Search News


Browse Archives

News

Debating Ideas vs. Legitimizing Falsehoods

October 22, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

James C. Votruba has received hundreds of e-mail messages this week telling him that he should call off a campus event at Northern Kentucky University, where he is president. Has the institution invited Bill Ayers to speak? Actually, the conservatives aren't complaining -- scientists are.

They want Northern Kentucky to call off tonight's debut of the Northern Kentucky Forum, in which the university will sponsor programs designed to promote discussion of divisive issues. Tonight's program is the mock trial of a fictional fired public high school teacher who taught creationism in biology class. The audience will vote on a verdict.

While there may be no scientific debate about the basics of evolution, there are plenty of Kentucky lawmakers who deny evolution and promote creationism. Votruba would never advocate teaching creationism as science. "Evolution is science and creationism is faith," he said in an interview. But just because creationism has no place in a science classroom is no reason to be afraid of debating, he said. When American society has such difficulty having civilized debate, he said, universities need to create forums to promote real discussions.

But to many scientists at Northern Kentucky and elsewhere, the university has oversimplified the questions. These critics would never question the right of a creationist to speak at the university, whatever his or her views. But for the university to create a special forum in which evolution and creationism will be presented on equal terms is in fact to take a side, they say. Creationists want the public to believe that their views and those of scientists are two competing opinions, both of equal scientific merit -- and this forum will advance that view, they say.

"What this really is is an attempt to contrive a debate between science and superstition in which the superstition side gets to pretend they have equal status. And, of course, science issues are not settled in a courtroom, ever," PZ Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris, wrote on his blog Pharyngula, a watchdog on anti-evolution activity that urged readers to write Votruba.

Tonight's mock trial will feature a retired judge playing the role of presiding over the case, people playing the roles of the fired teacher and the superintendent of schools, and real-life expert witnesses on both sides. The first 200 people who show up will use clicker technology to express views on evolution before the trial, and their views on the verdict after the event. They may decide to give the teacher her job back, to do nothing, or to give her the job back but with conditions.

To Northern Kentucky officials, this is a creative approach to getting a discussion going in a community with no shortage of rhetoric about evolution. The Creation Museum is nearby.

"Within the larger scientific community, the issue is settled, but in the public policy arena, it's not a settled issue," said Mark Neikirk, executive director of the university's Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement, which, along with the university's law school, is sponsoring the event. "In the real world, there is a public policy debate over how to handle this topic. Many Americans believe in intelligent design. Many Americans believe it should be taught," he said. Universities need to find new ways to promote discussion of such topics, he said.

Votruba said that most of the scientists writing him say that the university shouldn't "give a platform" to creationists, but he said that wasn't the issue. "This is about endorsing free inquiry," he said, and having all ideas welcome for discussion.

Debra Pearce, chair of biology at Northern Kentucky, said that while she strongly favors free exchanges of ideas, she is bothered by the way this event was set up. She noted, for example, that the university's announcement refers to "creation science" when creationism is not science at all. "There is no such thing," she said. American society is already confused by the word "theory" with regard to evolution -- not understanding its meaning in science -- and Pearce said this kind of event "just propagates the idea that the theory is a hunch."

Pearce also thinks there is something wrong with the university encouraging the idea that scientific questions can be decided by votes -- especially amid fears that anti-evolution groups will bus in people to dominate the event. She noted that biology professors at her institution already face the challenge of explaining science to some students who have been taught religious doctrine as science. "One of our missions is to convince people that evolution is not a four-letter word," she said.

Some of her colleagues, she said, have wanted to stay away from the event. But Pearce said that she is encouraging people to attend, and that the department plans to release a statement after the mock trial about what takes place. While Pearce said she can understand the inclination to stay away, "I feel we need to be there, as a resource."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Debating Ideas vs. Legitimizing Falsehoods

  • Don't call off the debate
  • Posted by Jim on October 22, 2008 at 8:05am EDT
  • While I despise creationism and believe it is an assault on science that needs to be strongly resisted, I support the proposed debate. I see it as an opportunity to educate the public about the differences between science-based arguments and faith-based arguments. Canceling the debate would give fuel to creationists, who like to see themselves as victims of a pro-science conspiracy and would claim that the university is not really interested in furthering the free exchange of ideas.

    NKU is located in a hotbed of creation beliefs and evangelical fundamentalism. A multi-million dollar creationist museum just opened in the region. One can be certain this event will be attended by many creationist supporters and advocates. The advocates will no doubt focus on the supposed desirability of "teaching the controversy" and may trot out "evidence" from creationist researchers supporting their beliefs.

    Experience suggests that ardent advocates of creation science have closed minds and are unwilling to change their beliefs on the basis of rational information. That being the case, the focus of the debate should be on what science (and the scientific method) really is, and how creation science doesn't fit the description, but is instead based on a religions foundation.

    Chances are that, while one might hope otherwise, at the end of the debate the public vote will come out in support of the creationists. One way to diffuse the implication that the creationists "won" the argument, would be to take a vote before the debate begins. This would establish a baseline against which the post-debate vote could be calibrated. My guess is that few if any people will have changed their vote because of the debate, UNLESS the debate can center on the "What is science, vs. what is religion?" question. It is hard to imagine any pro-science voters changing their mind.

    But the important point is that the creationists in the audience will at least learn that there are objections to creation science that do not grow out of scientist conspiracy to stamp out religion. For many in the audience, this would likely be the first time they have encountered a point of view that differs from that of their evangelical pastors, and in that sense I think the debate provides them with a postitive opportunity.

  • Posted by Thomas Ratliff on October 22, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • I commend President Votruba for allowing such a discussion forum to take place. It demonstrates his strong leadership to be willing to encourage addressing such pertinent topics in an open debate.

  • What's the Objection, Again?
  • Posted by Cool on October 22, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • For goodness' sake, why is the biology chair nervous about free discussion? Isn't that what a university should be doing? The debate hasn't even ocurred yet and she's already saying the people on one side are totally wrong. What's scientific about that?

    It actually isn't even about creation, the debate is about HR decisions in dealing with the firing of someone because of her/his scientific views.

    Have a happpy day!

  • questions
  • Posted by TH on October 22, 2008 at 9:30am EDT
  • I don't have an objection to the debate itself, but having an audience decide the winner seems like an invitation to gaming the system.

    Wouldn't the local evangelical churches pack the event? Wouldn't they instruct attendees to describe themselves as undecided at the beginning of the debate? Wouldn't attendees then vote to fire the science teacher at the end to spin the press coverage to show that the audience was persuaded by creationist arguments?

    The notion that undecided Kentuckians will fill the seats at this debate seems extremely naive unless the administration actually has plans to make it happen.

  • Simply a public forum
  • Posted by TM on October 22, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • Jim has a good point - take a vote prior to the debate to expose the preconceptions of the audience, then retake the vote after the "trial." The goal should be to measure changes in the audience's attitudes and avoid a popularity contest. (I think the creation side will win a popular vote - they are more adept at organizing and more willing to engage in this debate.)

  • mock trial
  • Posted by Science? on October 22, 2008 at 10:10am EDT
  • Even Darwin admitted near the end of his life that evolution is only a theory. The statement that “Evolution is science and creationism is faith,” is too silly to believe. Science is based upon fact and observation. Who observed slime converting to life forms? Who in this day and age can believe that humans "evolved" from apes?

    Evolution is a faith unto itself. More and more scientists are acknowledging that many of the evolutionist theories are not true.

    There is no reason that this institution should not hold the trial. Isn't it more about the procedural process of a teacher's freedom in the classroom? How will students learn to question if folks tell them what they have to believe? Inquiry and research should be their guides.

  • Look in the mirror
  • Posted by Skeptical , Professor at Community College on October 22, 2008 at 10:30am EDT
  • Jim said: "Experience suggests that ardent advocates of creation science have closed minds and are unwilling to change their beliefs on the basis of rational information. That being the case, the focus of the debate should be on what science (and the scientific method) really is, and how creation science doesn’t fit the description, but is instead based on a religions foundation."

    It seems that the ardent advocates of Darwinian science have closed minds as well for they are "unwilling to change their beliefs on the basis of " any attempt at rational argument. Intelligent Design, or any other of its monikers, makes the argument that the advocacy for Darwinian science is a belief-based system adhered to by its followers with the same irrational faith as believers of a creation myth. Both systems are filled with intellectual holes, gaps that are filled, not with empirical "proofs" but rational[ized] scaffolds for a belief system, be it for chance, or for design. The supporters of the Darwinian explanation are as closed-minded as any other fundamentalist and seek to close off all discussion. If their position was as rationally based as they assert it is, they should welcome challenges from any corners; but, in the tradition of all "true-belief" they seek to squelch discussion.

  • Flock of Dodos
  • Posted by Beth on October 22, 2008 at 10:30am EDT
  • I would recommend that anyone uncomfortable with this debate (and perhaps those preparing the debate) rent and view the documentary movie by Randy Olson -- Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus. It not only explains the flaws in creation "science" but also addresses why scientists are often unsuccessful in putting this flawed theory to bed (HINT: it's often their own fault!). If you have any interest in this field at all, rent this film.

  • Posted by Andy Hudson on October 22, 2008 at 10:30am EDT
  • Yeah and next we “debate” gravity, or genetics, or … -Andy

  • Posted by andy hudson on October 22, 2008 at 10:35am EDT
  • To debate with someone who has no doubt and firmly believes in superstition from the perspective of science which is full of doubt and requires proof is like debating physics with a shaman. -Andy

  • we should debate gravity
  • Posted by Larry on October 22, 2008 at 10:50am EDT
  • We should debate gravity. We don’t completely understand it, and it might be that those gaps in our knowledge indicate that we really completely misunderstand it.

    Beth has a good point: Scientists are often condescending and don’t want to even explore the fact that their craft is based upon many philosophical assumptions which are subject to debate. Some of them don’t even admit that science is *always* conducted by people. People are flawed. The choice of what to investigate is political. The choice of who investigates it is political. Peer review is, well, flawed and political, and on and on. Yet, somehow they expect people to think that the word “science” is... well.. magical.

    (That said, I think ID is nothing more than a ruse to try and get some evangelizing done in public schools.)

  • Posted by Larry on October 22, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • I am with Jim on the result, but I see it a bit differently. First of all, scientists need to understand that there are fundamental philosophical differences in their discipline. While I understand that “intelligent design” is nothing more than a way to try and make evangelizing in schools constitutionally acceptable, scientists often don’t work too hard at explaining that their objection to ID is to its method, rather than its conclusions. Scientists believe (and for good reason) that their conclusions are legitimate because they have been tested. But, tests, like politics and law, are really nothing more than personal observations and judgment calls (as to what to test.)

    Ms. Pearce’s attitude is nothing short of condescending. Perhaps some people are confused by the word “theory.” But, that doesn’t mean that her method of inquiry shouldn’t be subject to public scrutiny. And, if the scientific method is so great, it should be easy enough to explain to lay people. Alas, a trial (and I don’t know what the ground rules or actual issues are in this trial) might show that the scientific method is subject to human flaws the normal battery of problems.

    Of course, I guess most of the time I find myself being even more condescending than her.

  • Modeling the Situation
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 22, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • I’d like to complicate this issue. Consider the following – not necessarily competing and certainly not exhaustive – models ...

    Model 1: The origin of the Universe was a consequence of the Big Bang (approximately 13.7 billion years ago) as generally described by scientists ...

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

    Model 2: The Universe was created by a so-called “higher being,” an Unmoved Mover so to speak approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

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

    Model 3: After the Big Bang, events in the Universe and on Earth proceeded pretty much along lines described by the scientific community with Darwinian evolution being an accurate description of how homo sapiens “arrived on the scene” approximately 200,000 years ago and evolved into the magnificent creatures who will be debating at Highland Heights, Kentucky tonight.

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

    Model 4: After UM created the Universe, events in the Universe and on Earth proceeded pretty much along lines described by the scientific community with Darwinian evolution being an accurate description of how homo sapiens “arrived on the scene” approximately 200,000 years ago and evolved into the magnificent creatures we are today. This was all part UM’s ingenious plan.

    Model 5: In the beginning UM created Heaven ... Earth ... waters (although they seem to be already “there”) ... light ... land (aka firmament) ... plants ... trees ... sun ... moon ... stars ... sea creatures ... birds ... beasts ... man (both male and female, and forget about Lilith). It took UM six days to do this, and by then he was pooped. So on the next day he took some R&R. Oh yes, if we add up all of those begats in the Old Testament, we can see that the date of UM’s creation was nightfall on October 23, 4004 BC. In other words, tomorrow we will be celebrating the 6,012th anniversary of everything that is.

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

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

    Now, even though the debate in question is purportedly about whether a fired public high school biology teacher gets to keep his job after teaching “creationism” in one of his classes, any prosecuting attorney worth her salt will force the teacher to defend “creationism” as a legitimate scientific, let alone a biological, concept.

    That said, there are going to be damned few citizens of Northern Kentucky – dare I say anywhere in Kentucky – who endorse Models 1, 2, 3, or 4 (although some may try to blend Models 2 and 5). So here we have a teacher explaining Model 5 creationism alongside Darwinian evolution in his biology class.

    In that context, the debate is lose-lose for Northern Kentucky University scientists. If the firing is upheld, what does that prove? ... that real science should take precedence in biology classrooms over faux science (for which there is no place in the classroom). And it pains me to even use “science” in the phrase faux science ... I would prefer to use institutionalized superstition. In other words, Darwinian evolution must provide us with important information about the real world, while creationism is institutionalized superstition that has no foundation in reason, let alone science. Forgive me, but what intelligent person didn’t already know that? ... and what true-believing (Model 5) Northern Kentuckian is going to be convinced of that on the basis of this debate?

    But if the firing is overturned, there will be so much gloating in the churches of Northern Kentucky, it will take the UNK biology, chemistry, physics, earth sciences, and mathematics faculties at least two or three years to repair the damage.

    I really like controversy – even outrageousness – on college and university campuses, but creation “science” and “intelligent” design are more than outrageous ... they’re dangerous. Perhaps instead of having this debate, President James C. Votruba should stand at the door and hand out free tickets to Bill Maher’s Religulus. Now that would be an educational experience for one and all.

  • "Skeptical" misses the point
  • Posted by Jim on October 22, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • I normally don't like to weigh in again after I've already posted a comment, but make an exception now to respond to "Skeptical's" remarks that Darwinian scientists have closed minds about their discipline and are “unwilling to change their beliefs on the basis of any attempt at rational argument. "Skeptical" goes on to assert that scientists, like creationists, also subscribe to a "belief-based system adhered to by its followers with the same irrational faith as believers of a creation myth."

    "Sceptical," like so many others in our society, fails to understand both the processes and culture of science. It is hard to know where to begin to explain, but let me start by observing that the scientific community is not a unified body of group-thinkers. In fact, nearly all the incentives go in the opposite direction. Scientific careers advance (and Nobel prizes are won) by those who can demonstrate that the current understanding of a scientific issue -- including evolution -- is wrong, inadequate, or incomplete.

    However, scientific arguments are never accepted (by, say, anonymous peer reviewers of scientific journals)that that do not follow certain ground rules: assertions must be based on objective, repeatable evidence; assertions must be placed in the context of prior work, showing why the prior work was flawed or incomplete; and assertions must make testable predictions. What never, ever is accepted are assertions that are based mostly on the passions and convictions of the asserter, no matter how deeply felt.

    And so the reason scientists do not accept creation science is that the arguments presented by its advocates are non-scientific arguments. Scientists are not perfect, and there are plenty of bad and mediocre scientists whose own work does not pass muster, and who are also biased by their personal beliefs. But the scientific community taken as a whole rejects the work of such persons, often with the same vehemence as directed at creationists. Thus, "Skeptical" is misguided in thinking that the "Darwinists" have closed minds and only listen to the members of their particular choir. The Darwinists are no different from physicists or chemists or any other scientists. All they ask is that persons hoping to contribute to their subject use the same methodology that has been so successful over the centuries at improving the lives of our species and dragging it out of the darkness of ignorance. That said, I'll now climb off my soapbox.

  • Debate 'em! But be careful.
  • Posted by Steven S. Clark, PhD on October 22, 2008 at 11:40am EDT
  • Science needs to be able to stand on its merits against non-science, so it is very important that competent science apologists take part in the debate--after all we also are educators. The current fossil and molecular record provides compelling evidence for evolution, but the scientists in this debate need also to be well versed in other things in order to come out on top.

    Scientists, by and large, do a very poor job in this debate. Creationists arguments often misuse philosophical considerations of science, and scientists too often do not do a good job countering such errors in the creationist argument. This is because scientists too often do not properly understand their own philosophy and they almost never understand creationist thinking.

    Also, there is an unfortunate denigration by scientists of anyone who espouses a creationist idea. Extreme caution is warranted here: there are very smart and well informed people on the side of creationism and if a scientist enters a debate thinking that his opponent is a bumpkin, he likely will come away very embarrassed.

    Finally, most scientists do not adequately understand what creationists and other anti-evolution people believe--for instance it is flat wrong to equate intelligent design with creationism. I also is illogical to conclude that evolution disproves the existence of God (bad philosophy here).

    In sum, creationists do not adequately understand the philosophy of science, or of the current scientific data. On the other had, scientists do not adequately understand creationism and ID. Together, this makes a debate a futile exercise in talking past each other. In order to make the debate informative, scientists need to lead the intellectual way here.

    Steven S. Clark, PhD

    http://stevensclark.typepad.com/bioscience_biz/

  • Circus Maximus
  • Posted by Blind Man on October 22, 2008 at 11:45am EDT
  • Rather than "putting on a play" about a fictional teacher who is fictionally fired for teaching religion, why not have some scientists debate the evangelicals who back "Creation Science/Intelligent Design". Is this a college or the "Grand Ole Opry"?

    Lets present the hard science that overwhelmingly supports evolution and debunk the cherry picking religious fanaticsm that seeks to legitimize it's faith.

    This is a pretty thinly vieled attempt at garnering some sympathy for this poor (fictional) teacher who was only trying to teach her beliefs, not to mention a platform for normalizing religion as a legitimate discourse for science.

    These folks would like to roll back Scopes, not to mention other court decisions (Roe V Wade)so that they can be more forceful than ever at promoting their religious agendas further blurring the bright line seperation between Church and State. Fanatical religions have always been good at hoodwinking the uneducated poor.

  • To 'Science?'
  • Posted by cts on October 22, 2008 at 12:15pm EDT
  • 'Science?' writes: "Science is based upon fact and observation. Who observed slime converting to life forms? Who in this day and age can believe that humans “evolved” from apes?
    Evolution is a faith unto itself. More and more scientists are acknowledging that many of the evolutionist theories are not true."

    Not all science relies on direct observation, for the simple reason that not all events can be directly observed; this is patently true of past events. To hyposthesize about past events - and produce evidence for or against the hypothesis - we look to current events, models, and other sources of data. So, no one observed the first life forms emerging from the lovely primordial soup, but we can and do observe life forms emerging, now, and we can deduce conclusions from other observable events and data from many scientific fields [such as geology, which goes out the window with much of the rest of current scientific knowledge under creationism].
    The rhetorical question about who can believe (in this day and age) that humans are an evolved species is just an empty device; it is especially misleading insofar as no one claims that humans evolved from 'apes.'
    Evoltuionary science is not faith; it is a set of very complicated hypotheses supported by evidence from many branches of science
    (all the life sciences,chemistry if you do not regard it as a life science, physics, geology, and astronomy, for example).
    The claim that 'more and more' scientists are rejecting the basic facts of evolution is false - at least if we are speaking of research scientists rather than high school teachers from Kansas.

  • Posted by Laura on October 22, 2008 at 1:50pm EDT
  • "So, no one observed the first life forms emerging from the lovely primordial soup, but we can and do observe life forms emerging, now...."

    We observe life forms emerging? I suppose that you mean actually emerging from non-life, not evolving from other life forms? Please expand on this.

  • validity
  • Posted by Judy on October 22, 2008 at 4:10pm EDT
  • As a college professor who respects authoritative sourcework, and who mandates that students use only sources that are as reliable as possible, I tend to discredit most of the claims made in a passage (especially when the "claims" are given to help insult the intelligence and beliefs [on both sides of this absurd argument] of multitudes of people)when the claims are then followed by anything remotely connected to Wikipedia. That is one of the least reputable "sources" around. As an open site, anyone can put anything on it, and the junk doesn't always get removed. That all being said, Frizbane's models become all the more insulting to pretty much everyone. The reality is that none of us were there; none of us REALLY know what began the world and humankind and life itself. What I do know is that the absolute perfection of the tiniest flower, the graceful beauty of a running horse, the infinite variety of living wonders in this world; the unutterable heart-grabbing, breath-taking glory of seeing one's baby or grandbaby the first time (in the flesh or on a sonogram; and the incredible abilities we have to think, reason, love, hate, speak, write, and on and on could not by any definition have happened by ACCIDENT! If evolution is real all the way, the way most of these posts have leaned, that evolution had to happen in certain ways in every single instance, so much so that it defies all reason or logic...

  • Debate
  • Posted by DFS on October 22, 2008 at 4:50pm EDT
  • That's what's most ironic about this good article, along with its subsequent commentary seen here. Its first paragraph clearly states that it's the scientists who want to call off a debate!

    That should reveal the caliber of their science.

    I don't have omniscience, but I realize that it's not always the "religious nuts" who have "points of order," if not actual doubts. In fact, many opponents of the accepted present version of evolution have been scientists.

    Where are they now? Probably excommunicated from the church of Science as we now know it.

    I think this attempt by that university is a good thing. Let the chips fall -- and continue to fall -- where they may. Perhaps we as scientists can then honestly observe it, quantify it, and learn from it.

  • cts ... I Envy Your Patience
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 22, 2008 at 10:05pm EDT
  • Your response to Science? was excellent, but I don’t see how you have the patience. I can’t even go there any more.

    Despite the admonitions of Jim, Thomas Ratliff, Cool, Steven S. Clark, and DFS who suggest this is a wonderful opportunity for knowledgeable scientists to counter the irrationality of creationists, in my experience the latter never learn. How many times have I been in the presence of creationists who had every opportunity to learn from scientists, only to encounter them “defending” their unchanged indefensible beliefs at a later date?

    I often wonder if these folks are stuck in Groundhog Day because they are too lazy to read and study – and good Lord they’ll never have an opportunity to study anything more important to their lives – or if they’re just intellectually challenged. Maybe it’s a bit of both.

    My “favorite” is “Well evolution is just a theory ... so believing in evolution requires a leap of faith just as great as does believing in creationism (or intelligent design).” I have become so tired of explaining the error of that nonsense, I just smile, ask if they’ll give me their e-mail addresses, and later that night send them a URL to Adrian Barnett’s “Fact and Theory” ...

    http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html

    And as long as I’m on a rant, the idea that creationism and evolution are at opposite poles of some unspecified spectrum – or even the suggestion that they are necessarily related – just drives me crazy (see Model 4 in my post above in which creationism and evolution coexist quite peacefully). But President Votruba, who would apparently never advocate teaching creationism as science, said, “Evolution is science and creationism is faith.” Give that man a gold star for composing a true conjunction, even if the two independent clauses are only very remotely related.

  • Departmental statement on mock trial
  • Posted by Bernie Lohr , Assistant Professor at Northern Kentucky University on October 22, 2008 at 10:05pm EDT
  • The biology department's view on the mock trial at Northern Kentucky University can be accessed at: http://www.nku.edu/~biosci/ using the link below the departmental address.

  • Response To Judy
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 23, 2008 at 5:25am EDT
  • I hardly think this is the place to “defend” Wikipedia, but, given your criticism and since I am the one with all of the Wikipedia “citations,” I’ll make six points.

    First, not a single one of my citations is a resource for my comments. My comments stand on their own, and I added the citations for no other purpose than to send any reader who had a question about terminology to a quick and dirty description. At no time did I justify a single one of my points on the basis of the “authority” of a Wikipedia source.

    Second, I probably visit upwards of three dozen web-sites per day, and I imagine I go to Wikipedia somewhere between six and ten times per day. I find it very useful, particularly since I never go there for any other purpose than to get general information. I’m trying to recall if I have ever quoted from a Wikipedia article, and I think I have not. I cannot tell you the number of times – it is in the thousands – I have gone to Wikipedia, learned something of interest, and was immediately off to a more “reliable” source.

    Third, I know Wikipedia is the Student’s Bible, but I didn’t know serious scholars used it as a research tool – with the exception of processes consistent with my second point – but I’m certain it would be a bad idea to do that at the present time.

    Fourth, here’s how I ended up with five Wikipedia “citations” in my first post ... and remember the issue of evolution vs. creationism is one many find to be “sensitive.” Every citation I considered using employed fairly forceful language either in favor of the science or in favor of creationism. Since I wanted something that was informative but more neutral in tone, I settled on Wikipedia (after reading the citations).

    Now that’s not quite true ... I first checked out Citizendium, and here’s why I chose Wikipedia instead of Citizendium. My first citation was for the Big Bang, and Citizendium’s first two paragraphs under that topic are ...

    “The Big Bang is an important aspect of the theoretical model of the universe. The Big Bang means that essentially the universe began at Planck Time, 10^-43 seconds, from a single point about 13.7 billion years ago, expanding at great speed to its current state. Prior to Planck Time, the Four Forces, strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravity, were united in one force.

    At 10^-35 seconds, the temperature of the Universe reached 10^27 to 10^28K and the initial inflation of the universe ended at 10^-33 seconds.”

    That’s correct, of course, and I understand that, but that’s not where I wanted to send a reader who was inclined to get a sense of the Big Bang. Ergo, Wikipedia.

    Fifth, my mind is something of an intellectual kaleidoscope (I almost called it an intellectual port-a-potty) with all kinds of really serious stuff, more mathematics and statistics than makes good sense, and one hell of a lot of frivolous nonsense sloshing around up there. In that context, I find Wikipedia so interesting, so entertaining, so enlightening, and so exciting, I’m quite willing to live with it until Citizendium catches up. If my mind were a great big repository of research information – or even a storehouse packed with intellectual gems – I might be more responsive to your perspective.

    Finally, I have been reading professional books, journal articles, papers submitted for publication, working papers, etc. for more than fifty years; and, frankly I have read so much peer-reviewed nonsense – not to mention out-and-out bullshit – therein, I’m beginning to wonder if the intellectual flaws of Wikipedia – and there are many – outweigh those in the profession literature of practically any discipline you could name.

    So, Judy, I appreciate that you’re a woman of conviction, and I applaud your eagerness to jump in and stick it to me from time to time. Good show!

  • Response To Judy ... Part II
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 23, 2008 at 11:10am EDT
  • I’m sorry Judy but sometimes I just can’t resist. In particular, you describe ...

    “ ... the absolute perfection of the tiniest flower, the graceful beauty of a running horse, the infinite variety of living wonders in this world; the unutterable heart-grabbing, breath-taking glory of seeing one’s baby or grandbaby the first time (in the flesh or on a sonogram); and the incredible abilities we have to think, reason, love, hate, speak, write, and on and on could not by any definition have happened by ACCIDENT!”

    Of course I agree ... they couldn’t have happened by accident (whatever that means). But that doesn’t assure the existence of a “higher-being,” let alone a higher being that for some reason besides our wonderful talent for invention and our remarkable self-centeredness, has a personal interest in us. Maybe ... but not necessarily.

    When it comes to your suggestion that the spectacular beauty of the tulip ... or day lily ... or iris ... or even the quite wonderful dandelion must be attributed to a higher being, I’m guessing – and I know I’m stepping on dangerous ground here – that you have an inadequate grasp of time.

    In particular, you are surely a young woman ... let’s say, for the sake of argument, you are 50 years old. One hundred percent of your experience has been constrained to that span of time. The Earth, however, has been here for something on the order of 4.5 billion years. Said otherwise, your experience is zero percent of the Earth’s existence (it’s actually 0.000001% of it). It is surely difficult for you to appreciate the evolution of organisms in very tiny steps across such an enormous time span.

    Also, Judy, you have an unfortunate (from my perspective) inclination to believe there’s no way to “know” about things you were not there to observe; to wit, “... none of us were there; none of us REALLY know what began the world and humankind and life itself” ... although you have apparently convinced yourself that a “supreme being created all of this even though you weren’t there to see that either.

    I will say no more, but I encourage you to watch the four videos whose URLs are below. The eye, depending on how you look at it (no pun intended), is either an interesting consequence of evolution or one of “God’s” great accomplishments. Indeed, the eye is often submitted right off the bat by proponents of “intelligent” design who claim it is just too remarkable to have happened by accident or at random (their euphemisms for by evolution). The videos are very, very interesting, educational, and entertaining. I encourage you to watch them in sequence ... or, if you must, watch the last one first and then watch the other three in sequence. I promise you won’t be disappointed.

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2fjftZrkE&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPSMuUuDx-A&feature=related

    P.S. As long as you think this is an important subject and are willing to read about and study it – and I could recommend a small library of interesting reading -- why not read Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body.”

    http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0375424474

  • Posted by Dennis Ruhl on October 26, 2008 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Should we debate gravity? Physicists do every day.

    If history had failed to maintain a copy of the Book of Genesis I'm not sure that the conclusions would have been derived independently.

  • To Dennis Ruhl ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 30, 2008 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Two things ...

    First ... of course we (you and I) should not debate gravity. I – and perhaps you as well – am not sufficiently knowledgeable to do so in a manner that would be the slightest bit worthwhile. Of course physicists – and scientists of every stripe – debate “competing” theories of natural and physical phenomenon all the time. But every one of those debates is science vs. science ... the scientific method vs. the scientific method. It is that methodology that drives what we “KNOW” about the Universe – even though scientific knowledge is almost always in flux – and that is why some of us are not inclined to believe concepts based upon ancient superstitions.

    Not to fear, however, here in America scientific facts carry very little weight. Amongst Americans, and using a relative frequency definition of probability ...

    Pr[“God” created us in our present form] = 0.51

    Pr[“God” created “us” and guided the process of human evolution] = 0.30

    Pr[Humans evolved from lower forms without any help from “God”] = 0.15

    Pr[White evangelicals believe “God” created us in our present form] = 0.77

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

    If the U.S. were really a democracy, we would not be contaminating the minds of our children with nonsense about evolution.

    Pr[Biologists believe humans evolved from lower forms without any help from “God”] = 0.97+

    http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/teach-controversy.html

    Second, what you said about the Book of Genesis could be said just as meaningfully about “Scientology: the Fundamentals of Thought” or even, God forbid, the “Book of Revelation.”