May 12, 2005

TEACH THE DISHONESTY:

Creationists' new design (Ellen Goodman, May 12, 2005, Boston Globe)

The Kansas rule-makers also want to change the way science is now defined as a search for natural explanations. Says Miller, ''Think hard. What's a nonnatural explanation? A supernatural explanation." He can imagine an earth science class teaching about tsunamis. ''One side teaches about tectonic plates. The other side teaches about people punished for their sins."

Miller also worries about mandating doubts about evolution: ''I'm not the least worried these guys will prevail scientifically. What they may succeed in is giving young people the message that the science establishment is dishonest with the evidence. If that's written into the curriculum it will drive a wedge between young people and science."


Once you take out the intentional frauds and merely inept interpretations--Haeckel’s Embryos, Peppered Moths, Darwin's finches, etc.--there isn't much left of the curriculum.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 12, 2005 12:11 PM
Comments

You have a point regarding Haeckel's embryos, Orrin, but how do "intentional frauds or merely inept interpretations" feature in the peppered moth or Darwin's finches, if at all?

Posted by: creeper at May 13, 2005 6:28 AM

Is Haeckel actually still part of any curriculum today?

Posted by: creeper at May 13, 2005 6:33 AM

Still in the textbooks.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2005 9:44 AM

The peppered moths are a fraud, Darwin's observation proved wrong.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2005 9:44 AM

OJ:

By your tortured reasoning, with miracles, immaculate conception, etc. Christianity is an ongoing, multifarious fraud.

And you really should stop trafficking in absurdities. Industrial mellanism in moths had been observed for a hundred years. Peppered moths are not a fraud.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 13, 2005 11:52 AM

Orrin,

1. Which textbooks still mention Haeckel?

2. In what way are peppered moths a fraud?

3. How do "intentional frauds or merely inept interpretations" feature in Darwin's finches, if at all?

4. If by 'peppered moths' you specifically mean Kettlewell's experiments, they by no means "proved Darwin's observations wrong". At worst, they are inconclusive.

5. You've repeatedly praised Judeo-Christian morality as a superior morality. What is the position of Judeo-Christian morality on knowingly speaking an untruth?

Posted by: creeper at May 13, 2005 12:16 PM

Jeff:

Indeed, it was observed before indistrialization. If you can find it go back and read daniel's last inept defense of kettlewell, by the end of which he was arguing against predation and finally got around to posting the 19th century study that showed that peppered moths have always had the capacity to grow into whatever shade their surroundings, feed, etc., suggest. Industrial pollution did nothing but create more dark surroundings for them.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2005 12:51 PM

creeper:

They are not an instance of industrial melanism and the experiment cited in textbooks was a fraud.

The finches are all the same species.

Yes, Darwinism isn't a science, it can never be worse than inconclusive.

Lying is just a means, it's the ends that matter from a moral perspective. The end of the frauds is to supplant Judeo-Christianity.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2005 1:15 PM

"Indeed, it was observed before indistrialization."

First you claimed it has never been observed, now you claim that it was observed before industrialization. Which is it?

And when and where was it observed before industrialism?

"If you can find it go back and read daniel's last inept defense of kettlewell, by the end of which he was arguing against predation and finally got around to posting the 19th century study that showed that peppered moths have always had the capacity to grow into whatever shade their surroundings, feed, etc., suggest."

I think you're referring to my posts in the last few threads on the subject. I was not arguing against predation in its entirety, merely that given what we know, and what Kettlewell's critics claim, it is impossible for predation alone (given the same starting point at each and every generation) to account for carbonaria predominating up to 98%. The same for this speculation you pulled out of your hat that the non-dominant coloring just happens to drop dead of old age earlier.

As for the coloring being determined by the environment, I later found out that this only relates to the larvae (caterpillars) and that the coloring doesn't translate into the mature moths one to one.

They are not an instance of industrial melanism and the experiment cited in textbooks was a fraud.

They are indeed an instance of industrial melanism, and the fact that you still have not been able to substantiate your assertions of intentional fraud make it obvious that you are knowingly speaking an untruth.

"The finches are all the same species."

Perhaps there is a taxonomic issue here (though that is not certain across the board), but they are clearly distinguishable from each other, even if it turns out they are only variations within a species, and as such are a clear demonstration of natural selection at work.

"Yes, Darwinism isn't a science, it can never be worse than inconclusive."

One moment it has been disproven, the next moment it can't be disproven... have fun with your little strawman 'Darwinism', Orrin, it sure must be fun batting it around, and a lot easier than trying to nail down problems with the actual current theory of evolution.

So lying is okay, by Judeo-Christian morality, as long as you can cook up a justification, is that what you're saying? Are there any limits to what those justifications might be? 'Cos otherwise it doesn't sound like such a superior morality at all, just the usual posturing and human weakness to take less arduous shortcuts.

"The end of the frauds is to supplant Judeo-Christianity."

And what is the end of all the non-fraudulent scientific research that substantiates the modern theory of evolution?

(And which current textbook features Haeckel and his embryos?)

Posted by: creeper at May 13, 2005 5:05 PM

creeper:

Obviously not industrial since it preceded industry.

But not of speciation, which is Darwinism's claim.

There's nothing inherently immoral about lying. They're just words.

There is none. That's the point.

Pick up a textbook and look.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2005 5:47 PM

"Obviously not industrial since it preceded industry."

First you claimed melanism has never been observed, now you claim that it was observed before industrialization. So where was melanism observed before industrialization?

And on what basis are you claiming that melanism did not occur in Britain in the 19th century when you freely accept that it is a phenomenon that occurs elsewhere, at different times?

"But not of speciation, which is Darwinism's claim."

So you're happy enough to see the finches as a clear demonstration of natural selection at work?

It's not "Darwinism's claim" that the finches are no longer finches, btw. They are still similar, but different enough to be better suited for survival in different environments.

"There's nothing inherently immoral about lying. They're just words."

It's pretty funny that you get all wishy-washy about this in the same post in which you attempt to make an issue out of someone else's purported dishonesty...

Doesn't the fact that you have to resort to dishonesty to argue your corner make you question the veracity of at least some of your beliefs? I know you're very religious, but there are ways of at least somewhat reconciling spiritual beliefs with the current state of scientific knowledge, IMO.

"There is none. That's the point."

So you're saying that the theory of evolution is entirely based on Piltdown Man, Kettlewell's peppered moth experiments, and Haeckel's embryos? (This is leaving aside for the moment that you consistently fail to back up your claims re. Kettlewell.)

I know you're somehow proud of your "scientific illiterate" status, but you really should read up on the current state of the theory of evolution sometime, not just the stuff from fifty or a hundred years ago.

"Pick up a textbook and look."

The fraud was exposed in 1997. The only textbooks I can find reference to that still mentioned Haeckel were printed in 1998.

The notion that embryos of some creatures are similar at early stages is hardly surprising, given how much similarity in DNA there is between, say, a pig, a bat, an ape and a human being.

Posted by: creeper at May 14, 2005 4:03 AM

As the study you cited demonstrated, the moths take on different coloration under a variety of different circumstances and they always have, a capacity that has nothing to do with pollution or predation.

Yes, the finches nicely represent the limitations of Natural Selection.

The state of scientific belief is a religion.

yes. People believe in Darwinism because of the frauds and misunderstandings produced to support it. That's why those frauds are still taught and why you cling to such an obvious one as Kettlewell's so fiercely.

Yes. The textbooks and teachers depend on the fraud.

Posted by: oj at May 14, 2005 8:16 AM

As the study you cited demonstrated, the moths take on different coloration under a variety of different circumstances and they always have, a capacity that has nothing to do with pollution or predation.

Not the moths. The larvae.

So, where else has melanism been observed?

Yes, the finches nicely represent the limitations of Natural Selection.

They demonstrate that natural selection can cause varied groups of organisms in a relatively short time; there is no reason (you've certainly not tried to present any) why this change should have certain limits over a substantially longer time.

You may consider Kettlewell an obvious fraud, but your failure to present any argument to support that allegation that does not fall apart on closer examination should give you (or at least some people) an indication that this is an utterly half-baked assertion at best.

Posted by: creeper at May 14, 2005 11:21 AM

Where do moths come from?

The assertion that changes within a species imply speciation isn;'t science, just faith.

He faked the results--that's fraud.

but we've been over all this enough.

Posted by: oj at May 14, 2005 11:32 AM
« NOT HARD TO BE BETTER: | Main | FROM THE ARCHIVES: AND PLENTY OF FAILURES PRECEDED IT: »