” a debate that would be fun.”
No. Not for me, anyway, and I’ll debate anything; I’m most likely going to die arguing. This nonsense, on the other hand, is just making me very, very tired. All this casual disregard for lifetimes of hard work by real scientists is depressing, of course, but what really weighs on my mind lately is good ol’ Lysenko. That sort of thing is what Zimmer was talking about.

“But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry.”
As the saying more or less goes, it’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!
Somewhere on the web I’m sure there’s someone who still believes that lightning is caused by supernatural forces and lightning rods are against God’s plan. The only open spirit of inquiry he’s going to get will probably involve the question “What is he smoking?!” and frankly, that’s all that he deserves.

This isn’t a good analogy, so let me bring up a better one: the theory of plate tectonics. Science itself is extremely pragmatic (even when individual scientists, being human, sometimes fall short). In plate tectonics (nee’ continental drift) we see a real theory that actually did face a doubting Establishment (in part because it lacked a workable mechanism, in part because scientists were reacting against various very silly claims about land bridges, in part because of the limited understanding of Earth’s structure, and etc . . .) Advocates of the theory spent years digging up evidence (often literally) and finally won a glorious victory when advances in geophysics, paleomagnetism, seafloor exploration, and etc all came together in the 1960s – about half a century after Wagener first claimed that South America and Africa really did once fit together, and some three decades after he died.

So far, like the story of Lysenko, this is something that could be used by either side – indeed, Dembski has done so in both cases! But I would point out that there’s something missing. There was (to the best of my knowledge) nobody running around in the 1920s insisting that continental drift be taught in high school geology courses. No Wedge Documents explaining that “Contraction Theory” and other horrible ideas had undermined the nation’s morals, and presenting a detailed plan to overthrow it – no insistance that geology itself – nay, all of science – was completely, unfairly flawed and had to be changed to fit the theory.

Now, this soft of thing (as well as the unfortunate tendency for some ID advocates to mimic their scientific-creationist ancestors in the quote-mining, expertise-shifting, and laughably-discredited-argument-citing domains) doesn’t *actually* have any impact on whether an idea fits reality or not. Nevertheless, it still might tell you something.

“As a Christian, I do not fear science.”

Great! Could you talk to certain of your co-religionists, though? Cause they surely seem to – to the degree that they mock their own religion by clinging to one supposed branch of science that tells them the terrible dragon of evolution has been slain,and they don’t have to worry about being soulless apes wandering around a meaningless world until their quick, pointless and very final death (their take on it, not anything the science says!!) . . . instead of actually relying on faith.

Not to mention, is anyone keeping count of the number of times major ID proponents, sticking to their clever legal/media strategy of being coyly vague on the nature of the designer, deny God?*
I think we passed three a long, long time ago
*Because we _know_ that’s who they think did it (and presumably you agree, if you indeed take this view of the issue. I do keep underestimating how many young-earthers haven’t memorized the new script – although there is that ID big-tent approach, and really, they are at least being truly sincere!)

Thanks for the comments.

My puzzlement involves bringing up the Kansas debate.

As much as I can tell, both Carl and Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas University Natural History Museum, have stolen a base here.

What Krishtalka outburst does Carl repeat?

[The Kansas] board of education is trying to remove and water down the basic fundamental concept of evolution that underlies all of biology,

Then we read in the first sentence of the next paragraph of this Lawrence Journal-World article:

As hearings continue Thursday in Topeka on whether evolution exclusively — or evolution paired with more criticism of the theory — should be taught in Kansas public schools . . .

I cannot reconcile an unbiased news reporter’s piece stating that the Kansas Board of Eduction is not rubbing their hands together in ignorant glee at the thought of banning evolution theory teaching up against a hyperventilating natural history museum director’s statement that the Board intends to do just that.

Only someone who is hyperventilating would say something as silly as “remove and water down” (emphasis added). I would think removal would be more than sufficient. Perhpas in his fit of irrationality he meant to say only “water down,” which is still a debatable point — a debate that would be fun.

Many other scientists are encouraging a vigorous exploration as well.

NAS member Professor Skell notes the excellent work of Professor Shapiro at the University of Chicago.

Shapiro also has this to say:

But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists’ criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

As a Christian, I do not fear science. In fact science has done a great deal in confirming the historical veracity of the Bible (and continues to do so).

I’m disappointed, but not surprised at all that many scientists have come to fear science. They simply want to remain frozen in the incomplete knowledge of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

Fortunately, there are others who are making progress, and their work will be known — even if it takes the passing of a generation of scientific dinosaurs (as these things usually do).

If the question mark has to do with evolutionary theory – well, as Zimmer points out, this example has to do with losing genes, something many creationists seem to view as both proven and permissible.

Many thanks for the comments — especially the constructive criticism on format/style.

I like the black background — long story, but you’re absolutely right on the darker text.

What I’m working on is to darken the neon white and boost the gloomy gray.

Probably early next week, and until then, thanks for the patience!

Peace,
Greg

I have a minor comment on your blog. How can I put this very gently. I find it difficult to read your blog with the black background and the grey lettering. I don’t know if you have heard this before, but It was difficult for me and I just wanted to help to make your blog the absoulte best It can be.

” a debate that would be fun.”
No. Not for me, anyway, and I’ll debate anything; I’m most likely going to die arguing. This nonsense, on the other hand, is just making me very, very tired. All this casual disregard for lifetimes of hard work by real scientists is depressing, of course, but what really weighs on my mind lately is good ol’ Lysenko. That sort of thing is what Zimmer was talking about.

“But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry.”
As the saying more or less goes, it’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!
Somewhere on the web I’m sure there’s someone who still believes that lightning is caused by supernatural forces and lightning rods are against God’s plan. The only open spirit of inquiry he’s going to get will probably involve the question “What is he smoking?!” and frankly, that’s all that he deserves.

This isn’t a good analogy, so let me bring up a better one: the theory of plate tectonics. Science itself is extremely pragmatic (even when individual scientists, being human, sometimes fall short). In plate tectonics (nee’ continental drift) we see a real theory that actually did face a doubting Establishment (in part because it lacked a workable mechanism, in part because scientists were reacting against various very silly claims about land bridges, in part because of the limited understanding of Earth’s structure, and etc . . .) Advocates of the theory spent years digging up evidence (often literally) and finally won a glorious victory when advances in geophysics, paleomagnetism, seafloor exploration, and etc all came together in the 1960s – about half a century after Wagener first claimed that South America and Africa really did once fit together, and some three decades after he died.

So far, like the story of Lysenko, this is something that could be used by either side – indeed, Dembski has done so in both cases! But I would point out that there’s something missing. There was (to the best of my knowledge) nobody running around in the 1920s insisting that continental drift be taught in high school geology courses. No Wedge Documents explaining that “Contraction Theory” and other horrible ideas had undermined the nation’s morals, and presenting a detailed plan to overthrow it – no insistance that geology itself – nay, all of science – was completely, unfairly flawed and had to be changed to fit the theory.

Now, this soft of thing (as well as the unfortunate tendency for some ID advocates to mimic their scientific-creationist ancestors in the quote-mining, expertise-shifting, and laughably-discredited-argument-citing domains) doesn’t *actually* have any impact on whether an idea fits reality or not. Nevertheless, it still might tell you something.

“As a Christian, I do not fear science.”

Great! Could you talk to certain of your co-religionists, though? Cause they surely seem to – to the degree that they mock their own religion by clinging to one supposed branch of science that tells them the terrible dragon of evolution has been slain,and they don’t have to worry about being soulless apes wandering around a meaningless world until their quick, pointless and very final death (their take on it, not anything the science says!!) . . . instead of actually relying on faith.

Not to mention, is anyone keeping count of the number of times major ID proponents, sticking to their clever legal/media strategy of being coyly vague on the nature of the designer, deny God?*
I think we passed three a long, long time ago
*Because we _know_ that’s who they think did it (and presumably you agree, if you indeed take this view of the issue. I do keep underestimating how many young-earthers haven’t memorized the new script – although there is that ID big-tent approach, and really, they are at least being truly sincere!)