PZ Myers is finds it alarming that "Donna Callaway, a member of the Florida Board of Education" whose recent editorial he thinks delusional is alarmed at one of the recently passed Florida eucational standards: "Diversity and
Evolution of Living Organisms. A. Evolution is the fundamental concept
underlying all of biology.".
If he thinks she's trying to win Ben Stein's koolaid harder than her neighbors, then PZ needs to spend more quality time wresting alligators - here is what her brethren, who have strong opinions about Expelled, have to say in The American Spectator :
SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Re: Ben Stein's Florida's Darwinian Interlude and letters in Reader Mail's Why Not Goldwater?:
Regarding
his Feb. 20 column, "Florida's Darwinian Interlude" unfortunately, his
conclusion is incorrect. He writes: "By an incredible miracle of good
sense, at the last minute, the state of Florida changed the proposed
regulations. They backed off powerfully saying that only Darwinism
could possibly make sense and said they would allow discussion of
differing theories about the origins of life. That's the current
proposal as I write this on the afternoon of the 19th of February."
In
fact, a "compromise" was approved by the Florida Board of Education on
Feb. 19 inserting "scientific theory of" before each reference to
"evolution" in new science standards for K-12 public schools in
Florida. The Board, however, rejected an amendment offered by parents,
teachers and others concerned about the standards' dogmatic approach to
evolution that would have permitted teachers "to engage students in a
critical analysis" of Darwinian evolution.
My newspaper has
covered this matter for several months now. Our articles, editorials
and other commentaries on the matter can be view on our Web site.
I
appreciate Mr. Stein's exposure of "Big Science's" opposition to views
contrary to Darwinian evolution in the forthcoming movie "Expelled,"
which I will be viewing at a screening in Tampa tonight.
-- James A. Smith Sr.
Executive Editor
Florida Baptist Witness
If
you were to take the argument from arrogance away from the Darwinists
who deride heretics such as Tom Bethell and Ben Stein, much of the
vapor would be blown away and you'd see more clearly that what ID
argues against is not science, but a set of presumptions.
Scientists
who favor Intelligent Design are not arguing that evolution did not
happen; they are only arguing that evolution did not happen without a
guiding intelligence. Darwinists cannot prove that there must be a
naturalistic explanation for life's origins and diversity; they simply
take that as a given. And since it is taken for granted, every observed
fact must be seen as "evidence" of evolution's creativity -- even
though you could easily turn it around and frame each fact as evidence
of God's grand design.
ID folks have the effrontery to question
these presumptions. If we cannot directly observe a Designer, then why
cannot we infer one, based on our knowledge of statistical odds and
complex systems? Rather than presumptively rule out the involvement of
a Designer, they try to calculate the odds against complex systems
coming about in a random manner, and then ask us to decide whether the
Darwinists' set of presumptions is, well, presumptuous?
To me,
this controversy seems like a fantastic arena for debating important
questions, from biology to biochemistry to astronomy to epistemology.
To others, however, it speaks only of a solemn duty to burn all
heretics at the figurative stake of scientific orthodoxy.
One
ought to bring arguments to a debate, not just attitude. In Professor
Sepkoski's letter, Bethell -- clearly not an ignorant man -- is
attacked as "profoundly ignorant" and ID's proponents are mislabeled as
"creationist propagandists." Contradicting Bethell's statement that
"fossils can't reveal ancestry", Sepkosky claims that there is an
"abundance of evidence" to the contrary. But this begs the question. If
the truth of Darwinism is presumed, taxonomical similarities do indeed
appear to offer an explanatory narrative. But why presume at all?
Structural similarities cannot not prove that creature A begat creature
B any more than, if an evolution did in fact occur, that it had to have
happened in the absence of a pro-active Designer, nudging it along.
Evolution, after all, can occur inside the minds of designers, too. You
can see such an evolution from a Model T Ford to a Toyota Prius and
acknowledge the structural similarities, without requiring cars to have
sex with each other. The evolution happened, alright, but it happened
on the drawing boards before it happened in the factories and showrooms
-- all within the minds of the automobile designers. Who's to say that
an analogous Designer didn't similarly guide the journey, say, from
fish to amphibian?
As for Mr. Dawson's letter, it sees
Professor Sepkoski's attitude and raises it. I don't know where his
evidence came from that "all doctors are Darwinists," as I happen to
know at least one who is not. But I can't imagine why someone would
even think that the only way to become a doctor is to believe all life
came from a single cell. It's like saying someone can't be a good car
mechanic unless he believes all vehicles descended from a single wheel.
If a doctor knows how to repair a heart valve and prescribe appropriate
medication, what difference does it make what he believes about the
origins of species? Evolution may be what the doctor was taught in
school, but does everyone always believe all the things he is taught?
At
least Messrs. Bethell and Stein are willing to debate these issues.
They try to answer criticisms instead of ridiculing them, or their
proponents. I thank them for their willingness to engage and take the
heat, and I look forward to seeing the movie.
-- Lee Dise
Virginia Beach
Energy Independence Now!
No more Oil Wars!
Stop funding the terrorists!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end recession and spur the economy.
Posted by: poetryman69 | February 25, 2008 at 03:46 AM