The Great Reed v. Trey Showdown

Edit:

The Great “The Great Reed” vs. “The Moustachioed Trey” Showdown

Hey!  If I move this over here, I don’t have to write anything substantial for a while!

Trey disagrees with this post.

Trey
21 May 2008 at 2:36 pm

Reed, I do so hope that you have a basic understanding of statistics and know that stats can be manipulated to show just about whatever you want. Even at the source site, the writer concedes in the responses that some of his stats were misrepresentative. All going to show that even at the statistical level, the level of paranoia may be a little overblown.

On the idea that “Evolution is the basic fundamental platform that all of modern biology and medical science rests upon,” it seems you are saying that if the theory of evolution is not firmly ingrained in a person’s mind they can’t be good biologists or doctors. Really? My dad is an OB/GYN and evolution rarely comes up, I assure you. He has a better grasp of anatomy than you or I, has to spend a fair amount of time staying up to date on new procedures and studies, and employ standard diagnosis procedures constantly. Never has the issue of whether we share a common ancestor with apes, meerkats, or Gray Birch trees come into play. Knowledge of evolution isn’t what keeps people from being “blithering idiots.”

Rev. Reed Braden
21 May 2008 at 4:44 pm

Trey, whether it’s 1/4 of all teachers who teach creationism or 1/100 of teachers, it’s illegal and wrong. No child in our schools should be taught that evolution is on the same plane, factually, as creationism. It seems that Bush’s party is now the one leaving children behind in school.

And a firm grip on evolution is the basis for all biological knowledge. You don’t have to be a biologist to be an OB/GYN. You don’t need to know much about the human genome and its vast similarities with other animal genomes to play with vaginae. Nor will that knowledge help a person flip burgers and retire twelve years after they die of old age. However, because not everyone needs to know evolution to survive is not an excuse to gloss over it, ignore it, or teach contrary to it in our public schools. If we only taught people what they needed to know for the majority of jobs in America, we could stop teaching after 4th grade.

I also didn’t say that evolution is the one thing keeping people from being blithering idiots. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, believes in the talking snake. Case in point. However, those who think that the Earth is 6,000 years old and life was created as it is today are blithering idiots. They aren’t the only blithering idiots out there–there are those who have a very firm grasp of evolutionary biology who believe that they have been abducted by aliens, although they are few in number–but they are blithering idiots.

Rev. Reed Braden
21 May 2008 at 4:47 pm

And, yes, evolution is the basis of biology and medicine. Take a flu shot from 1995 if you don’t believe me.

Trey
22 May 2008 at 12:37 am

Reed, as the article should have pointed out, there is a difference between creationism and intelligent design. There is very little “creationism” being taught straight up, as they would say at a bar. Then you go and blame Bush for kids being stupid, when I think we both know that American kids are very much pampered, chock full of entitlement issues, and more interested in climbing the social ladder then actually learning anything.

And you did reference both medical sciences and pharmaceuticals in your rant; neither of which is strictly biological. Then you changed to biological knowledge alone in your response. I’m pretty sure the allure of the female genitalia for my dad may be roughly around the same as a gay man like yourself, but we haven’ really had that father/son conversation yet. And c’mon man, let’s not belittle my dad’s profession as “playing with vaginae” and comparing it to flipping burgers.

And I think we can agree on your point to neither gloss over or ignore evolution, though I wouldn’t have a problem teaching something contrary if it had a solid basis. It has its place, and certainly more people should have a good knowledge of it, even if it is to show its flaws. I also think we should teach more then just what kids “want” to know. Suck it up, kids. You don’t even know what you should know.

Oh yeah, and there is a difference between the flu virus adapting and “evolving” and the belief that all living and non-living things have a common ancestor.

Rev. Reed Braden
22 May 2008 at 1:03 am

“Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

“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, wings, etc.”

WHOA! BIG difference! Holy Intelligent Agency, Batman!

And, again, nowhere did I say Bush was the only reason. However, he has been very, very helpful to the anti-evolution movement. Video games, television and lack of reading contributes very much to the dumbing-down of America’s youth, but the Bush administration (remember… I’m a pseudo-Republican, so this isn’t your average liberal Bush hating) has its fair share of the blame. Clinton’s pandering to religion did a lot of harm too, so he’s not off the hook, but Bush took the cake with pandering to religion and helping religious people choke our children with idiocy.

Medical (biology focussed on human health) and pharmaceutical (chemistry, specifically how it reacts with the human body) sciences aren’t biological sciences? Really? What are they then?

I was also not equating OB/GYNs with fry cooks in any way except that a firm knowledge of evolution isn’t all that necessary for either career. Vaginae don’t evolve too terribly much in the course of a crotch doctor visit. “Playing with vaginae” was not meant to be belittling as much as it was meant to be humorous. Now that I know your dad is a crotch doctor, you won’t hear the end of it.

I wouldn’t have a problem teaching other scientific theories contrary to evolution with a solid basis either. However, ID/creationism has not solid basis. The “science” of ID is roughly, “Let’s find holes in evolution and use that to tell kids it’s wrong while offering no credible alternative and ignoring the massive amount of evidence that is undeniable to anyone who understands it.”

I don’t know where you’re getting, “teach more than what kids ‘want’ to know,” from. No one takes opinion polls of students to find out what they want to learn. Very few kids want to learn evolution. However, they should have to learn it and learn it well. The kids have to learn algebra; they have to learn evolution.

Your last sentence makes me sad.

Adaptation is, essentially, evolution. When something adapts to survive, it’s evolving. Also, evolution ONLY deals with living things. Evolution does not even speculate on non-living things or the origin of life. The theory of life coming from non-life is abiogenesis. The theory of non-life (rocks) being “related”–in the absolute loosest sense of the word–to life (bananas, chimps, George W. Bush) is covered in physics and cosmology (specifically, the origin of our universe). You can accept every single detail of evolution and still believe whole-heartedly that God or Thor or Reed Braden started it all in the beginning. You’d be an idiot for thinking so (using rational thought for every detail except the first one), but you would stil, technically, not be ‘doing it wrong’ by strictly evolutionlary standards.

Trey
22 May 2008 at 11:00 am

Where did you get those definitions? Here is my take on the two. Creationism is a religious belief rooted and tied to a sacred text. While there is difference in how the creation happened, the root belief is that a supernatural being created life. Intelligent design, though some creationist have flocked to it, is a scientific movement that says that life as it exists on earth today could not have arisen simply through chance and natural selection (i.e. evolution). ID proponents say that the evidence points to an intelligent agency, which could just as much be an alien as God. Like evolution, ID doesn’t really help with first causes, because all it is looking at is life on earth. Life on other planets or of our alien creators could be very different.

My apologies if I took your statement to mean that Bush is primarily to blame for leaving our children behind. I do think we place blame a little differently. You point to Bush, video games, television, lack of reading, etc. as the cause, and I think those are just symptoms. As one commentator put it, Americans are “amusing themselves to death.” The interesting thing is that we have the problem of working ourselves to death as well. Competitiveness for colleges, jobs, advancement has made people so cutthroat that they willingly overwork themselves, load themselves down with excessive extra-curriculars, and worship at the altar of productivity and efficiency. Not on point, but just a thought I had.

I said “strictly biological.” Perhaps not the best word choice, but what I meant was they are more pragmatic in their use of biology as opposed to the more theoretical branches. In neither case is it imperative that the practitioner believe that all living things evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years. Stretching a understanding of the adaptation of viruses necessitate they be hardcore evolutionary biologists.

Welcome to party of people I know that find it humorous what my father does.

I was getting the “teach kids more than just what the want to learn” from the growing preoccupation with vocational/pragmatic studies. I’m sure you’ve heard of struggles Arts departments have had with funding or seen the masses flocking to a university’s business/law/medical college, while the liberal arts continue to shrink. Success is very narrowly defined these days, and it shows in our schools.

Trey
22 May 2008 at 11:11 am

You are right about evolution being different abiogenesis. I knew that, and think that one of evolution’s flaws is its explanation of first life, but I still shouldn’t make the two synonymous. Sorry about that. However, I will continue to disagree that adaptation is the same as large-scale evolution. Ignoring the distinction has been and is the chief reason for poor discussion between the two opposing views.

Rev. Reed Braden
22 May 2008 at 1:26 pm

ID is not scientific. ID starts with a rigid conclusion and looks for evidence to support it, ignoring all other evidence. Science starts with a flexible, falsifiable hypothesis and takes all evidence into consideration.

Here’s the definitions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GqNxAzaWBo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Re: children working themselves to death, I agree. I’ve made that same point many times before. Most of my friends are in IB and AP classes, have multiple extra-curricular activities and study for hours daily. I see the effect it has on them. But these are not generally the stupid ones. The stupid kids are the ones who take the light course load and “amuse themselves to death.” And there are more of them than the A+ students.

I’m not sure what a “hardcore” evolutionary biologist is. Are there “hardcore” gravitational physicists or “hardcore” theoretical cosmologists? May I assume that you mean “hardcore” as in someone who is very publicly vocal about their science? All scientists are “hardcore,” then, when their own field is in jeopardy by people who don’t understand it.

But, still, you don’t have to be an evolutionary biologist to be a doctor, and I never claimed that, but you must understand the basics of evolution to be a good doctor. A doctor must understand vestigial organs, common human problems as a result of imperfect “design,” the ability of bacteria and viruses to adapt to resist drugs and many other lessons that we learn from evolutionary biology. And saying that an adapting organism is an example of evolution is not stretching any definition of evolution or adaptation that I know of.

Rev. Reed Braden
22 May 2008 at 2:00 pm · Edit

This video focusses on the book more. It also features “cdesign proponentsists.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ

Rev. Reed Braden
22 May 2008 at 2:14 pm · Edit

However, I will continue to disagree that adaptation is the same as large-scale evolution.

You’re a theologian, not a scientist. You have also shown that you don’t even know enough about evolution to call yourself a layperson. Whether you agree or disagree with any premise of evolutionary theory holds no sway on the theory whatsoever. Essentially, anything you have say about evolution is entirely inconsequential.

[karate chop]

Trey
22 May 2008 at 2:58 pm · Edit

So, you pull your definitions from wikipedia and NCSE propaganda videos, huh? That is a complete misrepresentation of ID, as far as I know. The theory is based on the belief that there is a discernable difference between things that are designed and those that were not. I think the evidence points to a large amount of designed attributes, while you choose to believe chance and natural selection explain everything. If anything, evolution is the inflexible, rigid conclusion that forces evidence to conform to its outcome.

Simply disagreeing with you doesn’t mean that I know nothing about evolution. If those rules apply, then your opinion on philosophy/theology is now entirely inconsequential. I understand the premise to some extent, but I do disagree with the conclusions. You’re bald, 19-year old student, not a scientist.

[karate chop] deflected
[judo kick]

Rev. Reed Braden
22 May 2008 at 3:47 pm · Edit

No, actually, the definitions are straight from the textbook. They are authentic enough to not only hold up in a court of law (Dover, Penn.) but to practically decide the Dover case by themselves.

As for being a misrepresentation, I don’t see how. These are direct quotes of the same book through its various drafts. The book was pretty much the quintessential ID textbook in America. If these definitions, offered as definitions in ID and Creation textbooks, misrepresent ID, then ID is misrepresenting itself.

You refer to ID as a theory. I laugh at you. A theory, in the sense of science, is a coherent set of specific and general conclusions based on a vast wealth of experimentation, evidence and data that is used to explain another set of natural phenomena. A theory, in the sense of ID, is a guess or speculation. Both fill in holes in known information. Only one does so accurately. Hint: It’s not the guessing one.

You refer to ID as a theory and you are correct. It is speculation and guess work. It is not, however, anything even CLOSE to a theory by scientific standards.

I can’t tell you how many times I hear the phrase, “The evidence points to _____,” with the blank filled in with ID, creationism, God, Biblical accuracy… Every time I hear it, I ask, “What evidence?” I’ve yet to hear anything that qualifies as evidence by scientific, empirical standards. I doubt you have any evidence at all and I challenge you to show it if you do.

If you knew anything at all about evolution, you would know better than to say that evolution forces evidence to conform to its outcome. I have a stack of Nature journals behind me. If you open any one of them you will most likely find articles criticising one scientist’s or group’s views on evolution. Some evidence doesn’t fit with parts of the theory and those parts must adjust to new findings. The theory is constantly evolving and improving. We’re closing gaps and refining our knowledge all the time. This doesn’t happen through everyone agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back. This happens through heated debate and disagreement. One of the most prominent cases of this that is still going on today is the case of Gould’s punctuated equilibrium vs. Dawkins’ “variable speedism”.

No, disagreeing with me about evolution doesn’t mean you know nothing about it. Evolved Rationalist disagrees with me on evolution. I prefer Dawkins to Gould and have been damned to hell many times over for it. That doesn’t mean either of us is wrong. We don’t know what style of speciation or what speed of evolution is responsible for the current diversity of life, so we argue the fuck out of each other and this will happen until someone finds certain key pieces of evidence that solve the puzzle.

You obviously don’t understand even the basic premises of evolution.

I’m at least a layperson in evolutionary study, but I know a considerable amount of information in regards to evolution. I don’t claim to be a scientist any more than I claim to be a Scientologist, but I clearly know enough about biology to tell you that you’re wrong… because you’re wrong.

My opinion on theology is probably not as valid as yours, no, but I would call it more valid than most–if any view on theology can be called valid. Also, let me define my use of the word theology before I say anything else. Atheism is not theology. Theology, in the sense I am using it, is the study of a specific religion–in this case Christianity–mainly the gods, tenets, texts and ideas of that religion. You know much more about Christianity than I do. However, I’ve studied more about Christian history and beliefs than the majority of Christians have… so I have at least some say in the matter.

You can say you deflected my karate chop, but why are you missing four teeth and why are you cradling your broken jaw now?