smile}. Two, based on my first sentence of this post, I’m not sure if we’re understanding one another well enough to have any disagreement.
Comment by BrianJ — March 9, 2006 @ 11:54 pm