Oklahoma, home of diversity in education.

[Gawdzilla]

Senator Plans Bill to Address Evolution in Public Schools (http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=13724262http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=13724262)

OKLAHOMA--It's been a controversial issue for years and now one Oklahoma lawmaker says he plans on introducing a bill next year dealing with teaching evolution in public schools.

Meredith Saldana has more on what the senator says is a very important issue.

State Senator Josh Brecheen stressed that the final wording of the bill is not complete but says the issues the bill deals with are vital to our children.

Senator Brecheen says children should be given all the facts when it comes to evolution.

"If we really are going to use science in the classroom, let's use the full science, let's not just be selective in our science. That's what my legislation is designed to do," Brecheen said.

The senator says he supports having creationism--the belief that God created the world without evolution--taught in public schools.

"You either remove both or you put both in," he said.

In an op-ed he wrote last week, Brecheen called evolution, "a religion," and says there are serious flaws in the theory that students ought to know.

"The main fallacy with Darwinian theory," he argued, "is the sudden appearance at about 540 million years [ago] of fossil records. It's like a guy standing at the chalkboard and saying okay here's an atom [and then writing] question mark, question mark, human--here we are. But its fact, and there's zero evidence to back it up."

But reputable scientists disagree including Murray State Professor Bruce Stewart who says the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

He argues that the fossil record shows many transitional forms that support evolutionary theory.

"Science departments everywhere in accredited universities or any sort of legitimate research organization all work on the founding principle that we use science and evolution is science," he said.

Professor Stewart says teaching any alternatives to evolution would hurt Oklahoma kids' education.

Balance of article and video at URL above.

And PZed's annotated version (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/when_did_oklahoma_start_electi.php).

[Alferd_Packer]

PZ Myers rips him to shreds


gue? LOL LOL LOL

[DallasDad]

PZ missed one howler: "For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves."

"Decried" means to have expressed strong disapproval. I think the blithering idiot meant "avowed," but he'd still be wrong because it's not a liberal/conservative issue, but rather a scientific viewpoint that all data must be accounted for. Theories live or die by their abilities to explain observations and predict consequences. If multiple theories cover the same observations and predictions, then of course both should be taught -- as possible answers, neither complete.

This does not apply in the least to evolution vs. creationism.

[Tony]

The guy is an idiot. After the Kitzmiller vs Dover decision, its only a matter of time before this gets laughed out of court.

[aggle-rithm]

Reminds me of this guy in Texas:

http://tripatlas.com/Mike%20Martin%20(politician)

...about 30 years ago. Funny story.

[Alferd_Packer]

the original article

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10717736/article-Brecheen-discusses-evolution-and-Darwinian-Theory?instance=secondary_opinion_left_column

[Jeff Corey]

the original article

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10717736/article-Brecheen-discusses-evolution-and-Darwinian-Theory?instance=secondary_opinion_left_column

Spot the error in the first sentence.

[FattyCatty]

Spot the error in the first sentence.You mean "it's" instead of "its"? Or "time in" instead of "time to"?

[littleroundman]

Spot the error in the first sentence.

MAY be dismissed ????

There's a doubt ????

[littleroundman]

"The main fallacy with Darwinian theory," he argued, "is the sudden appearance at about 540 million years [ago] of fossil records.

What a strange statement.

AFAIK, the oldest evidence of live organisms thus far found is that of fossilized bacteria discovered around 1999 in NW Australia, and which is estimated to be 3.5 BILLION years old.

Maybe it's different in Oklahoma, but a time span of 5.4 MILLION years, much less 3.5 BILLION years certainly provides a whole lot of wriggle room for something to occur without the current populations' knowledge.

[Alferd_Packer]

Brecheen doubles down on the stupidity

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10776295/article-Brecheen-says-the-religion-of-evolution-is-plagued-with-falsehoods?instance=secondary_opinion_left_column

[Puppycow]

Senator Brecheen says children should be given all the facts when it comes to evolution.

Whaddya know. I agree with him! :D

Children should be given all of the scientifically correct facts.
It appears, however, that he himself doesn't know what the facts are when it comes to evolution.

[Puppycow]

What a strange statement.

AFAIK, the oldest evidence of live organisms thus far found is that of fossilized bacteria discovered around 1999 in NW Australia, and which is estimated to be 3.5 BILLION years old.

Maybe it's different in Oklahoma, but a time span of 5.4 MILLION years, much less 3.5 BILLION years certainly provides a whole lot of wriggle room for something to occur without the current populations' knowledge.

I think he's talking about the Cambrian Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion). True, there are older fossils, but like your bacteria, they are mostly very simple organisms.

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years, of most major Phyla around 530 million years ago, as found in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[5]


You are correct that this isn't really a "problem" for evolution. It just means that it took a long time to get to the point where conditions were right for this to happen.

Some more info on fossils older than 540 million years:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/mistaken.html

[fuelair]

PZ Myers rips him to shreds


gue? LOL LOL LOLAnd, this is remotely surprising because? The knowledge level of these bible toting, thumping, troglodytes is vanishingly close to zero and they seem proud of it. How depressing that people actually
vote for these intellectual slime molds.

Though it is possible he knows better but also knows the level and functionality of his constituents.:mad:

[fuelair]

PZ missed one howler: "For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves."

"Decried" means to have expressed strong disapproval. I think the blithering idiot meant "avowed," but he'd still be wrong because it's not a liberal/conservative issue, but rather a scientific viewpoint that all data must be accounted for. Theories live or die by their abilities to explain observations and predict consequences. If multiple theories cover the same observations and predictions, then of course both should be taught -- as possible answers, neither complete.

This does not apply in the least to evolution vs. creationism.

Possibly, to give it the fullest assumption of brain function, it meant decreed. After all they start and stop with the same letter and share some inbetween.:D

[JoeyDonuts]

With the current political climate here (I live in OK) I would expect a state question on this to pass with an overwhelming amount of support.

If that happens, I would seriously consider getting the hell out of Oklahoma if I have kids. Or in a bizarre case of turn-about, home-schooling them to get them away from Creationism.

ETA: This quote from his Facebook profile seems rather interesting, given his ill-informed and bizarre rantings.

"I don't think too much of a man who doesn't know more today than he did yesterday" Abraham Lincoln

[littleroundman]

I think he's talking about the Cambrian Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion). True, there are older fossils, but like your bacteria, they are mostly very simple organisms.

I realize why he said "540 million" and my example was a simple organism.

My main point was, regardless of whether we're talking 540 MILLION or 3.5 BILLION I find it hilarious that any modern day occupant of the planet could pretend to know exactly what happened or didn't happen over either time span.

Especially based on what humankind has found or not found.

"IF" evolution had happened, how many complete evolutionary cycles could have taken place over a 5.3 BILLION year span ??

We're still are finding new information about the Egyptian, Inca, Aztec and Jewish civilizations which all came and went within the last 5 THOUSAND years.

[Halfcentaur]

I too am an Oklahoman. With the current changes in our political climate, I wouldn't be surprised to see this given a lot more credence here than usual. Hopefully as it's always turned out in similar situations here, this will be swatted down by the usual "commie liberal god haters and learned types" and resurface a few years later for the local news networks to present with their lovely passive aggressive bias. The funny thing is, most of our supporters for evolution are Christians as well.

What worries me is this ditz we've elected as our governer to be.

Governor-elect Mary Fallin, when asked in an interview which she would answer if asked to chose between religion and science, answered ‘religion.’

It's a good thing we have a group of concerned educators ready to face this. For more information, go here:

http://www.oklascience.org/

[C_Felix]

Here's how I used to deal with it (when I was teaching)

You have two ideas out there:
1) Life started, somehow, we don't know how, but it slowly changed over millions and millions of years...etc...I talked about filling their niche in their ecosystem...etc...

2) God made everything at once, about 6,000 years ago, and made each little living thing with the intent of filling their niche in their ecosystem. (That was all I said.)

I feel I exposed the kids to both sides.

[Thunder]

Creationism is not science. It is based on a religious book. It does not belong in a science class.

Evolution, IS science. It is based on observation, analysis, theory, testing, experimentation, and comparison with many other scientists.

If Christians, Jews, and Muslims want to believe that "God", is the driving force behind Evolution, and that there is a spiritual meaning behind our existence and evolution into human beings, that's fine.

[Jono]

The senator says he supports having creationism--the belief that God created the world without evolution--taught in public schools.



It's already taught, in many varieties, and the classes where it is taught have to do with religion.

[JoeyDonuts]

Governor-elect Mary Fallin, when asked in an interview which she would answer if asked to chose between religion and science, answered ‘religion.’

That's a crappy interview question. Without context, it reads like a false dichotomy. One is evidentiary-based and self-correcting, one is not.

But then again, that's about par for most of the "journalism" around here.

Fallin was instrumental in blocking the 9/11 First Responders bill during her time in Congress. To me, that's unforgivable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's how I used to deal with it (when I was teaching)

You have two ideas out there:
1) Life started, somehow, we don't know how, but it slowly changed over millions and millions of years...etc...I talked about filling their niche in their ecosystem...etc...

2) God made everything at once, about 6,000 years ago, and made each little living thing with the intent of filling their niche in their ecosystem. (That was all I said.)

I feel I exposed the kids to both sides.If you were still teaching, I'd suggest you adopt Eugenie Scott's approach. No offense but I don't find the approach you described helpful in promoting science, though I think I know what your intent was.

[Halfcentaur]

That's a crappy interview question. Without context, it reads like a false dichotomy. One is evidentiary-based and self-correcting, one is not.

But then again, that's about par for most of the "journalism" around here.

Fallin was instrumental in blocking the 9/11 First Responders bill during her time in Congress. To me, that's unforgivable.

Here's where I took the quote from.

From the Oklahoma Evolution News 1-Dec-10 newsletter.



1. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT IN NEXT OKLAHOMA LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS?

[The Republicans, for the first time in Oklahoma history now hold all state elected offices and a super majority in both houses. Given the past history of many Republicans in recent years, often dominated by religious motives, we should expect more attempts at placing religion into public schools, such as the past bills by Rep. Kern and Sen. Brogdon. The Governor can not be expected to veto such bills (as Gov. Henry did two years ago). Governor-elect Mary Fallin, when asked in an interview which she would answer if asked to chose between religion and science, answered ‘religion.’ Opposition to such religious motivated bills should occur early in the process to have such bills killed in committee. One of the best arguments, other than the fact that such bills are unconstitutional (and would cost the State many dollars to defend in court suits that would follow), is that passage would be very deleterious to attraction of high tech, med tech industries and the recruitment of scientists – as Kansas experienced a few years ago when the Kansas School Board attempted to change state teaching standards.



The ironic thing is, it's Christian scientists in Oklahoma who have been essential in blocking this sort of thing so far.

Here's a link to the Clergy Letter Project, for clergy in support of the Theory of Evolution.

http://blue.butler.edu/~mzimmerm/rel_evol_sun.htm

It's due to this Christian angle they take that I have hopes this will eventually be dismissed.

[Thunder]

Creationism has its place in schools......in Religion class.

:)

[Skeptic Ginger]

the original article

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10717736/article-Brecheen-discusses-evolution-and-Darwinian-Theory?instance=secondary_opinion_left_columnI don't get the title of that website, DuranteDemocrat.

Breechen (http://www.brecheenforsenate.com/) clearly holds Repub views, is endorsed by the Repub Senator from OK, and conveniently doesn't mention his party affiliation on his official web page (or if he does it isn't easy to find).

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would appear from Breechen's arguments he's been personally taken in by the disinfo campaign. He cites the "improbability" argument. And he must have seen "Expelled" because he also believes the baloney there is some plot by "intellectuals" to exclude any evidence supporting Biblical text in scientific circles.

This disinfo is tirelessly refuted yet it persists and persists.

[Lucian]

I don't get the title of that website, DuranteDemocrat.

Breechen (http://www.brecheenforsenate.com/) clearly holds Repub views, is endorsed by the Repub Senator from OK, and conveniently doesn't mention his party affiliation on his official web page (or if he does it isn't easy to find).

It's the website for the Durant Daily Democrat, a newspaper that has been around since 1900 apparently. It's not affiliated with the democratic party. My local paper is called the Journal Constitution, but it isn't actually a constitution in journal form.

[JoeyDonuts]

That's correct. It's common for smalltown papers to have names like "The XXX Democrat" without regards to party affiliation.

Brecheen is Republican as all hell. His religious preference is listed as "Surrendered to King Jesus."

[fuelair]

That's correct. It's common for smalltown papers to have names like "The XXX Democrat" without regards to party affiliation.

Brecheen is Republican as all hell. His religious preference is listed as "Surrendered to King Jesus."

So then, he, like, bottoms for Jeebus.:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

PZ Myers rips him to shreds...Except for the incredibly rude style, starting from the title, and most of his comments, including this gem: "Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth [Yes, they are. Evolution is firmly established.]."

No. Bertrand Russell objected to indoctrination in Science class. He argued that one-sided indoctrination made children resistant even to the best arguments of Flat Earthers, as though this is a bad thing. It is. The problem with insistence on The Truth is that no one has an exclusive handle on it.

The problem with including Intelligent Design biology in Science class is that it opens too many doors: Flat Earth Astronomy, Aristoteilean Physics, Socialist Economics, etc. We simply do not have time. There are many more than two sides to most issues.

Privatization of the education industry offers a humane resolution of contests over curriculum.

It's funny that many rude and strident opponents of Intelligent Desogn biology (like Myers) support Intelligent Design economics, against market economics. Here's Myers again (his comments in italics): "The religion of evolution [Seriously. It isn't. It's a scientific theory that explains a large body of confirmable facts, and that provides a useful framework for new research. It has no resemblance to any faith of any kind.] requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God [God: no evidence, no math, no experiments, no observations. Evolution: evidence, math, experiments, observations. Case closed....

Substitute "market economics" for "evolution" and "Socialism" for "God" and you have a parallel argument with just as much support.

[drkitten]

Except for the incredibly rude style, starting from the title, and most of his comments, including this gem: "Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth [Yes, they are. Evolution is firmly established.]."

No. Bertrand Russell objected to indoctrination in Science class. He argued that one-sided indoctrination made children resistant even to the best arguments of Flat Earthers, as though this is a bad thing. It is. The problem with insistence on The Truth is that no one has an exclusive handle on it.

The problem with including Intelligent Design biology in Science class is that it opens too many doors: Flat Earth Astronomy, Aristoteilean Physics, Socialist Economics, etc. We simply do not have time. There are many more than two sides to most issues.

Privatization of the education industry offers a humane resolution of contests over curriculum.

It's funny that many rude and strident opponents of Intelligent Desogn biology (like Myers) support Intelligent Design economics, against market economics. Here's Myers again (his comments in italics): "The religion of evolution [Seriously. It isn't. It's a scientific theory that explains a large body of confirmable facts, and that provides a useful framework for new research. It has no resemblance to any faith of any kind.] requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God [God: no evidence, no math, no experiments, no observations. Evolution: evidence, math, experiments, observations. Case closed....

Substitute "market economics" for "evolution" and "Socialism" for "God" and you have a parallel argument with just as much support.

And once again Malcolm demonstrates that logic, reason, and evidence ... and indeed, coherence,... are socialist conspiracies with which he will have no part.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Myers argues in his characteristically obnoxious style, which makes him appear insecure. He has credentials and an institutional affiliation which would make a normal human secure enough, seems to me. Dunno 'bout Dr. Kitten, though.And once again Malcolm demonstrates that logic, reason, and evidence ... and indeed, coherence,... are socialist conspiracies with which he will have no part.Anyone can say that in response to any argument. With what assertion as to fact do you disagree? Where do you find an implication illogical? Do you deny the abundant twentieth century evidence against Intelligent Design economics (Soviet and Chinese famine due to collectivized agriculture, technological stultification due to nationalized manufacturing, etc.)?

I recommend:
Von Mises, Socialism (http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msS.html)
Hayek, "The Use of Knowledge In Society (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html)" (Please read this.)
Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Phoenix-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264017).

They all proceed from a recognition that "What works?" is an empirical question which only an experiment (a market) can answer.

Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State actors. Proponents of Intelligent Design economics (socialism) pretend to know The Truth and orgasm over the prospect of imposing it on everyone else.

Question their self-congratulatory power fantasy and they get nasty.

[Jono]

Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State actors. Proponents of Intelligent Design economics (socialism) pretend to know The Truth and orgasm over the prospect of imposing it on everyone else.

Question their self-congratulatory power fantasy and they get nasty.

Erhm, I'm sorry I must be misunderstanding this discussion. "Intelligent Design economics" is interchangable with socialism, as in it being a euphemism for it, or is there such a recent branch of ID'ers who actually propose their own mixture thereof?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Erhm, I'm sorry I must be misunderstanding this discussion. "Intelligent Design economics" is interchangable with socialism, as in it being a euphemism for it, or is there such a recent branch of ID'ers who actually propose their own mixture thereof?I invented the term, afaik, although the concept, the analogy between command economics and Intelligent Design biology, has many fathers.

[schrodingasdawg]

It's a meaningless rhetorical ploy. For one thing, the argument between evolution and creationism is a scientific one, i.e. an "is" argument. The argument between free-market capitalism and interventionism is a political one, i.e. an "ought" argument. For another, the theory of evolution does not assert that natural selection is the most efficient way for features to evolve - it states that this is how it happens in nature. The program of artificial selection has been extremely successful in developing traits in animals and plants that are useful to humans, much more than natural selection has been.

That's not to mention that this is irrelevant to the thread, but I suppose that's not too important.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...The program of artificial selection has been extremely successful in developing traits in animals and plants that are useful to humans, much more than natural selection has been...Two points: 1) Dunno how you measure the importance of honeybees, fish, soil bacteria, and other naturally evolved organisms without which many (or all) humans would starve, or of photosynthetic plants generally, without which we would suffocate. 2) Most "artificial selection" still operates on differential reproduction, although we now have genetic engineering, which is edging into "Intelligent Design" biology. Note, however, that genetic engineers usually do not design DNA sequences that do what they want; they find them in one organism and transfer them into another.

The rest of this...It's a meaningless rhetorical ploy. For one thing, the argument between evolution and creationism is a scientific one, i.e. an "is" argument. The argument between free-market capitalism and interventionism is a political one, i.e. an "ought" argument. For another, the theory of evolution does not assert that natural selection is the most efficient way for features to evolve - it states that this is how it happens in nature. The program of artificial selection has been extremely successful in developing traits in animals and plants that are useful to humans, much more than natural selection has been. That's not to mention that this is irrelevant to the thread, but I suppose that's not too important....is largely mistaken, seems to me.

I recommend the introduction to Milton Friedman's Essays in Positive Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Positive-Economics-Phoenix-Books/dp/0226264033). As Friedman observes (and Hayek, in the essay I linked above, asserts), there is a large amount of "is" in economic decision-making, from two sources: 1) what do people want? and 2) given information on human wants, which production process uses the least of other things that people want? These are empirical "is" questions.

Intelligent Design economics (socialism) does not work. This is a well-established fact that people of the Socialist faith cannot acknowledge.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And once again Malcolm demonstrates that logic, reason, and evidence ... and indeed, coherence,... are socialist conspiracies with which he will have no part.Evidence certainly matters, so I await your answers to the questtions I asked here.
.

[JoeyDonuts]

What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Do you have anything to contribute besides irrelevant similes? Because I can do it too.

You see, Intelligent Design is like Jell-O Pudding.

NO! Actually it's more like Kodak film.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?The State (government, generally) cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The scope of the definition strongly influences the intensity of the political contests over school policy. This seems pretty obvious to me. Myers, and some other proponents of modern Biology, adopt a rude, unnecessarily provocative style of address that I believe raises costs and reduces effectiveness of the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy.Do you have anything to contribute besides irrelevant similes? Because I can do it too.You see, Intelligent Design is like Jell-O Pudding. NO! Actually it's more like Kodak film.I agree, your similies are irrelevant. I do not agree that the analogy between modern evolutionary biology and free-market economics, on the one hand, and command economics and Intelligent Design biology, on the other, is irrelevant. Some economist whose name escapes me at the moment, once wrote that Biology and Economics were the same theory with different names attached to the terms. This makes sense; Darwin drew inspiration from Malthus, after all. Many biologists explicitly use economic models. Consider E.O. Wilson, "The Ergonomics of Caste in the Social Insects", or the evolutionary relation between morphology and resources.

Instead of insulting the opposition, as Myers does, why not seek compromise or open avenues of escape where compromise is expensive or unlikely? The answer to that, seems to me, lies in socialists' faith in Intelligent Design economics and their strident evangelism.

[Gawdzilla]

I realize why he said "540 million" and my example was a simple organism.

My main point was, regardless of whether we're talking 540 MILLION or 3.5 BILLION I find it hilarious that any modern day occupant of the planet could pretend to know exactly what happened or didn't happen over either time span.

Especially based on what humankind has found or not found.

"IF" evolution had happened, how many complete evolutionary cycles could have taken place over a 5.3 BILLION year span ??

We're still are finding new information about the Egyptian, Inca, Aztec and Jewish civilizations which all came and went within the last 5 THOUSAND years.

There's plenty of time for evolution. (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/theres-plenty-of-time-for-evolution/)

[JoeyDonuts]

The State (government, generally) cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The scope of the definition strongly influences the intensity of the political contests over school policy. This seems pretty obvious to me. Myers, and some other proponents of modern Biology, adopt a rude, unnecessarily provocative style of address that I believe raises costs and reduces effectiveness of the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy.I agree, your similies are irrelevant. I do not agree that the analogy between modern evolutionary biology and free-market economics, on the one hand, and command economics and Intelligent Design biology, on the other, is irrelevant. Some economist whose name escapes me at the moment, once wrote that Biology and Economics were the same theory with different names attached to the terms. This makes sense; Darwin drew inspiration from Malthus, after all. Many biologists explicitly use economic models. Consider E.O. Wilson, "The Ergonomics of Caste in the Social Insects", or the evolutionary relation between morphology and resources.

Instead of insulting the opposition, as Myers does, why not seek compromise or open avenues of escape where compromise is expensive or unlikely? The answer to that, seems to me, lies in socialists' faith in Intelligent Design economics and their strident evangelism.

I get it. You've come up with an analogy that you think is pretty brilliant and you're going to shoehorn it into as many ID threads as possible regardless of its relevance.

Seems to me there's nothing more to say, as the question of why it's irrelevant has been pointed out to you more than once. It also seems that your knowledge of biology and the scientific method in general could probably stand some improvement if you think continually throwing this analogy at it is going to one day make it "stick."

Take it over to Free Republic or the Conservapaedia talk pages and you'll probably garner a few fans with it, though.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I get it. You've come up with an analogy that you think is pretty brilliant and you're going to shoehorn it into as many ID threads as possible regardless of its relevance.Not at all. I'll introduce the Socialism/ID analogy into school policy threads. I don't generally bait Christians, and when atheists bait Christians, I don't presume that those atheists adhere to the Socialist faith. The analogy I would apply in those discussions is militant atheist = Taliban.Seems to me there's nothing more to say, as the question of why it's irrelevant has been pointed out to you more than once. It also seems that your knowledge of biology and the scientific method in general could probably stand some improvement if you think continually throwing this analogy at it is going to one day make it "stick.""Questions have been pointed out" and answered. I was a Biology major before I switched to Math. From reading in the history of Science, generaly, and Biology specifically, and experience as a teacher, I have learned that societies and individuals do not convert to a new view with one presentation of the argument.

The analogy is this: Darwin showed that differential reproduction (natural selection) will generate finely-honed adaptations; that the albatross wing, the hummingbird wing, and the hawk's eye can develop without an Intelligent Designer. Adam Smith showed that self-interest in a legal environment which features private property and contract law will generate socially beneficial behaviors and institutions. Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others have shown why human attempts to play God and design economies (beyond imposing the system of title and contract law) will fail.

[Alferd_Packer]

Back to the OP.

Ok is Not OK


Brecheen will serve on the Education, Judiciary, Retirement and Insurance, and Rules Committees as well as the Appropriations Subcommittee on Education.

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10926352/article-Senator-Brecheen-Gets-Nod-for-Key-Appointments?instance=home_news_lead#cb_post_comme nt_10926352

[A Laughing Baby]

To be honest, I rather like the growing assertion that science=liberal. I'm okay with being on the side of science.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

To be honest, I rather like the growing assertion that science=liberal. I'm okay with being on the side of science.Do you mean "liberal" in the European sense of laissez faire or "liberal" in the American sense of squishy socialist? Newton was a Christian, Heisenberg worked for the Nazis, Stephen J. Gould was a Marxist, Edward Teller was vehemently antiCommunist.

I'd be careful when generalizing about the relation between scientific expertise and political orientation. If the relation between employment in science and socialist policy preferences is "growing" in the US, that probably has more to do with cowardice, being unwilling to cross your employer (the tax-funded universities) than with a reasoned determination of policy preferences.

[drkitten]

The analogy is this: Darwin showed that differential reproduction (natural selection) will generate finely-honed adaptations; that the albatross wing, the hummingbird wing, and the hawk's eye can develop without an Intelligent Designer. Adam Smith showed that self-interest in a legal environment which features private property and contract law will generate socially beneficial behaviors and institutions. Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others have shown why human attempts to play God and design economies (beyond imposing the system of title and contract law) will fail.

Yes. The difference is that Darwin had reason and empirical evidence to back up his theory. In fact, Darwin had reason or empirical evidence to back up his theory. That's what distinguishes him from von Mises and Hayek, and that's why the analogy fails.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes. The difference is that Darwin had reason and empirical evidence to back up his theory. In fact, Darwin had reason or empirical evidence to back up his theory. That's what distinguishes him from von Mises and Hayek, and that's why the analogy fails.If that's the difference, there is no difference. Readers may assess whether or not P. T. Bauer, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman don't have both reason and evidence in support of their positions. I recommend Mises, Socialism (http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msS.html), Hayek, "On the Use of Knowledge in Society (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html)" and __The Road to Serfdom__, Friedman, __Capitalism and Freedom__, __Essays in Positive Economics__, and __Dollars and Deficits__, and P.T. Bauer (http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/bauer/contribution.html), __Dissent on Development__, and __Reality or Reality__. I'd like to recommend Friedman's __Monetary History of the United States__ but I have not read it.

The economists above represent a mix of theoretical analysis and empirical research. They all employ a mix of abstraction and evidence. Mises is far to the abstract side and Bauer is pretty far to the empirical side. Friedman is pretty much in the middle.

Kitten,
Do you reject all economic analysis? Or just the free marketeers? Since Malthus inspired Darwin, since many biologists routinely use standard economic models, and many economists use evolutionary models, you're on shakey ground, seems to me.

[A Laughing Baby]

Do you mean "liberal" in the European sense of laissez faire or "liberal" in the American sense of squishy socialist? Newton was a Christian, Heisenberg worked for the Nazis, Stephen J. Gould was a Marxist, Edward Teller was vehemently antiCommunist.

I'd be careful when generalizing about the relation between scientific expertise and political orientation. If the relation between employment in science and socialist policy preferences is "growing" in the US, that probably has more to do with cowardice, being unwilling to cross your employer (the tax-funded universities) than with a reasoned determination of policy preferences.

I meant "liberal" in the generally formless, shifting, center-left to center-right definition that has come to be associated with the word in America. I was playing with the growing political narrative over here that science has an agenda, typically aligned with "liberal" interests (I think this comes out of evolution/global warming quibbling).

I don't think that science is ACTUALLY liberal, I'm just saying that I'm pleased that it's largely being associated with "my side," for better or worse, regardless of cause.

[drkitten]

Kitten,
Do you reject all economic analysis? Or just the free marketeers?

Not even the free marketers. Just the ************ Libertopians, since they've been proven wrong. I have no beef with Smith except for the fact that his models are oversimplified to the point of wrongness (there are a number of rather explicit assumptions and a few hidden ones that actual real economists have spent the past few centuries ferreting out and figuring out the implications of).

The Libertopians, like bad pseudoscientists everywhere, don't even understand that underlying assumptions exist, let alone their significance to the usefulness of the model.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Not even the free marketers. Just the ****** Libertopians...Please try be civil.
(drkitten): "...since they've been proven wrong."

Would you please explain where you find this proof?

(Kitten): "I have no beef with Smith except for the fact that his models are oversimplified to the point of wrongness (there are a number of rather explicit assumptions and a few hidden ones that actual real economists have spent the past few centuries ferreting out and figuring out the implications of)."

Sounds like axiomatic Geometry. It's not "wrong" so much as useful or not, depending on whether it generates successful predictions. I recommend the essay "The Methodology of Positive Economics" in Friedman's __Essays in Positive Economics__. Further, theories are tools, and are not "useful" or "not useful" but more or less useful. For all the refinement in Economics since Adam Smith, Martin Anderson wrote that all the economics you need to make good policy was written down by the end of the 19th century. That's a bit of an exaggeration, I suppose, but the point remains.

(Kitten): "The Libertopians, like bad pseudoscientists everywhere, don't even understand that underlying assumptions exist, let alone their significance to the usefulness of the model."

The above does not at all describe Mises and Hayek.