17-Year-Old Boy Challenges Michele Bachmann

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jun 2, 2011 14:19:41 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 2, 2011 14:16:49 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< Not understanding the origin of life doesn't disprove evolution, but merely shows we don't understand the origins of life. >>>

...bingo... so if LA wants to introduce their kids to one of the two prevailing theories on origin of life, so be it...

But, that isn't what LA is trying to do. They are trying to dismiss the theory of evolution, not provide alternatives to the origin of life. Life starting from god, from the big bang, or from someone sneezing doesn't change the theory of evolution.

...then you'll need to post another link, because the articles from which these threads have spun only discuss including creationism as only one part of the entire curriculum concerning "where we came from."

[Angel!]

Jun 2, 2011 14:23:48 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jun 2, 2011 14:19:41 GMT -5 Angel! said:

But, that isn't what LA is trying to do. They are trying to dismiss the theory of evolution, not provide alternatives to the origin of life. Life starting from god, from the big bang, or from someone sneezing doesn't change the theory of evolution.

...then you'll need to post another link, because the articles from which these threads have spun only discuss including creationism as only one part of the entire curriculum concerning "where we came from."

You've lost me. You are saying they are introducing intelligent design as a theory of the origin of life, but that isn't what they are doing. The question of the origin of life is how did the first prokaryotes come into being. Evolution explains how the first prokaryotes evolved into all the life on earth today. As I said, not understanding the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Teaching intelligent design is not teaching a different theory on how the prokaryotes came into being, but rather teaching that a creator designed all life as it exists today.

Thus they aren't teaching two prevailing theories on the origin of life. Rather they are teaching something that goes against all scientific theory & evidence regarding evolution & the age of the earth.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<<You've lost me. You are saying they are introducing intelligent design as a theory of the origin of life, but that isn't what they are doing. >>>

...actually, you lost me... so maybe post a link showing what they're really doing, since all the other links talk about their introducing creationism and big bang theories to kids... two prevailing theories... to which I say, big whoop...

...but that's just my opinion...

[Angel!]

From the previous thread's article "In 2008 the Louisiana legislature made it legal for teachers to introduce theory of intelligent design, (creationism), alongside the theory of evolution, (Darwinism), to students who take science classes in the state's public schools."

They are teaching intelligent design along evolution. Intelligent design doesn't merely cover the origins of life & big bang, but also covers how we came to have 5 fingers & 2 eyes. It covers an entire range of scientific subjects & goes against all scientific research in these areas.

[Virgil Showlion]

As I mentioned, the times when such mutations are advantageous are exceedingly rare, but they do occur when considered in the scope of millennia...

My point, madam, is that no working mathematical model of these dynamics is derived where the inherent degradation of genetic information over these timeframes does not overwhelm the influences of the 'exceedingly rare' advantageous mutations.

I am not saying such a model can not exist. I'm saying that despite our best efforts thus far, one does not exist.

The most famous example of this theory was the concept that giraffes had long necks because each generation slowly stretched their necks reaching for forage.

Care to explain how evolution explains the lengthening of the neck without this incremental reaching?

At the turn of the last century, around 1900, a Catholic monk named Mendel, developed the basics of classic genetics through experimentation involving flowering peas.

Again you're talking about gene expression and heredity, not evolution. A chihuahua is not an 'evolved' form of an earlier breed of dog, and no self-respecting biologist would consider it so. It is a creature bred so that very specific traits are asserted and others are not.

It would be disingenuous to put the same value on both.

And where in "supplementary materials for critiquing the science" do you get "same value on both"?

According to the Bible, the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations.

I addressed biblical references to the Earth as an 'orb' earlier.

The bible calls the skies 'a scroll', claims 'a star' fell from heaven, claims the heavens were 'framed by God's fingers'. I haven't actually counted the number of figurative references in the bible, but it's probably close to 20,000. The metaphors used by the bible are useful, germane, and rich in meaning. Many characterize complex and ultimately irrelevant physical truths in a way that people not educated to a 12th grade level can easily understand.

"Edges", "corners" are metaphorically used in several to describe "the whole earth", such as the edges and corners of a world map. Other references describe the Earth as an 'orb'; one describes it as a scroll. The instance in the Book of Revelation that refers to the angels standing at the corners of the Earth also describes a "bowl of fire" being poured out over the Earth. That might have been your first clue that you're in figurative language territory.

In this thread, I have seen not only evolution, but astronomy, geology and cosmology attacked as well.

Where? Give me an example of an "attack on cosmology". Or an example of an "attack on geology".

This is something invented by creationists. They often cite the human eye as an example. It only takes looking through nature to see countless examples of simpler & more complex versions of eyes.

Irreducible complexity is a mathematical formalism, developed hundreds of years before the C/E debate was ever heard of.

As for the eye, I'm not talking anything nearly so macroscopic. I'm talking about something more like a simple flagellum for a bacterium, which would need enzymes for the membranes, support structure, transport of fluids, motor propulsion, motor control, growth and assembly, etc., etc., all of which would need to be in perfect working order before the flagellum would provide one iota of use to the bacterium.

They evolved simutaneously

You seem to be missing the "A is a precursor to B is a precursor to C is a precursor to A" caveat here. Admittedly my example isn't great. I'll come up with a decent one tomorrow. For now, my post is bloated enough.

So, you can't say positive mutations are oddities whereas negative mutations are a result of entropy - all are just mutations.

That's like claiming that there's no such thing as a 'bad' way to smash a car with a sledgehammer, since one of those smashes might make it slightly more aerodynamic.

Entropy means, in terms you can understand, for the current evolution SOTA: functional genes are lost, destroyed, or become dysfunctional at a far greater rate than they improve and can maintain those improvements.

Massive shifts in evolutation are often the result of a change in climate or the characteristics of a population.

...which would be a great theory, if the "shifts in evolutation" had timescales anywhere near those of global climate changes.

Most of these are related to man as we take away creature's habitats.

Loss of biodiversity extends far beyond loss of habitat. I won't debate you on it at length because virtually all of the research that gets funded deals with man as a cause.

The funding model does make sense. Man-made causes are easy to characterize, and can theoretically be mitigated.

They are trying to dismiss the theory of evolution, not provide alternatives to the origin of life.

Again, where are you people seeing this in the article? To critique the theory of evolution is to 'dismiss' it now? To claim that it doesn't explain the origins of life is 'attacking' it?

You wonder why the creationists are so recalcitrant?

The idea that we can mis-educate children and make them unfit for careers in science and medicine will reap the whirlwind later.

I maintain that a university undergrad who believes in an 'intelligent factor' guiding/influencing the development of life on Earth is no less able to tackle the meaningful problems in science and medicine than one who believes all is the result of meaningless happenstance.

Evolution explains how the first prokaryotes evolved into all the life on earth today.

With some bloody gaping holes that need to be filled. Hence, the critiquing.

*whew*

Sorry for the book.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...and repeated complaints against including ID in a comprehensive curriculum for that reason is akin to complaining about HomeEc teachers that discuss baking a cake with love in addition to following a recipe with precision... imo...

[Virgil Showlion]

All human knowledge has gaps. That is the point of testing and proving.

Well I guess we'll never get that chance, will we?

The in and the out of the LA bill, for anyone who deigned to read it, was the inclusion of "supplementary materials for the purposes of critiquing" existing theories.

Instead, LA students grow up into the myth that the theory is flawless and not to be challenged--on any grounds. Just like every other student in the nation.

[lakhota]

Michele Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished by High School Student

Michele Bachmann, as virtually everyone knows, is currently deciding whether she's going to make a run for the Tea Party, oops, I meant to say, Republican, nomination for president. What most don't know, though, is that her educational policies are being challenged by an amazing high school student from Baton Rouge, La. You should get to know this student, Zack Kopplin, and his efforts because he's likely to make a difference.

I've written about Zack previously because both his story and his commitment are incredibly impressive. As I first noted, he recently began an effort to repeal an atrocious stealth-creationism law in Louisiana. The law, the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008, encourages attacks on evolution to be taught in Louisiana's public schools under the banner of critical thinking. This is the only state law of its sort in the country and, as Zack so well points out, Louisiana students interested in science are being done a huge disservice by its very existence.

Zack hasn't been content to simply complain about an educationally irresponsible law, however. His organizational skills have been nothing short of phenomenal and he's gathered a collection of supporters second to none. His repeal effort has been endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general science organization in the world with over 10 million members; the National Association of Biology Teachers, the country's main organization for biological educators; The Clergy Letter Project, an organization of more than 14,000 clergy and scientists recognizing that religion and science need not be in conflict; as well as a host of other scientific groups including the American Institute for Biological Sciences, The American Society for Cell Biology, the Society for the Study of Evolution, The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Additionally, the New Orleans City Council voted unanimously to support the repeal.

Zack's work didn't stop there. He wrote a petition that was adopted as Change.org's featured one of the week where it has amassed more than 65,000 supporters. And, as I reported in April, in his most extraordinary effort, he collected the endorsement of 43 individuals who won a Nobel Prize in science.

Which brings me back to Michele Bachmann. Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject. For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."

Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists."

Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there.

For the next hand, I raise you 43 Nobel Laureate scientists. That's right: 43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law. ... Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?

It would be difficult for someone with a sincere interest in science education not to take Zack Kopplin's challenge seriously. Having said that, I fully expect that Michele Bachmann will completely ignore Zack, the voice of the scientific community, the combined pleas of 43 Nobel scientists and thousands of religious leaders.

All of this reminds me of a Sunday afternoon a couple of years ago when I was in Lambeau Field with my two sons watching the Packers play the Bears. After a controversial and costly penalty was called against the Packers, the referee began to give a convoluted explanation of his ruling. The entire crowd of 73,000 plus was completely silent while the odd explanation was being delivered over the PA system. Then, all of a sudden, one fan with a booming voice that could be heard throughout the entire stadium shouted, "Stop making shit up!"

Representative Bachmann, I urge you to pay attention to that fan.

www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/michele-bachmans-stance-o_b_868771.html

[Virgil Showlion]

When at a loss for a counterargument, another HuffPo article, eh Lak?

[lakhota]

I usually only argue/debate those who are potentially open-minded.

Did you read the article and supporting links?

What about the author, Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D., are you familiar with him?

www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman

[Virgil Showlion]

I did. The "supporting links" were declarations by organizations (or at least their mouthpieces) that wish to repeal the law. The author doesn't bother to enumerate any organizations that do support it, perhaps hoping that the reader will assume none exist. The article offers the meaningless pretext that Mr. Kopplin's opinion is in the scientific majority, which has been the case for virtually every wrong fact at some point in history.

The operative sentences are:

"The law, the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008, encourages attacks on evolution to be taught in Louisiana's public schools under the banner of critical thinking. This is the only state law of its sort in the country and, as Zack so well points out, Louisiana students interested in science are being done a huge disservice by its very existence."

They're "being done a huge disservice" by having the same debate you and I are having now. This whole thread--the whole notion of thinking critically about evolution--would appear to be an anathema to Mr. Kopplin and his coterie of supporters.

You, meanwhile, are interrupting by debate with Ms. times.

ETA: I will state again that I do not reject the theory of evolution. There are certain things that it explains very well and where it is perfectly in harmony with physical evidence.

There are other areas where it is flawed and/or grossly deficient. The scientific consensus thus far is that these deficiencies will somehow resolve themselves and that any criticism, whatever the basis, should be militantly stifled in the meantime.

I see repealing this bill as a means to this end.

[lakhota]

You, meanwhile, are interrupting by debate with Ms. times.

I apologize for interrupting my thread.

[Virgil Showlion]

*lol*

I'm kidding, Lak.

But now you know how the Navajo felt.

[lakhota]

I gladly leave you to toughtimes. I don't like to split religious hairs; I'm a big picture kind of guy.

[Virgil Showlion]

Tough: the "problems" I've pointed out don't presuppose the existence of an intelligent designer. The language in the LA legislation refers to all supplementary materials that could be used to challenge the modern theory of evolution. By getting rid of the law, Mr. Kopplin is canonizing the theory. He and his supporters are responding in a reactionary way to what they perceive as an 'unscientific' threat, but they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As for your claim that I have a 'bastardized' view of the theory of evolution (which I call the "cop out argument" for good reason), would you kindly debate me rather than lobbing out generalities like "you are not familiar with".

What is your specific criticism? That giraffe's long necks are due to genetic drift, and you don't consider this to be subsumed by evolutionary theory?

I have similar qualms regarding your "biodiversity" argument. Nowhere does evolution suggest that extinctions do not occur, and sometimes massive ones at that.

A mass extinction over the timescale of a few millennia, without an even part-way commensurate genesis of new species? There have only been five such events in the past 490 million years. Humanity sure hit the proverbial black swan with our timing.

This is a stalking-horse for fundamentalism and any attempt to question it would be blasphemous.

Phooey on that. It's precisely the fundamentalists' questions that are being called 'blasphemous' in this case.

[Angel!]

Jun 2, 2011 19:49:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

[I maintain that a university undergrad who believes in an 'intelligent factor' guiding/influencing the development of life on Earth is no less able to tackle the meaningful problems in science and medicine than one who believes all is the result of meaningless happenstance.

I don't know - teaching kids that "god did it" versus seeking out an explaination that fits with the physical laws of the universe doesn't seem to teach good scientific habits. It doesn't follow scientific testing or methodoly & teaches that we don't need to seek out the answers & when confronted with evidence that doesn't fit with the bible, we should simply throw it away.

On a separate note, Virgil, I find that your counterarguments against evolution display little or no knowledge of what the Theory of Evolution states.

I agree. The giraffe being an example as well as the inability to understand how 2 species might evolve simoutaneously & become dependent on each other for survival. I guess it is easier to argue against something you don't fully understand because then you don't realize most of your arguments have no merit.

toughtimes- on this & other threads I have been extremely impressed with your scientific knowlegde on a range of subjects- you are clearly well educated & intelligent.

[Virgil Showlion]

Ms. D, your grievance with the cyclicity argument stems entirely from the fact that you didn't grasp the notion of 'cyclicity'. I've used up my lunchbreak now, but I shall endeavor to explain it to you later.

you are clearly well educated & intelligent

And she can use the 'Spell Check' button--a triple threat.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

A mass extinction over the timescale of a few millennia, without an even part-way commensurate genesis of new species?

For the one I am most familiar with off the top of my head, the dinosaurs, mammals were already here but they were very tiny, about the size of a rabbit, maybe a tad bigger.

Dinosaurs took up the major ecological niches on this planet during their time.

When they were wiped out, it left room for the mammals to come in and take over because there was no longer anything left to keep them in check.

As they moved into the newly available niches, they evolved and changed to fit better into their new niches.


ID is NOT science, it is psuedoscience hiding behind the skirts of religion to push its agenda.

I don't believe they have to be mutally exclusive in my PRIVATE life, but when it comes to the science classroom I do not want ID or creationism in there.

To say it is okay shows an amazing lack of knowledge about how science works and the use of the scientific method.

Creationism cannot be proved or disproven. I cannot quanitate the Bible, I cannot run any experiments to prove that it is either true or not true. I have to accept it is true based on faith alone.

Evolution has evidence for it, enough evidence that it has progressed to a theory which in science is just below scientific law and even those can be disproven.

Newtonian physics isn't 100% correct, Netwon was a mathmetician, his formulas are very elegant but are not 100% correct when applied scientifically. Same with Mendel.

Doesn't mean we throw out Netownian physics or Mendalian genetics.

But everyone seems to think we should do that when it comes to evolution.


Which is why we are falling behind the rest of the world in science. You can't get ahead when people don't get how science works.

I also think this is the fault of the scientific community, we've been in ivory towers too long and didn't pay attention to what was going on around us.

Which opened up the door for ID people to come in and now we can't get the damn door shut.

[Deleted]

Just spying on Virgil.. who fascinates me...... never before saw a mod like Virgil.......


;D

Ya, I hero worship him, but since he is not a mod on THIS board.. so what??

[Virgil Showlion]

Tough, you're giving valid examples of species formation (although we note that the Pinus Strobus case is genetic drift, which you didn't seem to consider evolution in the case of giraffes ; and the chickadee case is a divergence due to a breakdown in sexual compatibility).

I'm looking at rates of formation. It's a mathematical treatment and I'm unfortunately at a loss to find an online resource that can explain it in useful terms to a reader without a background in stochastic processes. Suffice it to say that there are estimates of the rate(s) at which species are going extinct and estimates of the rate(s) existing species are diverging using the processes you describe. Mathematically, these rates cannot be reconciled into a stable, functional system.

It may be that panicked biologists are heavily exaggerating the rate of species extinction (I wouldn't put it past them) or that human influence has truly knocked Earth for a loop.

I appreciate your concrete examples of 'species formation'. You'll note that they both represent the passive form of evolution--in the sense that the genes of the derived species are a subset of the parent species genotype, differently expressed. I have read literature where evolutionists claim that a stable new gene has been "created", although these studies are quietly debunked later with remarkable consistency.

I agree with your arguments on the nature of "fitness".

On the original matter of repealing the LA "creationist" law, it boils down to three questions:

• does the law necessarily mean that ID will be introduced into LA classrooms?
• is the risk that ID will be introduced into LA classrooms (multiplied by the 'damage' said introduction would cause) greater than the risk of outlawing all supplementary materials that could be used to critique the theory of evolution?
• would repealing the LA be precedent-setting? That is: will it become illegal in future to criticize anthropogenic climate change? If US classrooms are used as a pulpit for scientific humanism, will no dissenting voices be permitted to challenge it?

I believe that if one looks at this matter objectively, he/she should conclude that the risks of exclusion outweigh the risks of inclusion. I'd go so far as to say that we've founded our society on this principle.

I'm reminded of a pertinent quote:

"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights."
    - Napoleon Bonaparte

[Virgil Showlion]

Umm... yes. I don't disagree. But we seem to be 'drifting' away from the core issues under debate, namely the three bullet points in my previous reply.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< God forbid the day come when a curriculum can be devised as a popularity contest and the loudest voices allowed to win. >>>

...already been happening, and in several states... some stay but complain, some educate their kid in alternative ways, some move away... because, of course, it's their kid...

[Virgil Showlion]

To complete our senescence and complete decline into dotage and death, we merely need to completely embrace the idea that facts don't matter.

You obviously haven't been over to the Market Talk board much.

You've summarized the state of US economic policy for the past three years.

[Virgil Showlion]

That would refer to the US social security and public entitlements policies.