Texas Board of Education member Lawrence Allen: Why are “strength and weaknesses” problematic? Says NCSE’s Dr. Genie Scott: There is no controversy about evolution in the scientific community. Pushing “strengths and weaknesses” in textbooks is bad science.
Eugenie Scott: “strengths and weaknesses” = bad science
Written by admin on September 6th, 2010 in Textbooks.
Tags: Eugenie, Science, Scott, Strengths, weaknesses
@lordnimr0d It’s kind of Ironic that this trial has created a big problem for the proposition of the new extended synthesis, which evolutionary development scientist are now proposing. In fact Stewart Newman an evo devo, along with Massimo Pigliucci & the Altenberg 16 attendees in Austria 2008 are trying to get people to back off the Darwinian paradigm that was sanctified by this judicial activism. Stewart says this Neo Darwinain model is false, and it is bad for science. Oops What TF happened?
@benthemiester
And what are you trying to say with this? Scott may be a flawed person, but this is justified ID-bashing we’re talking about.
before students are able to come to the fullest realization of its correctness,
I didn’t know science was about coming to fullest realizations. I thought there was no such thing as absolutes, and that theories are not written in stone. Kids are a lot smarter that you think. You may think you can bullshit them, but your just bullshitting yourself. This is the best thing for ID. Now, kids realize how vulnerable the theory is to critique. That’s why there’s more interest than ever among the young.
Eugenie Scott, co signer of the third humanist manifesto, who believes there is nothing wrong or immoral about a mother having sex with her son or daughter, as long as their consenting adults. She believes society would be better off believing in principles like these. When ever someone tries to outlaw critical analysis of any theory, alarms in your head should go off, whether secular, Christian, Jew or Muslim it doesn’t matter. U cant outlaw curiosity. Stalin passed similar laws. It dint work.
No. Clearly, these videos are about the Texas Board of Education using their influence to erode an accepted scientific theory before students are able to come to the fullest realization of its correctness, and it is obvious why.
On a grander scale it is about the erosion of the quality of science education in the U.S. at the hands of a fundamentalist agenda that does not want Evolution taught in the classroom.
Since you can not even acknowledge that, I am discontinuing this dialogue.
This is about critical thinking & getting false info out of text. Even Miller was forced to acknowledge that this was a problem with Recapitulation theory. Epistemological & critical thinking have been used since the days of Aristotle in science. I am tired of people distorting the facts. Nobody is advocating religion in textbooks. Eugenie Scott is not a scientist. Even the paper she published on menstrual cycles was based on work of others. She’s been an activist with a degree since 1989.
The focal point of this video, and the rest in this collection, is NOT Eugenie Scott though. The focal point is NOT about scientists questioning the modern synthesis etc
The focal point IS about showing the world what a board of non-scientific people are up to. Note it is not a board of scientists changing textbook language in the scientific spirit. It is a board of non-scientists changing language in science text books because they don’t like what they see & don’t understand it. That is wrong.
I believe Richard Lewontin is part of this group I am referring too. He was also a key player at Altenberg Summit. Please continue.
The name of the video is called, Strengths and Weaknesses.
If secular evolutionary biologist are now, and have been questioning the strengths and weaknesses of the same axiom that Eugenie Scott professes to be strong and with out weakness, then we have a have a problem with the logical justification for her position. This is not rocket science.
As interesting as this tangent is, I still ask what this has to do with the topic of the video?
Well, of course there are going to be a bunch of these people publishing papers related to the topic:
“…scientists are always looking to find some theory or idea that they can push as something that nobody else ever thought of because thats the way they get their prestige. . . .they have an idea which will overturn our whole view of evolution because otherwise theyre just workers in the factory, so to speak. And the factory was designed by Charles Darwin.” – Dick Lewontin
Exactly!
I have already taken a look at the extended synthesis ideas Newman and Pigliucci were bandying around. It has only recently been formalized and published for peer review after a loooong time of being touted as some sort of long needed revolutionary rethinking of the Modern Synthesis. It does not exactly have a huge following yet because it has yet to survive the peer review process. Until then, don’t hold your breath, anyone.
Baldwin, J. M. 1896. A new factor in evolution. Am. Nat 30:441451. 536553. CrossRef
Gilbert, S. F. 2001. Ecological developmental biology: developmental biology meets the real world. Dev. Biol 233:112. CrossRef, PubMed, CSA
Gilbert, S. F. and J. A. Bolker. 2003. Ecological developmental biology: preface to the symposium. Evol. Dev 5:38. CrossRef, PubMed
Hall, B. K., R. D. Pearson, and G. B. Müller. eds. 2003. Environment, development, and evolution: toward a synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ho, M. W. and P. T. Saunders. 1979. Beyond neo-Darwinism: an epigenetic approach to evolution. J. Theor. Biol 78:573591. CrossRef, PubMed
Schlichting, C. D. and M. Pigliucci. 1999. Phenotypic evolution: a reaction norm perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Via, S., R. Gomulkiewicz, G. de jong, S. M. Scheiner, C. D. Schlichting, and P. H. van Tienderen. 1995. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: consensus and controversy. Trends Ecol. Evol 10:212217. CrossRef, CSA
West-Eberhard, M. J. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, New York.
COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE FOR EVO-DEVO OR COLLECTIVE CHALLENGE TO NEO-DARWINISM?1
Ehab Abouheif
Department of Biology, McGill University, 1205 avenue Docteur Penfield, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1B1, D. Futuyma
I didn’t say the theory of evolution as concept or as a material belief was being abandon. I was referring to the modern synthesis of natural selection which has been the poster child for the evolutionary paradigm that people like Eugenie Scott says has no weaknesses. I can refer you to evolutionary scientist who are saying that we don’t have a clue to some of these hard questions concerning methodology. Phylogenetic tree building has also become very problematic.
Its hard to compress the last seven years of research into a a short time frame. As I said before, biologist in the know, have understood this for a long time. I would urge you to look into the extended synthesis and to learn about the difference between the modern axiom and things like epigenetics, plasticity, and the kind of self organizing models that the ES incorporates.
cont.. Short answer, Google, Suzann Mazur interviews evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman. The 40 minute interview is well worth watching. Newman along with Pigliucci who were, and are major role players in the Altenberg meeting and the subsequent reformulation I’m speaking of.
cont…The NSCE doesn’t support them and boycotted summit. They didn’t want to give talking points to IDers who have been questioning the limitations of natural selection for the last twenty five years. Unfortunately trying to save face is more important. Even giving the impression that there is controversy about natural selection being the core or predominant force in macro evolutionary theory is to dangerous in there eyes.
As if science really cared about personnel humility.
How does this relate to the video?
May I ask from where you are sourcing your claim? I wish to verify it for myself.
Claims that the theory of evolution is being abandoned in droves have been going around for more than 100 years, so forgive me if I am skeptical…
Besides even if it were true (which I will doubt until I see proof), my point still applies and the video illustrates the ulterior motives of religious elements trying to insert their agenda where it doesn’t belong.
The synthesis of Darwinian/Modern Evolution as we know it, is being polity abandoned by every one in the know in biology. From Massimo Pigliucci, to Stewart Newman. Even Jerry Coyne has spoken about the post Encode world were living in. Of course, these gentlemen have tried hard to downplay the significance of this new Extended Synthesis. The modern axiom is being reconstituted with the greatest discretion ala the Altenberg 16. I wonder why Eugenie Scott didn’t attend and doesn’t support them.
I would point particularly to Dr. Miller’s commentary starting at around 4:18 in
watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k
He specifically refers to boards of education and legislature.
In the case of these Texas Board of Education videos, they are subtly changing the language in science books to give the theory of biological evolution an appearance of weakness etc so that the students would be encouraged to find other ‘explanations’ about the diversity of life; ie creationism – which is the primary motive.
I just want to be clear: Questioning a theory does not make you a religious element.
Please watch the youtube video from the URL below. It explains perfectly what I am trying to point out but can’t because of limited text to do it in.
watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k
The videos of the Texas Board of Education show exactly what the people in the video linked above are talking about. This is what I am objecting to, and why.
How do we go about questioning the intent of a kid who reads an article in a science journal such as John Sanford’s book and scientific research that lead him to believe in genetic entropy. A concept that is in direct contradiction to theory, or the work of Dean Kenyon, Denton, or any other scientist who publishes work that question the theory. Do we sit them in a room and interrogate them the way the Soviets did? I’m trying to put your views in a working practical model but its not working.