[extropy-chat] intelligent design homework

[Robert Lindauer]

On Aug 5, 2005, at 11:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> I completely agree that it would be worthwhile for every child to 
>> have a complete comparative religion (obviously including Agnosticism 
>> and Athiesm) course just as it would be worthwhile to teach all 
>> children logic and soviet history (as an example of another history 
>> which is commonly read differently in the US than in the Soviet 
>> Union).
>
> And I suppose we want to teach all of this as part of *science* eh?  
> The most objectionable part of ID proposals is requiring ID to be 
> taught as some kind of alternate scientific theory when it fails to 
> hold up or even be remotely useful if it ever is considered 
> scientifically.

I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  What parts of ID don't hold 
up and aren't useful?  Don't forget to define "useful for what" being a 
purpose-relative context.  It sure answers the chicken and the egg 
problem adequately meanwhile giving us an understanding of the big bang 
and a variety of other problem.  For the sake of science and 
histo-biology it is an historical theory, like the Permian Extinction 
and the giant meteor.  MAYBE there was a meteor, it certainly would 
explain why the dinosaurs disappeared in such great numbers.  MAYBE 
Zeus struck them down, that would explain it too.  Which is the correct 
explanation?  Well, which one fits in the best with the rest of -our 
world view-?  Well, it depends on which -world view- you have, doesn't 
it?

A person convinced of steady-state cosmology and the existence of the 
ether will not regard the big bang as something that needs explaining, 
rather that the evidence is neeed of some ad hoc explanation.  
Similarly someone convinced of evolution is, ipso facto, convinced that 
life can arise spontaneously and will regard the absence of evidence to 
that effect as something that needs ad hoc explanation.  One makes 
choices in science.  It's fair and right to show what the choices are.  
Otherwise it's not science.

>   Whether or not ID is something nice for kids to know about isn't the 
> primary question.  As non-science it does not belong in a science 
> curriculum.

Well that's just the question isn't it, whether or not Theology is a 
science.  It certainly is in my book, maybe not in yours.  Who gets to 
decide which book we use?

>   Nor does the speculation of the Sim Universe belong is science 
> curriculum except as pure speculation.  Even then it doesn't belong in 
> any of the subjects that evolution is relevant to.  Evolution is what 
> makes all of biology hold together.

Not really.

> To not teach that is to fail to teach what is known at all.

Not at all.

Microbiology and chemical biology except for the various failed 
attempts to show that life can spontaneously arise from inert matter 
are completely evolution-neutral (well, except for those cases where 
there appears to be a clear conflict - such as the speciation problem 
or the spontaneous life problem) - in any case, it's not relevant to 
talk about evolution when showing how, for instance, chemical receptors 
inside of a given bacteria are received and what process ensues.  Nor 
is it relevant, for the most part, to cancer research.  One -could- 
come up with a theory of how evolution is affecting cancer rates and 
what-not but nothing would prevent an ID theorist for accepting that - 
just the two major points - speciation and spontaneous generation.   ID 
theorists aren't restricted from recognizing that competition and 
adaptation are important factors for expression of genetic features, 
they just reject that changes in gene-pools happen "accidentally" - 
like changing the number of chromosomes in Humans, for instance, is 
generally deadly and always mule-making - and that ooze becomes life if 
you stare at it long enough.

The only branch of biology for which evolution is really relevant is 
Histo-Biology and here it's one of several competing theories.  It's 
not even necessarily the likeliest one given the relative dearth of 
missing links and missing micro-biological evidence/theory.  
Essentially, with speciation and spontaneous generation in evolutionary 
theory, you get "something magical happens -here-" at the point where 
two mules have a compatible genetic mutation and are able to reproduce 
and that mutation is beneficial AND at the point where the ooze starts 
reproducing itself.  But you KNOW this.  It's relevant to point these 
things out in class, I think.  I took a couple of biology classes at 
USC and UCLA and it was among the annoying things that during the 
undergrad classes the professors were so adamantly against even 
mentioning the holes in the theory.  One teacher actually refused to 
take further questions on those two points during a discussion of 
evolution and the wolf/dog distinction when a student asked how 
non-reproductive-compatible speciation happens.  I thought this would 
have been the major subject!

Where's the healthy scientific skepticism?  Big thinking in science 
comes from rejecting the accepted wisdom.  That's why we don't have the 
ether and the steady state universe anymore - someone decided that 
there could be evidence that proved or disproved them and went looking 
for it.

I think this is how evolution came along too - Darwin decided that 
there may be another way.   Subsequent generations decided that it 
would be worth studying the -evidence- for it but as far as we can 
tell, there isn't any convincing evidence.  No missing links, no 
spontaneous generation mechanisms, no mule-speciation mechanisms, none 
of the -really important- stuff, has any real verification.  A great 
and elegant theory without any verification is, well, a great and 
elegant theory.  There are LOTS of those.  I take it this wouldn't be 
the forum for discussing positive evidence for design :)  I believe 
that reasons.org has a good compilation.

>> Unfortunately, there's not always time in a public-school curricula.  
>> So, with most -real libertarians- we should probably just do away 
>> with public education.  But only after we do away with taxation!  
>> After all, if we're going to be paying for something, it may as well 
>> be something we want.
>
> Huh?

Well, public money is used to educate your child and mine.  Their 
curricula is decided by the public, e.g. the legislature.  When the 
majority overrules the minority, the minority gets pissed and feels 
disenfranchised.  The best way, in my opinion, to prevent such 
occasions is to limit the strength and power of the government so as to 
not enable the domination of one group by another, for instance, in 
education.

Here's a good example of how it works.  You don't want your kids to 
learn about Intelligent Design.  BUT now, because some hotheads have 
hijacked the white house and the legislature appears to have been 
-mostly- fairly one and the court was stacked by conservatives, if 
they're going to public school, they may be forced to learn it as a 
competing theory.  This makes you unhappy.  You can pull your kid out, 
but then you're still paying for stuff you don't agree with (in my 
case, it's -the war machine-).  How do you prevent the majority or 
federal power-structure from dominating the minority or weak like this? 
  Get rid of the government.

Robbie Lindauer