Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Some who are emotionally wedded to speciation-by-mutation dismiss any of the credible information in support of Irreducible Complexity.

First, it's nice to see you around these parts, Biochemist. Your hayday was somewhat before I even joined Hypography, although you were still posting regularly when I did. With that said, I hope you are well, and that you are happy.


Now, to the meat of my post.

Can you share a link(s) to support the quote above?

I am, admittedly, somewhat reluctant to accept such a statement on faith, as I am considerably biased against the entire concept of irriducible complexity, even emotionally invested against it.

However, I'd very much welcome the opportunity to learn where my emotional investment may be misplaced, as I am always open to correction... In other words, I wish to learn more about what credible information "scientists" are publishing in support of the irreducable complexity concept. Where's the beef?

Cheers.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

... Can you share a link(s) to support the quote above?

I am, admittedly, somewhat reluctant to accept such a statement on faith, as I am considerably biased against the entire concept of irriducible complexity, even emotionally invested against it....

Thanks, IN.

The quote you selected was my assertion that many folks are biased against ID (or IR in this case). Since you hold that bias, I don't think you were asking for support for the notion that some hold that bias (or were you?)

Or were you asking for support for ID?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

...thank goodness science is based on "survival of the fittest" rather than being a Democracy!

Amen.

Bio

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by REASON

Well, that ain't so bad if you're wealthy is it? (I'm not wealthy though )..

Goodness. We should start a thread on the irrationality of tax policy. Or of the rank-and-file perception of tax policy.

But too far off topic for this thread!!

Bio

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

..Poppycock and ballderdash! ID is not Science and PE is the better model and works just fine given that environment changes are clearly "punctuated" in synchronicity with the fossil record of periods of rapid speciation....

Given our history of detailing the PE arguments in several hundred posts (oh, those romantic old days), I won't re-attack or re-defend the PE position.

But I will defend the notion that some elements of ID are falsifiable, ergo ID should count as a valid hypothesis. To my knowledge (someone correct me if I am wrong), Behe (who I believe coined "Irreducible Complexity") never explicitly offered a falsifiable proposition.

So, let me.

If
1) we can demonstrate any case where a phenotypic feature based on a complex genotype arrives suddenly in a population and yet
2) does not have intermediate expression (via phenotype) that would have selected for the feature,

it would argue that

1) the feature was not selected (e.g., there was no opportunity for natural selection to have supported serial mutations), and
2) some other undescribed mechanism drove the daughter species


I think as we sequence more species, we will find parent and daughter species, with few intermediate selectable features

This would suggest that daughter species are more dramatic phenotypic variations of the parent (similar to the phenotype of a butterfly being a bit at odds with the phenotype of the caterpillar), and that the transition was not driven by serial mutation.

Heck, I will even bet a dollar this is true.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Goodness. We should start a thread on the irrationality of tax policy. Or of the rank-and-file perception of tax policy.

But too far off topic for this thread!!

Bio

Well, without taking it too much further, I was just attempting to be mildly facetious.

If I had my druthers, we would switch to some form of consumption tax, such as the Fair Tax. I'm sure that will remain a wish considering a system of taxation like that is far too equitable to find its way to reality in our government.

But don't worry, I'm getting your drift Bio. As taxpayers, we all want to feel like we should have the power to affect policy, even in our public schools. And considering the broad spectrum of values and belief systems found in our society, we can either hope that rationality prevails, or we can insist on it.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Thanks, IN.

The quote you selected was my assertion that many folks are biased against ID (or IR in this case). Since you hold that bias, I don't think you were asking for support for the notion that some hold that bias (or were you?)

Or were you asking for support for ID?

Evidence for this bit, specifically:

any of the credible information in support of Irreducible Complexity

What credible information, exactly?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

In one survey, less than a third of high-school seniors could correctly sequence the Revolutionary war, the Civil War and WWII.

Do you have a reference to this survey, Biochemist?

Assuming that the students and the revolutionary and civil wars are the US’s, less than a third seems incredible.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by CraigD

...Assuming that the students and the revolutionary and civil wars are the US’s, less than a third seems incredible.

I will look around for it, CD.

The survey was even more disappointing that this factoid would indicate. As I recall, less than half could name the current vice president, less than 20% could name the current secretary of defense, treasury or attorney general.

And less than a third could identify the correct century of the civil war.

Imagine having those folks even define Intelligent Design, much less debate it.

Bio

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Do you have a reference to this survey, Biochemist?

I have found a couple, although some of my links are meta-references (i.e., links to authors discussing the survey):

Teens losing touch with historical references - USATODAY.com

This is a link to a PDF of the recent study:

http://commoncore.org/_docs/CCreport_stillatrisk.pdf

I think the political motives of many (to use this data to pick on NCLB) are pretty transparent. But the data itself is pretty enlightening.

Imagine if we took a survey about whether people "believe" whether elementary particles can move between two points in space without crossing the space in between? Think we would hit double digits?