OK, thanks for the extra info. Thus, we see the bizarre situation whereby the Texas state board of education pretty much decides what will be in a nation’s text books.

The reason Texas has so much influence on school book content is that the state selects the books for *all* the school districts and centrally purchases and distributes them. In most states, the decisions about which books to use and when to purchase new ones is made by the local school committee and the teachers. Publishers can hear the cash registers go “ching” every time Texas selects one of their books, so they want to meet whatever random requirements it sets.

* What about the woodpecker’s tongue, the panda’s thumb, the whatever’s thingy, etc.?
Again, this is all part and parcel of the “throw enough poo at your opponent, and eventually you’ll hit on something they don’t know” strategy. Most of the things that creationists and intelligent design proponents will throw out are horrid missunderstandings of the basic biological mechanisms at work, so not only are you debating evolution with them, but you need to correct them on how whatever strawman they have thrown out is wrong from the sense of basic biology, not only from an evolutionary standpoint.

Ah, yes, but what about the duck-billed platypus? That has got to be evidence for design-by-committee, right?

@John Foudy”if Stephen Jay Gould were still alive, and he proposed addressing Irreducible Complexity, then yes some evolutionists/biologists would look into a bit more, before re-proclaiming that it was nuttery, than if Joe Schmoe said the same thing.”

Sure, I’d go with that. But at least it was his field. And I bet he would have gone with the whole peer review thing.

Plus, he would also have thought long and hard about exactly what he was proposing. Most probably he would have seen the inherent weakness of the argument before trying to publish.

But I’d contrast this with the behaviour of scientists like Behe.

There are no other scientists like Behe. Behe should have known better, because his education would have included knowledge of a great deal of the evidence that demonstrates common descent. He also knowingly bypassed the peer review process by publishing his ideas in books rather than in science journals (where, of course, his ideas would have been utterly panned in peer review).

There are no other biological scientists who support ID as expounded by the DI.

After all the truly advanced nations on Earth, past and present, all have rejected religion such as the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba and Germany during the 1930’s.

Epic fail.

But probably for reasons other than the rejection of religion (although, of course, the absence of freedom to practise religion was and is one of several less-than-ideal aspects to those administrations).

Interestingly, the USSR also officially rejected Darwinisn evolution, adhering instead to the strange ideas of Lysenko (look him up on Wikipedia). This is often cited as a reason for widespread crop failures in the USSR in the 50s (or 60s?).

It’s obvious believing in a supreme being that was responsible for our existence is a sign of intellectual inferiority or mental defect. All those who believe in such fantasy should be institutionalized. The sooner these delusional Jews, Muslims and Christians are removed from society the better we’ll all be. After all the truly advanced nations on Earth, past and present, all have rejected religion such as the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba and Germany during the 1930’s.

OK, I get that you are being sarcastic here, but the point you are trying to make is not clear.

Creationism is creationism even if scientists say it’s science — which is what happened with ID.

Actually, the only ID proponent with any scientific credentials was Mike Behe (his qualifications are in chemistry and biochemistry, and he has published work on DNA structure). All the others were lawyers and theologians and what have you, many of whom were smart enough in principle to have anticipated where ID would end up. All Mike Behe has done is destroy his scientific credibility (although I daresay he has made a few bucks in the process).

Science is not infallible. Never forget that School Board issues are public issues. The public is aware that science has been wrong in the past.

Perhaps so, but science is a process of learning. And very few wrong beliefs are clung to these days, because there is actually less respect for authority in science than there was 100 years ago.

When you treat evolution opponents with such disdain, many in the public see scientists dogmatically sticking to an idea that may eventually be proven wrong. Show the public (yes even in the schools) that you are not simply dismissing Creationism and ID as stupid and unworthy. Instead, science has refuted them.

Have you ever heard of the Gish gallop?

This is when a creationist comes up with 2 or 3 ludicrous claims, and staunchly defends them. Then, when the scientist / sceptic has gone to the time and trouble to refute the ludicrous claims one by one, the creationist moves on to 2 or 3 different but equally ludicrous claims. The goalposts never stay still. After 3 rounds of this, the creationist goes back to the original claims.

Engaging creationists with science generally serves no purpose (I daresay there are exceptions to this), because they never accept a refutation.

Now, if a teenager in a science class has been sufficiently well prepared by creationist parents, they can keep a less-than-perfectly-prepared teacher busy answering stupid claims for the entire time that the teacher was supposed to be teaching evolution.

Most of the public is only partially informed about Creationism and Intelligent Design. Refusing to refute them publicly, and resorting to insults allows the most vocal proponents to maintain their credibility. You don’t destroy someone’s credibility by insulting them. You destroy their credibility by defeating their argument. And not just in science journals. The general public isn’t reading science journals.

In the more general field, the claims of the creationists have indeed been refuted with logic and science. Over and over and over again.

They simply churn out more books with slightly different emphases.

I still disagree with the idea that the solution is to publicly ridicule the messengers and refuse to acknowledge any challenge (especially the refutable ones) in a classroom environment.

I don’t think anyone here suggested that this is a solution.

The IDC nonsense should not even be mentioned in the classroom, unless brought up by a student. And, if time allows, the teacher should take the opportunity to show exactly how pathetic the supposed objection to evolutionary theory is.

The tricky bit about refuting creationist claims is that the claim can be uttered in a few seconds (one of their major successes is the catchy soundbite), but the refutation may take 50 times as long.

The eye (nor any of the other biological systems mentioned) is not irreducibly complex so the point is worthless.

I would go further than this. Irreducible complexity is an illusion. It has no real meaning, and the term merely muddies the water.

And it is an illusion that was predicted to occur, using evolutionary theory.

I stand by the statement that if Al Gore or Isaac Newton had raised the question of irreducible complexity, you’d consider it a scientific challenge.

Well, I would not. Certainly not if it is anything like Behe’s idea of “irreducible complexity”. The reason for this is that it is not a scientific concept. It is a set of terms that attempt to hide an argument from personal incredulity.

And for the record, the fact that a challenge can be refuted doesn’t mean it’s not worth addressing in a classroom

Quite correct. However, the fact that the “challenge” is peurile and scientifically empty is sufficient to exclude it from worthwhile classroom discussions.

It takes only a few minutes to lay out the challenge and explain the answer.

Well, yes this is true, but it has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. I believe many biology text books for the appropriate level do indeed use the example of the eye for the evolution of a complex structure through a series of selectable intermediates.

From what you appear to be calling for, the only thing missing from the text books is the term “irreducible complexity”. And it is right that this misleading term be absent, for it adds nothing to anyone’s understanding of evolution.

The statement “Evolution fails to explain the evolution of such irreducibly complex structures as the eyeball,” is a scientific challenge, not a religious one.

But it isn’t a scientific challenge, because irreducible complexity, as expounded by Behe, does not exist. The actual scientific challenge was answered in TOOS.

Behe’s original definition of IC (which, IIUC, actually changed twice after his first publication of the concept) was something like “a system comprising interdependent parts to perform a function”, but there were no specifics of how one might define “system”, “part” or “function”. Behe argued from example (which is a parallel to argument by analogy) because his argument was fundamentally flawed.

Take the bacterial flagella (BTW, there are literally hundreds of these, so there is no “the” bacterial flagella). Behe defined its parts as a rotor, a motor and a tail, but what’s to stop me from defining its parts as the individual protein molecules of which it is composed? Or even amino acid residues within those proteins? Or individual atoms? Clearly, by changing the definition of the parts, I can instantly remove its irreducibility. Yet Behe did not even address this. His parts are obviously chosen in such a way as to emphasise or create the “problem” of irreducibility.

Additionally, he does the same thing with function. The flagellae evolved from a Type III secretion system, so if I remove the “tail” of the flagella, it can still secrete other molecules from the cytosol, so I still have a function. Only by considering one solitary function does the definition of IC hold up.

Then there’s the question of relevance. How relevant is Behe’s process of evolution to reality? According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if you can remove one of its parts and cause a loss of function. However, as noted above, he fails to address the fact that most biological multi-molecular systems serve more than one function. He also fails to address the fact that evolution never proceeds by simple addition of one piece to another to end up with a final working unit. Yet he needs evolution to be defined thus for IC to be a challenge to it. The entire concept is a strawman.

He blatantly dismisses what he terms “indirect” evolutionary paths in one sentence (this is his most heinous argument from personal incredulity). Yet, according to modern evolutionary theory, “indirect” paths are the most common means of achieving a new molecular or physiological function.

Thus, the challenge from IC boils down to this:

If I look at a biological or biochemical process, and consider the molecules that make it happen, I can define “parts” of that “system” so that removal of one “part” destroys the “function”. Furthermore, if I only allow evolution to progress by a process of step-by-step building, I can make a case that proves this is impossible.

Thus, Behe’s work is dismissed by scientists as deliberately manufacturing a “weakness” for evolutionary theory that does not really exist. If high schools were ever to start teaching pure logic, you could use this as an example of how not to do it, but otherwise Behe’s IC simply has no place in the classroom.

In fact, in my textbooks, the only glaring example of a scientific theory that had no presentation of the flaws and scientific challenges (and refutation of challenges) was evolution. I learned of the Scopes trial, but I never heard of ANY challenges to the actual science.

Erm … OK, what are the historical scientific challenges to evolutionary theory? I’m not aware of any genuine challenge to the core ideas that was not addressed in the very early days. It is true that the peripheral commentary has changed (for instance, Darwin was completely wrong about inheritance), but what about speciation through descent with modification?

Darwin thought long and hard about potential problems and addressed them all, even in the first edition of TOOS.

I just looked up irreducible complexity on Wikipedia (I know, not the most rigorous academicly reviewed website…). Anyway, in one paragraph, they capture the essence of the problem of irreducible complexity.

No, they capture the essence of the IDists’ sound-bite. IC is only a challenge if you rule out the commonest mechanism whereby relatively simple systems become more complex (i.e. gene duplication and co-optation).

And also in one paragraph they manage to describe the evolution of the eye (my personal favorite example).

Yeah. Did you know this was in the first edition of TOOS?

It’s pretty cool to see how that could happen. It’s fascinating to learn about how supposedly irreducible complex biological structures can develop, and I think high school students could benefit from it. It would only take up two pages in a text book and it IS a legitimate (if already resolved) question!

The question was resolved in 1859 by Darwin himself, because he anticipated that critics would see the vertebrate eye as a problem for the theory. He looked into the situation and proposed a plausible series of changes by which the seemingly complex vertebrate eye could evolve from humble beginnings. And all of his proposed intermediates actually exist in nature.

Then tell us how “IC” in any way contradicts the 150 years of data we’ve collected and analyzed that support the modern theory of evolution.

Actually, you’ve reminded me of something: IC was predicted using evolutionary theory about 70 – 80 years ago.

I have to go with CJ here. Being offensive/dismissive will not win friends to your cause. I came to this blog from Cambrian Sky, thinking to find well-reasoned critiques of bad science. Instead on the front page I find an article that talking about Texas’ Board of Education. “Interesting” I say to myself, since I live in texas and hadn’t heard of the nomination. Then I go on the read the comments, of which about half are of the form “Wow, all Texans are idiots!”.

You seem to be conflating the blog entry with the content of the comments.

Phil does not limit the content of comments (although comments containing hyperlinks will have to await moderation before they appear). Are you saying that Phil is responsible for the content of the comments?

Oh no, and for her second act will it be rounding off pi to 3 because that .141526 is just too complicated?

Obviously, because pi is 3.1415926…

(Sorry, couldn’t resist)

Anybody come up with a theory for IDCreationism yet?

Yeah, there is a theory of IDC:

Some higher being (or committee of higher beings) designed some of Earth’s biological stuff at some point, somehow.

Is that not good enough for you?

Sometimes I wish the Texass governor really was serious about succession …

And no, I did not misspell Texass.

But you did misspell “secession”.

Darn.

But I suspected as much…

On July 10, 2009, Governor Rick Perry (R) named Gail Lowe to chair the Texas state board of education. Lowe replaces Don McLeroy, who failed to win confirmation from the Texas Senate on May 28, 2009.

Does this mean that Lowe is the chairman, or just that she has been nominated for the post?

What magical fantasy world do you live in? Are you telling us that your local, county or state government doesn’t have its fair share of religious nutters?

One part of basic science education must focus on the idea that scientific research never stops, that new experiments and discoveries often cause theories to change or to be replaced.

And no, I did not misspell Texass.

I personally agree with the idea that Creationism doesn’t belong in the classroom (note my original post about presenting only proven facts and testable hypotheses). I also think that Intelligent Design isn’t worthy of classroom teaching either.

Actually, ID is a form of creationism.

But ID has brought up some interesting questions which would not be ignored if they had been brought up by a non-religious group.

The questions have not been ignored. They have been examined and addressed. The problem is that the IDists failed to use logic and they failed to understand the theory (and the evidentiary basis for it) for which they were suggesting an alternative.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging areas that have been challenged. Certainly, there’s no time to present EVERY challenge to evolution, but refusing to address ANY challenges furthers the impression that this is dogma, not science.

This depends.

At high-school level, is it more appropriate to teach the outcome of science or to teach the various options that have been disproven by observation and experiment?

In an ideal world, we would, of course, teach both for every aspect of science that is currently in a high-school curriculum. But do you think it possible to get about 1/3 – 1/2 of every week’s timetable devoted to science?

Additionally, all of the challenges to the core points of evolutionary theory have been addressed and discarded about 100 years ago. What is the point of bringing them back?

For instance, in the classroom, mention the challenge of irreducible complexity. I’m not an expert on this, but I believe this has been refuted.

Irreducible complexity is a red herring, though, because it never really existed. Every example that Behe came up with (such as bacterial flagellae or the mammalian blood-clotting cascade) was shown to not be irreducible. Flagellar proteins have largely been shown to have arisen through gene duplication from a Type III Secretion System.

So, present the evidence that irreducible complexity simply isn’t a problem. Frankly I’d find that pretty interesting if I was a student (in fact, I’m going to go research it just for fun).

To teach a refutation of Behe’s poster child (flagellae) would require that we first teach the students quite a substantial amount about the biochemistry of protein sysnthesis and the way in which DNA encodes genetic information, and IIUC this is usually not taught at high school level. Perhaps this is why Behe specifically chose these examples – because high-school students almost certainly won’t have the requisite knowledge to challenge Behe’s view.

You don’t actually have to present Creationism and ID to address a few criticisms of evolution. It seems to me that every theory (like string theory) is MORE impressive when you learn the challenges to it and how those challenges were resolved rather than ignoring the challenges altogether.

Yes, perhaps this is so. I am not sure what objections to evolution that you could teach without venturing into creationist propaganda. Darwin himself addressed many potential objections in TOOS. Pretty much all of the others were addressed within the next 50 years or so. All of which was a century or more ago.

Would you advocate also teaching how to refute objections to the Periodic Table? Or Special Relativity? Or Ohm’s Law?