reasonable answers

I think the problem that you've identified is one involving all of science curriculum and pedagogy - And that's it's a bit unfair to single out evolution as a subject that needs revision.

To my experience as a high school student, chemistry and physics were presented with more certitude than evolutionary biology; We were taught Newtonian laws of motion as if they were the immutable laws of the universe.

I agree with you - science curriculum in public schools needs to be revised. This is a problem of pedagogy, and not ideology.

Shouldn't we Christians be held to a consistent platform? If we are advocating stickers on biology books, why aren't we advocating them on physics books? Nobody is printing "Isaac Newton was wrong" stickers.

To resume, I'm the biggest proponent of critical reasoning in all subjects, evolutionary biology included :)

Newtonian physics are not immutable laws of the universe? How do you come to that conclusion?

If you wish to do critical analysis of Newton's work, you must study Newton and understand what he said, and what its implications are.

Einstein did that. Einstein also pondered about how Newton's work applies to things that are very small, smaller than atoms, and things at very high speed, like light.

At no time was Einstein hamstrung by someone who argued, without evidence, that angels make planets move, and therefore there is no reason whatsoever to study the issues any farther. Einstein was not hamstrung be people who argued that science should "at least consider the possibility that angels make the planets move, and send light out from their eyes."

I find it beyond belief that, were people to make such arguments about your physics teaching, that you would not dismiss them as kooks.

Daniel, in my physics classes I do inform my students that Einstein showed that Newton was wrong. It's not quite a sticker on the textbook, but it does help them to understand that even physics theories that have withstood for centuries can be overthrown. I think it is safe to say that many of the scientific theories accepted today were once reviled and discredited by those who held to the theory that they supplanted.

And I certainly didn't mean to single out evolution; it just happens to be the subject that is currently creating the most controversy. I am already thinking of a future entry dealing with critical thinking in physics. And note the addition to the original post that I just added which gives the more complete text of the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Timpanagos, I completely agree with you that in order to critically analyze Newton's work or Darwin's work, you must study Newton and Darwin and understand what they said, including the implications. Einstein fully understood Newtonian mechanics, to the point where he was able to see how it broke down when dealing with very small or very fast objects. I am not advocating that evolution not be taught--in fact, I consider it a significant disservice to students when I see other schools avoid the teaching of evolution entirely.

What I am advocating is that we not hide from our students the fact that there are valid, unanswered questions that currently cannot be answered by our current understanding of the process of evolution.

I also agree with your point that we shouldn't waste much time when someone brings an argument without evidence, but the key qualifier in your point is without evidence. I do believe that if someone does have valid evidence to bring to the table, then that argument should be given some consideration, even if I don't agree with the conclusion. And so in my class we have had fruitful discussions about the arguments presented by The Flat Earth Society and those who believe that the NASA moon landings were faked, and I believe it was beneficial to my students to learn how to critically analyze these ideas and expose the flaws in the arguments.

Let me first say that I couldn’t agree more with your overall message of freedom of thought and inquiry. I can clearly see that you have the best interests of the nation—even the world—in mind when you speak so passionately about something that resonates with you personally.

However, while I know you have the pertinent problem in mind (that is, getting kids to reason more effectively), I must respectfully disagree with your specific approach in dealing with it. PLEASE keep in mind: I’m not here to tell you I think you’re wrong; I simply want to provide you with a dissenting opinion. [Just think, how boring would it be if everyone who posted only ever agreed with you whole-heartedly—aha! I think that was the message of your post]

"Tom at Thinking Christian wrote an insightful post contrasting the study’s suggestion that “educators must go beyond teaching science facts if they hope to boost students’ reasoning ability” with the unquestioning approach to teaching evolution that hard-line evolutionists seem to be demanding.”

First, let’s just think for a second about that quote from the original article: “educators must go beyond teaching science facts if they hope to boost students’ reasoning ability.” Hmm. If just “teaching science facts” means drilling a bunch of concepts and equations into students’ heads, don’t you think in retrospect this conclusion seems pretty obvious? It certainly struck me that way. I mean, when we are teaching our kids how to speak we don’t simply drill a bunch of words into them and hope for the best. We give a vocalization and some sort of representation for what that word means—maybe a picture, an object, or something else. We need to give the child the “why” behind what we tell them. In a sense, isn’t “reasoning ability” the ability to extrapolate from the “why” behind something—that is, applying what we know and what those things mean to novel situations? If so, then the “unquestioning approach to teaching evolution” should be telling the kids what it is and what it means. To go beyond this, teachers need to develop activities that help kids learn how to take their knowledge of evolution, apply it to unfamiliar situations, and use it effectively in new and creative ways.

Essentially, what I’m getting at is that I think “reasoning ability” has more to do with implementing knowledge than it has with doubting the legitimacy of the knowledge itself. Indeed, isn’t reasoning ability significantly debilitated by casting the “truths” constituting one’s knowledge in a critical light? How can we reason effectively about anything if we start questioning the validity of what we already know?

Since I don’t think the study implicates changing what scientific facts we teach, I don’t think any of the court cases you cite have any relevance to the article.

“What is so dangerous about providing students the means to “understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner” (as proscribed in the Louisiana Science Education Act, 2008) that people are threatening legal action over the implementation of this policy?”

Any competent teacher provides students the means to understand and analyze scientific theories. Your lack of specificity when you say “providing students the means to ‘…critique, and review scientific theories’” bothers me a little. What students are you referring to? Primary school students? High school students? College students? Graduate students? I thought that critiquing and reviewing new scientific theories was what professors do. Since high school students are only taught accepted scientific theories, are you suggesting they ought to be critically reviewing established scientific theories? Are you then suggesting that high school students ought to be attempting to undermine the work of those at the forefront of scientific research? Does this seem practical to you? Does this seem productive? Does this even seem possible? (laughs) Do you know any high school students capable of successfully doing so? If you do, they probably don’t belong in high school.

Of course, providing students the means to competently critique and review anything is the ultimate goal of education—like you said, “I don’t think I’m the only science teacher who dreams that one day one of my students will come up with a new theory that replaces a current scientific paradigm,”—but most high school students don’t even have the basics down. How can you critique something you know nothing about? As the study shows, Americans seem to have an utter ignorance of the basics.

“Why is the ACLU and other groups working so hard to stifle the ability to question evolution or even call it something other than fact?”

Depends on where we’re talking about questioning evolution. As I said, I don’t think high school students are at the point where they can seriously question something like evolution. At any rate, any real grievances regarding a theory like evolution should be directed to the experts in the field or those who can carry out actual research regarding the issue.

“If the evidence for evolution is so undeniable and persuasive, what fear do evolutionists have of students engaging in a critical analysis of evolution?”

I simply don’t think high school is the appropriate battleground for accepted scientific theory. I talked about this a little over at Tom’s site. Whatever issues there may be ought to be taken up with authorities on the subject.

“I don’t think I’m the only science teacher who dreams that one day one of my students will come up with a new theory that replaces a current scientific paradigm. How will this ever occur if we don’t let our students know that it is okay to challenge conventional wisdom, to dig at holes in “established” knowledge, and to question our current understanding?”

Although by this point we’re mainly seeing your opinion, I would note that nothing in the article even suggested challenging conventional wisdom or questioning our current understanding. Again, such questioning would be detrimental to any reasoning ability involving the material at hand.

“Imagine how things might be if little Einstein learned that scientists were not allowed ‘to investigate and critically analyze aspects of Newtonian mechanics’”

Then Einstein would have learned about people other than scientists. By definition, scientists employ the scientific method (which certainly entails investigation and critical analysis).

“Ironically, it seems like it is the policy making evolutionists who are trying to turn our classrooms into pulpits for preaching the doctrine of Darwinism.”

You should take a look at this article about Darwinism: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/opinion/12thu4.html

As I said before, I can appreciate what you’re getting at when you talk about questioning established knowledge, but I really don’t think primary or secondary school are appropriate places for doing so. At least high school should not be some sort of battleground for evaluating the legitimacy of any scientific theory.

Timpanagos, I completely agree with you that in order to critically analyze Newton's work or Darwin's work, you must study Newton and Darwin and understand what they said, including the implications.

The proposals of IDists are that we keep students from studying Darwin and evolution. Among other skullduggerous methods they propose, to study "weaknesses" of evolution theory, such weaknesses coming not from any source of science. No proposal for ID in any state has ever included better teaching of evolution. Each and every one of them proposes that evolution be muzzled in overt ways. Were ID real science, of course, a full discussion would not be dangerous to it.

It's astoundingly ironic that you claim scientists advocate muzzling questions, when it is exactly the opposite that is occurring. ID cannot withstand a full-bore debate; the only way it can get into classrooms is through force, ordered by a school board. (If you're familiar with textbook publishing, you know that publishers race to get the latest and best science in the books -- key selling points; as Judge Overton noted in the Arkansas trial, in 1982, were creationism or ID science, no school board action would be required to get it into the texts.)

In the end, you agree that kids need to learn what the science is before they critique it. Every ID and creationist proposal is designed to keep kids from learning what the science is, the opposite of what you advocate in physics. "Academic freedom" only has meaning when students have some base of knowledge about the topic -- anything else is Stalinesque, hiding the facts (as indeed Stalin hid the facts about evolution, just as the IDists propose, by fuzzing up the books with canards about how the theory doesn't really work, and how evil Darwin was -- a hard-core capitalist caught in the Christian tradition, you know).

ID is the cold fusion of biology, just lacking the extensive research and publication support that cold fusion has. You do teach cold fusion, don't you? If not, why not? Afraid of the truth?

Why is the ACLU and other groups working so hard to stifle the ability to question evolution or even call it something other than fact?

The ACLU position is that religious dogma, wholly unsupported by science research, has no place in the science curriculum.

There is no question that the ACLU has ever suggested is out of line in a biology class. The sole line of litigation has been to stop the government from advocacy of religion -- which is prohibited in every state by the state constitution, and by the First Amendment as well. Why are ID advocates so fearful of the truth that they misrepresent the ACLU's position, and depth of involvement? ACLU had nothing to do in Ohio, has nothing to do in Texas, had nothing to do in Kansas, and won big in Pennsylvania on the merits of the case -- the ID advocates were caught lying about their religious motives, and completely unable to muster any science to back their claims.

Jesus would side with the ACLU on this issue. Christians should, too.

James, thank you for your thought-provoking and insightful comments, and thank you especially for your courteous tone of voice which gives your words that much more validity and reasonableness.

I have to admit that perhaps my own rhetoric was harsher more in response to the attitudes and actions of other things that I have been reading than as an accurate reflection of my own personal beliefs of what should occur in a classroom. Certain individuals and groups have pushed the pendulum so far in one direction that some of us feel that we need to push hard in the other direction to get things back to where they should be.

Just these last several days of writing and reading the thoughts of others has been shaping my own thoughts on the issue. Your comments have reminded me that there are practical implications involved in the curriculum we teach beyond just the ideological issues, and I will certainly continue to take into consideration the comments that you and others have made.

Ed, I never said that I advocate mandating the teaching of ID in schools; in fact I stated in my post that I am not advocating the teaching of any other alternative theory for life's origins. This entry is not meant to be a discussion on whether ID is science or should be taught in schools.

I agree with you that "'Academic freedom' only has meaning when students have some base of knowledge about the topic," and that is what we do in our science department. I would hope that my students are more knowledgeable about evolution than other students when they leave high school.

What I oppose is exactly this Stalinesque hiding of the facts that you mentioned, with some of these facts being that there is currently no naturalistic explanation for the origin of new information sufficient to allow evolutionary changes to occur, and there is no accepted explanation for how the first living organism came into being.

To say that these "weaknesses" of evolution theory come not from any source of science is to insult scientists like Ralph Seelke, Ph.D in Microbiology, Stanley Salthe, Ph.D. in Zoology, and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, among a list of over 700 credentialed scientists who have signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" statement, which reads, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

What I oppose is exactly this Stalinesque hiding of the facts that you mentioned, with some of these facts being that there is currently no naturalistic explanation for the origin of new information sufficient to allow evolutionary changes to occur, and there is no accepted explanation for how the first living organism came into being.

We can say there is "no naturalistic explanation for the origin of new information sufficient to allow evolutionary changes to occur" only by censoring those studies from the texts. That's my point. Mutation is perfectly adequate to explain diversification from single celled populations. How mutations arise is relatively well understood. The rise of wholly new functions and wholly new proteins has been observed. This is what I would describe as a hoax weakness. It's not based on any research, and continuing the spread of this idea requires at least the dilution of biology courses so students can't get the information, or the censorship of the information.

I'm not sure why the exact path of the rise of life should pose any barrier to evolution theory. Evolution theory covers the diversification of life once life got started on this planet. You might as well oppose the teaching of Newton's work in physics since it offers "no accepted explanation for how the first living organism came into being." We shouldn't expect a theory to cover stuff outside its realm. This is yet another hoax weakness.

Neither ID nor Christianity offers an explanation, either. You're working to establish that ID is a science with much greater weaknesses than what we have now -- why would we teach such inferior stuff to children we love?

To say that these "weaknesses" of evolution theory come not from any source of science is to insult scientists like Ralph Seelke, Ph.D in Microbiology, Stanley Salthe, Ph.D. in Zoology, and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, among a list of over 700 credentialed scientists who have signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" statement, which reads, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

How can it be an insult? Not one of those 700 has ever published a paper citing a weakness of evolution to teach. (Are there still 700? I know of at least 30 who asked their names to be removed when they learned the thing was offered as support for ID, since evolution is perfectly adequate and the statement says nothing against evolution theory -- one more hoax against evolution).

Seelke in particular should be ashamed of himself. He's been offered by the creationists on the Texas State Board -- but he's never published a paper critical of evolution. He's not provided a science basis for the criticisms he offers. And his carpetbagging here in Texas suggests ethical questions, too (he didn't declare a conflict of interest, while his book is the only one that offers the stuff he's urging be taught?)
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/10/texas_science_standards_disco.php

It's an insult to science to urge the adoption of views that are not offered for scientific criticism in the usual paths of science -- research, write-ups, publication in peer-review journals, replication, criticism and refinement. If Seelke has something to say critical of evolution, a real weakness, where is the paper that spells it out? What journal has it been submitted to?

Sheesh! This sort of mendacity is what does so much damage to science. People with an advanced degree and an axe to grind muddy the waters, suckering in other scientists who have not had the time, clue or inclination to check out their bona fides.

Let me repeat: Alleged weaknesses of evolution do not come from science. They are not supported by research. They are not offered in science venues to be checked out as valid (or in those few cases where they have been, they have been found to be crankery). Seelke and others shouldn't be insulted when these things are pointed out -- they should get themselves into a lab and do the work to verify their claims, if the claims can be verified.

Of course, that's exactly what Judge Overton said in the Arkansas case in 1982. 27 years ago this same dispute came to a head in federal court there. Under oath, the creationists and future IDists admitted there is no science behind their claims, that their claims are based in scripture (and therefore illegal for science classes). Judge Overton noted that all they had to do was get to a lab, do the research, and write the stuff up -- they'd be in the textbooks.

27 years, and they still haven't done it.

There is much real science, done by scientists with a lot of sweat, that students should study. Ethically, we are bound to offer that good science to students, and not faux science. Just as soon as creationists come up with some research they can publish on the issues, we can put it in the books.

But anti-evolution screeds are not science. They do not deserve special rights to get into the textbooks, not ahead of the hard work of people like Mayr, Carroll, Watson, Crick, Dobzhansky, Kettlewell, Majerus, Eldredge, Gould, Morgan, Gray, Wallace and Darwin. Darwin in particular -- his work was all transparent, well reported (by himself), meticulous, and replicable. That's a model that any good Calvinist should love. We certainly shouldn't replace that with work that is not transparent, never done, not reported, sloppy and irreproducible.

Seelke knows that. So do others. Their failure to go into the lab to do the work to verify their claims indict their claims more than any other rebuttal possibly could. They don't have faith in their own claims.

We shouldn't teach stuff like that to innocent children.

Now I'm really curious, Kendalf: Do you teach cold fusion? Why not? It's a better-researched, better supported alternative in physics than anything is an alternative to evolution in biology.

I have to admit that biology is not my forte (that’s why I’m a physics teacher) and I am certainly not as familiar with the literature as I would like to be before embarking on a detailed discussion. But with my limited knowledge let me try responding to several of Ed’s statements.

Mutation is perfectly adequate to explain diversification from single celled populations. How mutations arise is relatively well understood. The rise of wholly new functions and wholly new proteins has been observed.

I confess ignorance of the literature. Please cite at least one source to support each of these three statements.

We can say there is "no naturalistic explanation for the origin of new information sufficient to allow evolutionary changes to occur" only by censoring those studies from the texts.

I would also appreciate being directed to those texts that contain these particular studies.

I'm not sure why the exact path of the rise of life should pose any barrier to evolution theory. Evolution theory covers the diversification of life once life got started on this planet. You might as well oppose the teaching of Newton's work in physics since it offers "no accepted explanation for how the first living organism came into being." We shouldn't expect a theory to cover stuff outside its realm. This is yet another hoax weakness.

So even though Darwin himself speculated on possible explanations for the origin of life and from thence the beginnings of natural selection, the issue is irrelevant to the theory of evolution? The television series Lost would be quite boring indeed if all of the characters believed that there was no point in trying to figure out how or why they were on the island in the first place.

While I concede that an explanation of the origin of the first living organism is not an aspect of evolutionary theory in its strictest sense, the origin of life from non-life is certainly covered in biology textbooks and it is an essential component of the curriculum for an AP Biology course, and since this is a discussion of the content of science courses, the topic is certainly relevant.

I do want to point out that you continue to write as if I oppose the teaching of evolution, a point that I have already responded to in my previous comment. And in my physics class, I do teach about Newton’s laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation, but I also explain to my students that physicists really have no explanation for how these laws and constants and forces came to be the way that they are. Rather than stifling inquiry, I believe that this helps inspire my students that there are questions and additional avenues of research to pursue. Why would a student want to enter the field of science if they are taught as if all of the questions have already been answered?

Neither ID nor Christianity offers an explanation, either. You're working to establish that ID is a science with much greater weaknesses than what we have now -- why would we teach such inferior stuff to children we love?

You continue to argue against ID, and now Christianity, as an alternative explanation when I have made no claim to that effect so far in this discussion. Your insistence on repeatedly bringing this up gives the impression that you have an axe to grind against ID and Christianity.

Not one of those 700 has ever published a paper citing a weakness of evolution to teach. (Are there still 700? I know of at least 30 who asked their names to be removed when they learned the thing was offered as support for ID, since evolution is perfectly adequate and the statement says nothing against evolution theory -- one more hoax against evolution).

I am really not sure why you say that “the statement says nothing against evolutionary theory...” Why not?

In the most recently updated list of scientists who have signed the dissent from Darwinism statement, there are still over 700 scientists. And even with my limited resources for research, I came across three published papers from 2 of these scientists citing a weakness of evolution:

1. "Natural Selection in Relation to Complexity," by the aforementioned Stanley Salthe, published in Artificial Life, 2008.
From the abstract:
"While biological traits and functions do appear to have been subjected to selective culling, current neo-Darwinian theory is unable to account for the evolution of traits or functions when many of these are taken as the separate objects of independent fitness functions…. I conclude that natural selection theory by itself cannot account for increases in structural complexity."

2. Two papers published by Douglas Axe in 2000 and 2004 in the Journal of Molecular Biology. In an e-mail response, Dr. Axe wrote:
"I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design."

And before you say that I am refuting my own statement that I have not presented ID as an alternative to evolution, I mention these papers as examples that claim a weakness of evolution, not as a support for ID.

Let me repeat: Alleged weaknesses of evolution do not come from science. They are not supported by research. They are not offered in science venues to be checked out as valid (or in those few cases where they have been, they have been found to be crankery). Seelke and others shouldn't be insulted when these things are pointed out -- they should get themselves into a lab and do the work to verify their claims, if the claims can be verified.... Seelke knows that. So do others. Their failure to go into the lab to do the work to verify their claims indict their claims more than any other rebuttal possibly could. They don't have faith in their own claims.

Lab research on evolution is exactly what Seelke has been doing since 2001. He has been following the evolution of thousands of generations of E. coli, and in his words, "The purpose of my research is to put evolutionary theory on a firmer experimental footing." The question he is seeking to answer is, "What can evolution really do?" and the answer so far from his research is, "Not much." Specifically, Seelke’s results indicate that if two or more independent mutations are needed to acquire a beneficial result, then evolution cannot obtain that result.

Seelke is basing his claims on the results of his lab experiments. My question to you is, on what basis do you make your claims that Seelke has not provided a scientific basis for his criticisms of evolution?

Sheesh! This sort of mendacity is what does so much damage to science. People with an advanced degree and an axe to grind muddy the waters, suckering in other scientists who have not had the time, clue or inclination to check out their bona fides.

You have made several blanket statements that have been shown to be erroneous. And now you seem to be making a disparaging character judgment on these scientists. Again let me ask you, on what basis are we to believe that your statements are valid and reliable?

Of course, that's exactly what Judge Overton said in the Arkansas case in 1982. 27 years ago this same dispute came to a head in federal court there.

You have flippantly dismissed the credentials and conclusions of hundreds of scientists with Ph.Ds and expertise in the field of science, claiming that they were suckered into faux science, and yet you cite as your source of authority on the matter a federal judge who has no background in science?

First, the court case that you mention was a decision on the teaching of creationism in schools, which has no bearing as we are not discussing creationism. Second, even in a case that does directly pertain to the teaching of evolution, a court of law is not the arena in which the claims of scientists are to be decided. If scientists cannot agree on the issues, why do you believe that a judge who has no adequate scientific knowledge should be a credible and authoritative arbiter?

But anti-evolution screeds are not science.

And neither are pro-evolution screeds. Who has been giving a screed? But the context of your statement seems to imply that you think anything that is anti-evolution is a screed and is therefore not science. This is the attitude pervading the scientific community that concerns those who question the claims of evolution. The litmus test for what constitutes "science" seems to be whether it is for or against evolution, not whether it has any scientific merit.

Darwin in particular -- his work was all transparent, well reported (by himself), meticulous, and replicable. That's a model that any good Calvinist should love. We certainly shouldn't replace that with work that is not transparent, never done, not reported, sloppy and irreproducible.

I would certainly like to see the evidence that Darwin was able to reproduce the origin of a new species. And I believe that you have the burden of proof to show that the work of those who question Darwin’s theory is not transparent, never done, not reported, sloppy, and irreproducible. Please provide us with the evidence so that people can have valid reasons to have faith in your claims.

We'll come back to the rest of it; but for the moment:
I would certainly like to see the evidence that Darwin was able to reproduce the origin of a new species. And I believe that you have the burden of proof to show that the work of those who question Darwin’s theory is not transparent, never done, not reported, sloppy, and irreproducible. Please provide us with the evidence so that people can have valid reasons to have faith in your claims.

You're alleging that one of the best understood, well demonstrated theories of science doesn't work -- but you think that the burden of proof is not on you. Astounding.

And when my kid requires you to demonstrate that intelligent grappling is NOT the way gravity really works, you'll do it in class? (Evolution is much better established than gravity, much better understood. It's almost amusing to have you claim biology is in disarray when you teach physics and, presumably, something about gravity; but I digress).

Darwin reproduced what was widely held to be speciation, then, with his work on pigeons. Among the controversies settled was whether the "fancy" species could have come from the common rock dove. Darwin did it in less than a decade. His conclusion was that most people don't pay close enough attention to breeding, and he stopped short of claiming to have created a new species.

But one doesn't need to go far to find new species all over the place. Try your supermarket, in the produce and meat aisles. Broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, radishes, rapeseed and Canola oil, to mention a few, were all produced within the past couple of thousand years at the most. The records on broccoli are quite clear, with the vegetable taking the name of the family that produced it. Incidentally, all of these come originally from mustard, giving an entirely new meaning to Jesus's parable.

Then there are potatoes, especially the Burbank russet, and tomatoes, and artichokes. And we must not forget grapefruit, a set of species (if not genus) that is extremely recent, and which demonstrated exactly the power of mutation that Seelke and other ID advocates claim not to see when a sport mutation showed up in the 1940s, making a red and sweeter fruit.

In the meet aisle, we have modern sheep, pork and beef. The aurochs, from which beef cattle are descended, are extinct in the written history of humans, the last aurochs having been poached on a farm in Poland about a millennium ago.

Every step of evolution Darwin pointed to has been observed countless times in the lab and in the wild.

Does Seelke really deny it? I note that he hasn't published anything (that I can find) since at least 2003; and maybe not much of anything since the early 1990s. Are you sure they're still active?

"The general public also needs good reasoning skills in order to correctly interpret scientific findings and think rationally," he said.

I think one of the key ingredients required for good reasoning skills is the freedom to dissent. When one is allowed to explore alternative ideas, then it exposes weaknesses and enforces strengths. It forces one to think through one's position since it will be held up to attack by opposing ideas. It also allows one to explore outside the box and with established thinking.

I believe that's one reason why China and the US are equal in scientific reasoning. In China, dissent is not tolerated. This is primarily in politics and society, but it carries over to the mindset of the population. In the US, dissent is allowed to a certain extent. But, generally it is not encouraged. And in some cases, it is stifled.

The proposals of IDists are that we keep students from studying Darwin and evolution.

I have not heard any IDer propose this. They are not promoting removing evolution entirely, but simply allowing for an alternative theory to be presented.

Rather, it is the opposite that is true. Darwinists say that only evolution can be allowed and that ID cannot be presented.

Let me ask this, can evolution be challenged at all? If not, then it would disqualify evolution as being science, but mere dogma. And if so, why should ID (or anything) be disqualified to challenge it?

Oliver said,

"In the US, dissent is allowed to a certain extent. But, generally it is not encouraged. And in some cases, it is stifled."

I would issue a word of caution against saying dissent should be encouraged. I think unity should be encouraged; dissent should be tolerated. It would be a tad difficult to raise a kid who you've encouraged to disagree with authority whenever so motivated, no?

"Rather, it is the opposite that is true. Darwinists say that only evolution can be allowed and that ID cannot be presented."

First, be careful when you use the term "Darwinists" to describe proponents of evolution. I would encourage you to read this article for further clarification on what I mean:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/opinion/12thu4.html?_r=1

Second, I believe this misrepresents proponents of evolution--perhaps you personally know a credible scientists who has said what you purport. I know that the state of evolution and any proposed alternatives today is such that evolution is the only theory (i.e. the only hypothesis that has withstood scrutiny over time) of its kind, and consequently is THE only theory we need to be teaching our kids regarding its subject matter. For this reason, I'm sure the "Darwinists" you refer to said that for NOW only evolution can be allowed and that ID cannot be, and they would be perfectly justified in saying so.

"Let me ask this, can evolution be challenged at all? If not, then it would disqualify evolution as being science, but mere dogma. And if so, why should ID (or anything) be disqualified to challenge it?"

Certainly evolution can be challenged; any scientific theory can be challenged. However, I do not think high school is an appropriate battleground on which to stage such a challenge.

It would be a tad difficult to raise a kid who you've encouraged to disagree with authority whenever so motivated, no?

Everything has a balance. I'm not advocating rebellion, nor blind obedience. Kids should learn to respect authorities, but at the same, be able to learn to think for themselves. And at times, this might mean having a position against the establishment.

evolution is the only theory (i.e. the only hypothesis that has withstood scrutiny over time) of its kind, and consequently is THE only theory we need to be teaching our kids regarding its subject matter.

I'm not advocating dropping the teaching of evolution. And I don't think anyone (including IDers) has advocated for that. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even mind making "On the Origin of Species" required reading.

First, be careful when you use the term "Darwinists" to describe proponents of evolution.

I use the term Darwinist in the loose sense, and not in any deragatory sense. Though I understand some might not prefer this term. However, it doesn't matter to me what terms are used.

Certainly evolution can be challenged; any scientific theory can be challenged. However, I do not think high school is an appropriate battleground on which to stage such a challenge.

I do not think it should be up to us to decide. If a school wants to discuss challenges to evolution, they should be allowed to. If a school does not want to, we should not force them to do so. And personally, I don't think the courts should make the decision either.

But, even if we do exclude high schools from challenges to evolution, then where are they allowed? Do universities allow it? Or even scientific journals? Unfortunately, not even in these arenas are challenges to evolution tolerated.

You're alleging that one of the best understood, well demonstrated theories of science doesn't work -- but you think that the burden of proof is not on you. Astounding.

Ed, the burden of proof always rests upon the person making the claim.

You made the claim that Darwin’s work was replicable. You also made the claim that the work of those who question Darwin’s theory is “not transparent, never done, not reported, sloppy, and irreproducible.” It is completely reasonable for me to ask you to bear the burden of proof to support your claims.

Darwin reproduced what was widely held to be speciation, then, with his work on pigeons. Among the controversies settled was whether the "fancy" species could have come from the common rock dove. Darwin did it in less than a decade. His conclusion was that most people don't pay close enough attention to breeding, and he stopped short of claiming to have created a new species.

What is the definition of species that you are working with, Ed? I ask this because there are those who would say that all the examples that you give are not examples of the origin of a new species, but the creation of variation within a species. No matter how much breeding Darwin did, the result was still a pigeon. You even state that Darwin himself stopped short of claiming to have created a new species.

Also, in your previous comment you criticized the 700 scientists who signed the dissent from Darwinism statement for not publishing a single paper referring to a weakness of evolution. I’ve taken the time to find three such peer-reviewed papers. At least respond in kind by providing the same type of support for the examples that you have given.

Every step of evolution Darwin pointed to has been observed countless times in the lab and in the wild.

So that we do not misunderstand each other, please describe what each of the steps of evolution that Darwin pointed to are. And please refer us to the actual lab results that demonstrate each of these steps.

One final point I would like to make. All of the examples of evolution that you offered did not occur naturally, but were the result of intelligent selective breeding. But as I have said before, the topic of discussion here is evolution, not intelligent design.

There are about 10,000 papers published on evolution every year. Since 1987 and the decision in Edwards v. Aguillard that produced "intelligent design," that means there have been 220,000 papers on evolution -- a wide number of them on speciation, by the way -- compared to, if we add those you claim to be on ID, five on ID, one of which was retracted by the publisher, the second of which was not research based nor explanatory of any ID hypothesis, and three of which you claim to be ID though they don't appear that way in any journal.

5 papers to 220,000. And you claim the burden of proof is on me because I point out your assertion that ID is science is rather specious. He who asserts must prove, except in this case. Right.

Now that we know the way in which IDists do everything they can to avoid doing science, let's take a very quick look at a couple of points.

You said: One final point I would like to make. All of the examples of evolution that you offered did not occur naturally, but were the result of intelligent selective breeding. But as I have said before, the topic of discussion here is evolution, not intelligent design.

Again, you deny the research. As I noted, red grapefruit was a sport mutation -- not bred for, not anticipated, wholly out of the blue. Grapefruit itself may be -- the history is clouded.

The rise of nylonase not only was not worked for, but was wholly unexpected. No one thought to breed a bacterium that eats nylon. Nature did that, no hint of intelligent design by anyone including humans.

T-Urf 13? Again, wholly spontaneous, not bred for, popping up in a lab experiment looking for other stuff. Completely, totally spontaneous -- creating new information in exactly the fashion that IDists used to say could not happen.

Are you familiar with fruit fly work? One of the big problems today is keeping fruit flies from speciating in the lab. As Darwin noted, once a population is isolated from other populations of its species, the conditions are ripe for spontaneous speciation. It's been recorded dozens of times -- a real problem when the lab populations are supposed to be test fodder for an insecticide, and it turns out the wild populations are completley unaffected by it (the speciation made the lab groups susceptible to the insecticide).

Jonathan Weiner wrote of the four-decade-long set of experiments and observations done by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton, on an island in the Galapagos. Weiner's book won a Pulitzer in 1994 (as have several books on evolution and corroborative sciences and events). The Grants published no fewer than three papers on the naturally-occurring speciation they observed, by 1994. They captured, banded and measured, and then observed, every individual in three different species of bird over 30 years. Their observations showed natural speciation -- corroborated by the DNA from the birds, evidenced in their songs, nesting habits, changes in diet, etc., etc., etc. Its evolution exactly as Darwin saw it. Weiner's stuff was cut from textbooks by creationists in Texas, and a feature on Peter and Rosemary Grant was scotched, too -- creationists in charge can't afford to have Texas and U.S. children read the truth.

Have you read Weiner's book? It's one of the classics on evolution of the past 30 years.

In this 2002 article in PNAS the Grants discuss speciations they've observed, and they put in context to the difficulty you mentioned in defining exactly when speciation occurs. By any measure you choose, however, the Grants have observed speciation, in real time, in these birds in the Galapagos.

Here are more links to the work of the Grants:
http://unjobs.org/authors/peter-r.-grant

"Everything has a balance. I'm not advocating rebellion, nor blind obedience. Kids should learn to respect authorities, but at the same, be able to learn to think for themselves. And at times, this might mean having a position against the establishment."

I can certainly see the merits in what you're advocating. In response, I'll just throw out a couple of thoughts.

First, I would note that learning to think for one's self is a part of growing up and becoming an adult. Regardless of what kind of school one attends, most--if not all--kids come out the other side perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. Indeed, to be truly successful in life this is essential.

Second, while it is acceptable for a kid to have a position against the establishment, it is essential that the kid has a legitimate case and that the challenge is appropriate. We don't want kids opposing the establishment simply because they learned they could get away with it. That said, the obvious requirement is that the kid has the knowledge necessary for making a case. I noted earlier--and the study says the same thing--that this simply is not the case in the U.S. We are finding that freshman in college have an utterly inadequate knowledge of the material we are already teaching. It does not seem wise to give students this privilege of challenging authority when they do not even know what they are challenging, does it?

"I'm not advocating dropping the teaching of evolution. And I don't think anyone (including IDers) has advocated for that."

Did I say this? If you will look at my words in context and the sentence immediately following what you addressed, you will see that I was attempting to justify what you said "Darwinists" advocate.

"I do not think it should be up to us to decide."

I agree; it should be up to the scientific establishment to decide what schools teach in their science classes.

"If a school wants to discuss challenges to evolution, they should be allowed to. If a school does not want to, we should not force them to do so."

Think about the practicability of such a premise. Personally, I think it's absurd that curriculum differs so drastically from state to state. On a school by school basis, such legislation would invoke mayhem on test writers, teachers, students who go from school to school, and the education infrastructure in the state, which has to meet the needs of every school in the state.

"But, even if we do exclude high schools from challenges to evolution, then where are they allowed? Do universities allow it? Or even scientific journals? Unfortunately, not even in these arenas are challenges to evolution tolerated."

Challenges ought to be allowed in universities, journals, or any vector that carries scientific credibility and competence. Of course, in order to be seriously discussed, a challenge cannot simply be a finger-pointing at some perceived problem; it must also consist of a case (hypotheses, evidence, conclusions, etc.).

I think that if someone comes up with a really compelling case and some genuinely useful ideas, scientists will listen. No one will listen to mere finger-pointing, and no one should.

I would also like to add to my last paragraph that that "someone" could be anyone--even someone in high school.

Ed, at times it seems like you are debating with another person instead of me. You answer questions that I never asked, you argue against “assertions” that I never made, and you don’t answer the direct questions that I do ask.

…that means there have been 220,000 papers on evolution -- a wide number of them on speciation, by the way…

I never asked you for a comparison between the number of published papers on evolution versus ID, I asked you to show me the published papers that specifically support the numerous statements on evolution that you have made, to which you have now offered me one. Again, since this discussion is not about comparing evolution and ID, I will not take the discussion off on a tangent by responding to your numbers.

…compared to, if we add those you claim to be on ID, five on ID, one of which was retracted by the publisher, the second of which was not research based nor explanatory of any ID hypothesis, and three of which you claim to be ID though they don't appear that way in any journal.

And you claim the burden of proof is on me because I point out your assertion that ID is science is rather specious. He who asserts must prove, except in this case. Right.

I’ve been counting: you have now tried to put words in my mouth six times. In all our exchanges thus far, you are the only one who has been making any assertions about ID. Why do you continue to make up arguments to attack when there are enough points that I have actually made that you have yet to respond to? Since you insist on repeating the same nonsensical argument, let me repeat what I said in my previous comment, with a bit of added emphasis:

Ed, the burden of proof always rests upon the person making the claim.

You made the claim that Darwin’s work was replicable. You also made the claim that the work of those who question Darwin’s theory is “not transparent, never done, not reported, sloppy, and irreproducible.” It is completely reasonable for me to ask you to bear the burden of proof to support your claims.

Now that we know the way in which IDists do everything they can to avoid doing science…

Perhaps I should have added this as #7 to the above count, since you seem to be calling me an “IDist” even though I never claimed that designation. But perhaps you weren’t speaking of me, since all that I have done is show how several of the statements you made are false and that you are committing the logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof away from yourself, and I really don’t see how that can be considered to be “avoiding doing science…”

Again, you deny the research. As I noted, red grapefruit was a sport mutation -- not bred for, not anticipated, wholly out of the blue. Grapefruit itself may be -- the history is clouded.

“Deny” implies that you refuse to recognize or acknowledge something’s existence. It seems to me that you have been the one who has been denying other people’s research (eg. in comment #8 you said, “Alleged weaknesses of evolution do not come from science. They are not supported by research.” I provided published examples of research from these scientists. I then said, “At least respond in kind by providing the same type of support for the examples that you have given.” Is asking for you to show us the research to support your statements “denying the research” in your eyes?

To understand your point about grapefruits, I did a bit of research on the history of the grapefruit. The grapefruit is a hybrid of a sweet orange and the pummelo, both of which already contain the lycopene that gives the red grapefruit its characteristic coloring. Thus, the first red grapefruit cannot be considered to be an example of spontaneous mutation, that is, one that has produced new information into the genetic code, because the genes that gave it the red coloring were already imbedded within its genetic code. So the first red grapefruit was simply the appearance of a trait that was already existent.

In addition, I believe a more important reason why the red grapefruit cannot be viewed as an example of natural selection is because the red coloring and sweetness was propagated, not by natural processes, but by the unnatural intervention of human growers. Would the red grapefruit have survived naturally without the actions of intelligent human beings? Thus the red grapefruit, like the wide variety of dog breeds, and Darwin’s fancy pigeons, and the other examples that you gave, serve more as an illustration of the power of intelligent selective breeding rather than natural evolutionary processes.

You used the example of fruit flies in the lab as an example of speciation. Assume that I am not familiar with the work on fruit flies. My question is: do the scientists working with these fruit flies not call them fruit flies anymore after this speciation occurs? Can you show me any papers that show that the fruit flies actually became something that was not a fruit fly in the lab?

In my earlier comment I asked you to define the term “species,” and while I appreciate the article you linked to on the Grants’ study of speciation in birds, I would still like to know what are the specific uses of the terms “species” and “speciation” that you have been using.

By any measure you choose, however, the Grants have observed speciation, in real time, in these birds in the Galapagos.

The Grants’ article itself would disagree with that statement:

“Should these be considered three species or one? Given the variety of opinions about how species should be defined and recognized (50), there is no clear answer to that question now, any more than there was when Huxley (51) wrote "we must not expect too much of the term species. In the first place, we must not expect a hard-and-fast definition, for since most evolution is a gradual process, borderline cases must occur. And in the second place, we must not expect a single or a simple basis for definition, since species arise in many different ways." In our view it is preferable to continue to treat the finches on Daphne as three species, expecting that environmental conditions will change back to those disfavoring the hybrids (14, 39)."

Though the Grants say they prefer to treat the finches as three species, they acknowledge that there are a variety of opinions, and that someone can validly state that the birds that the Grants studied are still one species. I also believe it is pertinent to point out that, notwithstanding what the definition of “species” is, the Grants continue to say that the differentiated birds are still “finches,” as opposed to a different bird.

What I am looking for is the observational evidence either within a lab or in the wild that these changes that are occurring within the finch population have lead to a new bird that is no longer a finch. Again, the burden of proof is laid upon you, because you are the one who made the claim that:

Every step of evolution Darwin pointed to has been observed countless times in the lab and in the wild.

This is also why I requested in my previous comment that you describe what each of the steps of evolution that Darwin pointed to are, so that we can see how the evidence that I have asked you to provide supports each of these steps.

It seems that all of the examples that you have cited describe the variation within a species – that is, you have shown examples of how nature can obtain different kinds of finches, or different kinds of fruit flies, or different kinds of grapefruits, but in order to fulfill Darwin’s claim that his theory of evolution can account for the complete diversity and complexity of all living organisms from the very first living being, there are several more steps that need to be demonstrated. These are the steps that I am most curious about.