Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Radio Commercials Air in Kansas Supporting Standupforscience.com’s Approach to Teaching Evolution

William Dembski
July 29, 2006
Education, Evolution, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
As the debate over how to teach evolution continues, two new radio commercials promoting www.standupforscience.com and the online petition to “Stand up for Science, Stand up for Kansas” will air this weekend across Kansas.

One ad features molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, explaining that “it is imperative to understand both the evidence for and against a scientific theory… as a scientist, I am standing up for science education policies that require students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as the scientific evidence that challenges it.”

The second commercial features Kansas public school science teacher Jill Gonzalez Bravo who was also recently interviewed for the ID The Future Podcast about her support for Kansas’ new science standards.

Click here to hear commercial #1.
Click here to hear commercial #2.

The commercials will air periodically over the next six weeks. Remember to tell your friends to sign the petition.

Comments
MrsCogan... AngryScott
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
MsCogan blurts:
The Ohio Standards that caused a lot of controversy last year were written by a creationist as were the Kansas Standards. The Ohio standards had references to Wells’ “Icons of Evolution” and to Denton’s “Evolution a Theory in Crisis.” Both are creationist books which largely lift their arguments and ideas from earlier creationist books. The Ohio standards’ research suggestions included links to creationist websites and suggested search terms which yield mostly creationist websites.
Utter pish. You may actually want to become acquainted with what ID books teach before making assumptions from ignorance. It's horribly intellectually dishonest of you. Your nasty bias is showing and it's not pretty. First of all, Wells's book details the core tenets of Darwinism which have been replete in Biology textbooks throughout the years and then proceeds to show how they are grossly inaccurate, based on false pressupositions, and just plain wrong. And he does this without appealing to any religious texts. He appeals to science. Now Denton... who is agnostic on a good day (so God only knows how you assume he is a Creationist - again, your bias is showing), in his ground-breaking book appeals to primarily molecular scientific evidence to demonstrate the gaping chasms in Darwinian mythology. MsCogan... read and learn.
Both are creationist books which largely lift their arguments and ideas from earlier creationist books.
You have 1 day to gather specific data to support this claim citing references from their books and earlier "Creationist" books and to produce a convincing definition of what a "Creationist Argument" is, or you will be permanently unselected from this blog due to a lethal accumulation of deleterious Straw Man and Red Herring tactics. We don't have time for such balderdash.
All most all the “criticisms” of evolution are from creationists and are illegal to teach. Nine Supreme Court decisions have said so. It’s possible to find a few quotes from the early 20th century when variation/natural selection were out of favor but that’s about it. There’s no controversy to teach. Genuine “critical analysis” would leave ID and all of creationism in the dust. That’s why they skimped on pro-evolution material. [shrug] ID is an argument for the existence of God, nothing more. That makes it ok as theology, but illegal to teach as science.
LOL! This reads like "The Beginner's Guide to Gross Ignorance about IDâ„¢". Nine supreme court decisions have most certainly not said this and you are skewing the data... again, dishonest. And do you believe that judges should be deciding issues of science? Let me share with you some bullet points of arguments that caused me to reject your primitive Civil-War era Creation myth (Darwinism) and embrace ID and you tell me exactly how they are religious arguments: *DNA - The 4 nucleotide alphabet at the core of life which is an advanced computing program. As Doug puts it nicely:
But let’s look beyond that for the moment and think about what it would take - in terms of random processes - for DNA to form itself and code itself by random mutations to produce proteins that transcribe specific overlapping segments that are themselves hidden or revealed depending on how still other proteins fold the long DNA strand. Codes within codes, weaved together in a lattice of folded DNA that operate like machines programmed to reconfigure themselves depending on context. Want a liver cell - fold here. Muscle, fold there. Like comic book Transformers, but infinitely more complex. Cell types set contextual limits that are determined by a mutating but self-correcting proceedure of replication and type determination. Start with a single sperm cell and egg cell and watch them unite - only to then split into the myriad cell types making up complex organisms in exactly the right time and place to enable the growth of an entire being. The determination of each cell type is controlled by this hidden code whose interpretation is dependent upon how the DNA strand is folded. And what deterimines the folding of the DNA? Why, the other code, of course.
*Cellular Machinery - Complex multi-component machinery inside the cell which requires all of it's specified components simultaneously to function. Gil puts this one in perspective here: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1276 *The Cambrian Explosion - The abrupt appearance of most novel body plans requiring a massive influx of specified information. You can begin your learning about this from this peer-reviewed paper: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 *A fossil record which completely lacks the abundance of transitional fossils which Darwin's theory demands. But rather demonstrates the abrupt appearance of distinct body plans, sans precursors. This demonstrates quantum level programming unfolding biological novelty at given intervals. As opposed to blind, assumed non-teleological mechanisms. These are just a few of the many reasons why I rejected the Darwinian faith. Now, your reasons why these tenets are religious in nature as opposed to simple observations of the evidence, had better be darned convincing. Have at it.Scott
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Mrs. Cogan, Some questions for you: You call ID creationism. Why? You say there "is no controversy". Does this mean that regardless of what biological process I could possibly name, modern science has already discovered a definitive (nonspeculative) solution to its origin? You say, "ID is an argument for the existence of God, nothing more". Here is Bill Dembski's definition of ID: "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence." Where is God in that? How can you defend your claim without resorting to a red herring?crandaddy
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
1. The people promoting the Teach the Controversy initiative do not in any way endorse or require the Of Pandas and People book.
So, this isn't "Teach the Controversy":
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
BobBob OH
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
MrsCogan: Provide one example of a Creationist argument being used in association with the Teach The Controversy initiative. And cite your source. The Ohio Standards that caused a lot of controversy last year were written by a creationist as were the Kansas Standards. The Ohio standards had references to Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and to Denton's "Evolution a Theory in Crisis." Both are creationist books which largely lift their arguments and ideas from earlier creationist books. The Ohio standards' research suggestions included links to creationist websites and suggested search terms which yield mostly creationist websites. http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/Web_site_analysis.html the references to check in favor of evolution were generally decades old and in obscure journals making them inaccessible to 10th graders. Up-to-date and easily available information about evolution was ignored. http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/References_analysis.html All most all the "criticisms" of evolution are from creationists and are illegal to teach. Nine Supreme Court decisions have said so. It's possible to find a few quotes from the early 20th century when variation/natural selection were out of favor but that's about it. There's no controversy to teach. Genuine "critical analysis" would leave ID and all of creationism in the dust. That's why they skimped on pro-evolution material. [shrug] ID is an argument for the existence of God, nothing more. That makes it ok as theology, but illegal to teach as science.MrsCogan
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
VOICEofNONSENSE: 1. The people promoting the Teach the Controversy initiative do not in any way endorse or require the Of Pandas and People book. 2. Additionally, you've just violated my stipulation for "MsCogan" above: waving off scientific observations as 'Creationist Arguments'. The FACT is that the Cambrian is indeed an explosion of biological novelty which the gradualistic Darwinian model cannot account for. Tiktaalik, archeopteryx - most Darwinists agree that these do not constitute transitions. Chimeras, not transitionals. And you had better do a heck of a lot better than that since Darwin's theory demands a rediculous abundance of transitionals. So, we have simple observations, as opposed to 'Creationist Arguments'. But you'd prefer dishonest Ad Hominem references to Creationists. You can begin your learning about the Cambrian Explosion here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 (a peer-reviewed paper) Tell me, where are the religious apologetics, smart guy/gal? Tell me aslo, where is the evidence that NS+RM can/has produced novel cell, tissue, or body plans? I won't hold my breath on that one. Forgive me if i'm skeptical about Victorian creation myths rooted in Steamboat-era thinking which try to account for what we actually observe in the evidence. Your reply had better be riddled with data and not more ad hominem Creationist dodges, or your going to be booted from here so fast your head will spin.Scott
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Scott says: Provide one example of a Creationist argument being used in association with the Teach The Controversy initiative. And cite your source. Well, how about Teach the Controversy using our scientific textbook, Of Pandas and People. From pages 99-100 of that book: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing." This is straight out of the creationist handbook of Cambrian Explosion arguments. The fossil record does indeed show transitional forms: see tiktaalik, archeopteryx, etc. Of course, this will be unconvincing to you, Scott: legitimate scientific criticisms of Darwinian Evolution which are waved off as \’Creationist arguments\’ will not be accepted. because you will wave off every criticism as really having scientific relevance. Are there any arguments you would say are based solely on religious apologetics? Or, are you of the opinion that sticking ID in front of a theory automatically makes it scientific? I await the rejection of this post and its withering in the dark, never seeing the light of day. I will eagerly wait to see if ANY answer to Scott's question makes the cut. I have the feeling that it might stand as the last comment on this subject, thereby making it look as if his point goes unchallenged, when in reality it does not.VOICEofREASON
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
MrsCogan: Provide one example of a Creationist argument being used in association with the Teach The Controversy initiative. And cite your source. It sounds to me like you are a Darwinian Fundamentalist who cannot stomach the fact that there are gaping holes big enough to drive a truck through, in your precious religion theory. Oh, and legitimate scientific criticisms of Darwinian Evolution which are waved off as \'Creationist arguments\' will not be accepted. So employ some critical thinking before you respond.Scott
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Joel,
If, however, we define religion as something that defines where man came from, why man is the way he is, and possible solutions on how to solve man’s problems (such as war, famine, etc), then even then ID only falls into the first two categories as it does not really offer a solution. In this case though it could possibly be defined as a “religion.”
The second category pertains to ID only partially. Purpose can be recognized in degrees. I can go outside, pick up a stick, draw numerous concentric circles in the dirt, and walk away. Someone can later notice the pattern and infer that it is likely intelligently produced without realizing its deeper meaning--that it marks the spot of buried treasure. Likewise, it seems that we can infer that man has some meaning (Natural phenomena can be observed to exhibit derivative intentionality.) but are unable to infer what, if any, deeper significance he has--at least as of right now. In short, it's possible to infer meaning without knowing what that meaning is.
However, so would Darwinian evolution [be defined as a religion] as it also explains where man came from and the problem of man (and such Darwinists, as Richard Dawkins, explain that the abolition of religion will solve many of our problems). Thus, what is currently in the status quo would also be defined as a religion
I don't think Darwinian evolution by itself is a religion, but I do think that what Dawkins and his ilk do with it is. (Many Darwinists concur with this as I'm sure you are aware.) Let's not confuse, however, the science of evolution with the materialistic ideology of Darwinism--the a priori presumption that Darwinian evolution must be true and the insulation of it from fair critical analysis.
Creationism teaches that the Judeo/Christian God created the world in seven days for His glory. ID teaches that the world evolved over time but also had some intelligent designer either beginning the process or guiding the process. THe two actually contradict each other as ID requires progression of time whereas Creationism requires instant creation.
?! Wait a minute. I thought the fundamental ID claim was that a natural phenomenon may be best explained as being the product of intelligent agency. It's neutral on issues of Creationism such as how long the creation process took (presuming it took place at all). Consider ID proponents who are young-earth creationists such as Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova. I'm also disappointed to see you say that the critical analysis of evolution is "really ID in disguise". Sure, some things in nature look designed; even Dawkins concedes this. Darwinian evolution proposes a naturalistic mechanism which supposedly explains this away as merely an appearance, and ID proposes that such mechanisms may never be explanatorily adequate because some things in nature may actually be designed. I don't see why it's necessary to invoke the latter in order to explore the explanatory power of the former. How is it possible that David Berlinski can reject ID and still be so intensely critical of evolution? And what about atheist David Stove and his Darwinian Fairytales? He died before ID took off, but I seriously doubt he would have endorsed it. Evidence against evolution does not automatically count as evidence in favor of ID. I, for one, would like to see evolution critically analyzed without ID being snuck in. I believe it can be done and would love to see the critical-analysis-as-a-front-for-ID slippery slope perpetrators get their noses rubbed in it. This, of course, is beside the fact that I want to avoid dishonesty. Patience is a virtue; deception is not.crandaddy
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
I don't think that Mrs Cogan's argument is really off point, or just empty rhetoric. Everything in her short comment is factually correct. As for why ID science is not taught in science classrooms? Where is the lesson plan? Has anyone drawn one up? If so, maybe linking to it could start the ball rolling. If it were available and everyone saw the legitimate science lessons, the legal problems would go away.VOICEofREASON
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
We basically have to take two views of this whole "religion" debate. If we define religion as "belief that an active higher power has given up morals to follow, a belief system, and an afterlife" then ID certainly is not a religion as there is no defined nature to the designer, only that he/she/it exists. If, however, we define religion as something that defines where man came from, why man is the way he is, and possible solutions on how to solve man's problems (such as war, famine, etc), then even then ID only falls into the first two categories as it does not really offer a solution. In this case though it could possibly be defined as a "religion." However, so would Darwinian evolution as it also explains where man came from and the problem of man (and such Darwinists, as Richard Dawkins, explain that the abolition of religion will solve many of our problems). Thus, what is currently in the status quo would also be defined as a religion. What you, Mrs Cogan, are attempting to do is use rhetoric and the famous, "ID is Creationism is a cheap suit" argument. Unfortunately for you, it is highly unfounded. Creationism teaches that the Judeo/Christian God created the world in seven days for His glory. ID teaches that the world evolved over time but also had some intelligent designer either beginning the process or guiding the process. THe two actually contradict each other as ID requires progression of time whereas Creationism requires instant creation. Larry - the problem with those is that they still bring up questions that are highly unanswered...ID would only aid in providing an answer (and yes, providing more questions) or at least another alternative theory that is scientifically based. Why is ID science not allowed in a science room?Joel Borofsky
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Like it or not at this point in time legally ID is religion and religion can't be taught in science class. "Teaching criticisms" or "teaching the controversy" appears to be just regurgitating 40-year-old creationist arguments. The Supreme Court has struck down teaching those also because they are religious arguments. Probability arguments have been around for many decades. They are meaningless.MrsCogan
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Joel Borofsky said ( July 30, 2006 @ 9:04 pm ) -- ---If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause…which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.--- I disagree. There are scientific challenges to Darwinism that have little or nothing to do with design, intelligent or otherwise -- examples are challenges concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction. See -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/co-evolutionary-paradox.html -- and -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/propagability-of-beneficial-mutations.htmlLarry Fafarman
July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
DaveW, It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools...at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID. If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause...which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.Joel Borofsky
July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Why will the commercials air for the next six weeks? It seems that the commercials are not of much use except in the campaigns for the board of education elections to be held on August 1.Larry Fafarman
July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Joel - Are you thinking that this is about ID? My impression is that this is about teaching the theory of evolution in a more balanced, less dogmatic way.DaveW
July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Philosophy is pervasive. If teachers "don’t know how to teach philosophy” then teachers are not in control of the foundation of knowledge. There is some reason why the highest degree that the education system has to offer is the Doctor of philosphy.bFast
July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
My hope is that ID will be taught properly in Kansas. Having been born and raised there I would love to claim to be from the first state to teach ID. There is a lot of movement among science high school teachers to never teach ID, even if it becomes a law because "we don't know how to teach philosophy." It would be nice to see them learn. I worked in a school and grew tired of hearing them speak of how it's wrong to point out the weaknesses in Darwin's theory because, "even if it is weak, it's still the best theory out there." (Shades of Dawkins anyone?)Joel Borofsky
July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Decent commercial spots. My only quibble is that they ostensibly promote fairness and sound slightly biased. For example, the Bravo spot says, "What do Kansas Science teachers think about evolution?" They then get a sound bite from one teacher. Does she really represent all of them? If she does, wouldn't it be more powerful to let the viewing public know that somehow? Having them sign the petition is great, but most TV viewers won't go there, they need the info up front. Same thing with the "majority of Americans agree..." tag. If true, I'd personally like to see (or hear) the evidence of said claim. I know a lot of people will digest the message on face value, but I personally think evidence speaks louder than soundbites.VOICEofREASON
July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply