The video below is a short presentation from a website called Listen to the Scientists.The video is very patriotic (American patriotism) but I guess that's necessary when presenting science to high school students in America. Unfortunately, it means that the videos are worse than useless in other countries.
The video is very good. I highly recommend it for any high school biology class in America. It clearly shows that creationism is a pack of lies.
However, there's one little thing that troubles me. I'm a little annoyed by one of the opening statements (above left). I don't see why it was necessary to make such a strong claim, especially when the truth of the claim is debatable. The people who are interviewed are very knowledgeable about the evolution/creation controversy but it might be a bit of a stretch to say that they are all recognized as scientists who are experts in the field of evolutionary science. Here's the list ...
We often challenge the credentials of the creationists so we should be very, very careful not to misrepresent the areas of expertise on our side. It wouldn't make any difference if the opening statement in the video referred to "knowledgeable experts in the evolution/creation controversy" instead of "scientists" who are "recognized as experts by the scientific community, in their fields of evolutionary science."
- Francisco Ayala, Professor of Biological Sciences, UC Irvine (an expert in evolutionary biology)
- David Deamer, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, US Santa Cruz (I don't know him)
- Barbara Forrest, Professor of Philosophy, South Eastern Louisiana University (an expect in the evolution/creation controversy)
- James Hofmann, Professor of History & Philosophy of Science, California State University (probably not a recognized expert in evolutionary biology)
- Kenneth Miller, Professor of Cell Biology, Brown University (an expert in the evolution/creation controversy)
- Kevin Padian, Professor of Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley (an expert in evolutionary biology)
- James L. Powell, Geologist (I don't know if he's an expert in evolutionary biology)
- Eugenie C. Scott, Director NCSE (an expert in the evolution/creation controversy)
8 comments :
No argument from me. Maybe whoever wrote the blurb didn't know what they were talking about. Kind of like when creationists write their creationists blurbs.
Jesus, couldn't they spell-check their text? Unless there is a word I never heard of- "qualtative", they have mis-spelled "qualitative".
But then would you say that Behe and Dembski are "experts in the evolution/creation controversy"? They're right in the middle of it! How would you express the idea that Miller follows the rules of science (when he keeps his religion out of it)?
But then would you say that Behe and Dembski are "experts in the evolution/creation controversy"?
Why would one want to do that? They certainly don't know much about science at large, and evolution in particular. (Behe would presumably still know something about biochemistry.) And as they often deny the IDC/YEC connection, pretend that ID creationism is science, et cetera, it is doubtful that they can be said to be experts on creationism either, outside their chosen play ground.
They are experts on "controversy", though.
David Deamer is very good at what he does; but what he does is not evolutionary (or any other sort of) biology.
It's also an invitation to see this as a dreary Establishment piece, part and parcel of the "conspiracy" that Expelled claims to be uncovering. In fact, I'm not particularly thrilled to see that a bunch of people are "recognized as experts," since there ought to be better reasons to believe what they say.
Why don't they just bring up the facts that these people have actually studied the evidence and the philosophy of science, critically examining both evolutionary science and ID? True, at some point it's worth mentioning that they've survived the scrutiny of other scientists, but "recognized as experts" simply sounds too much like the game the IDiots want to play, with scientists being "recognized" due to some "atheist conspiracy" or some such thing.
And it might very well suggest to students (or more likely, the DI would use it thusly) to ask why "recognized expert" Behe, who claims a conspiracy among scientists, isn't correct. The fact that Behe isn't well qualified to deal with much of anything in evolution would be lost in the fact that he's a "scientist."
No, they need to play up the fact that Miller and most of the rest have done exactly what Behe has not done, finding the evidence predicted by scientific theory. It's Behe who must rest his claims on authority, including "recognized experts" (no matter that he often uses them badly), while Miller and Ayala rest their claims on their abilities to criticize evolution and its evidences, which nonetheless pass those analyses looking quite good (while ID falls at the meanings of "theory" and "inference").
Glen Davidson
Damon Linker comes unglued in the National Post:
In godless books, mindless arguments
Far from shoring up the secular political tradition, atheism's ultramilitant movement is championing a new form of intellectual totalitarianism
Great!
More darwinian alarmism!
Just what we needed.
Post a Comment