Science v Intelligent Design: McGill Journal of Education on Evolution

| 27 Comments

flunked.jpgCompare the efforts by Denyse O’Leary to teach about the so-called “controversy” surrounding Intelligent Design with the efforts by the McGill Journal of Education to instruct teachers as to the topic of evolution.

The former strictly belongs in a category of “Pastoral Care” while the latter focuses on science teachers. Not surprisingly since Intelligent Design is mostly a religious controversy over a the distinction between materialism (read atheism) and theism (read Intelligent Design). However science is not materialistic but rather uses the very successful method of “methodological materialism” or “scientific method” to study the world around us.

The impact of ID’s position on science is immediately noticeable as it refuses nay is inherently unable to provide any scientific explanations beyond proclaiming that our ignorance is evidence of something called “design” where “design” is nothing more than the “set theoretic complement of regularity and chance”. If science cannot yet explain a particular feature, ID is quick to fill the gap, often very temporarily, with “design” rather than accepting the scientific position of “we don’t know”.

The journal focuses in this issue on “an effort to encourage dialogue around the teaching and learning of evolution/un effort pour encourager le dialogue quant a l’enseingement et l’apprentissage te l’evolution” and we recognize several well known names such as Piglicucci, Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch and more who have dedicated much of their career to improving science education.

The editorial focuses on introducing why evolution is a difficult educational topic even though biological evolution

…, the scientific principle that the diversity of life on Earth has arisen via descent with modification from a common ancestry, has been recognized by all major scientific societies and science education organizations as the central and unifying principle of the biological sciences.

there are some difficulties when it comes to the teaching and learning of evolution:

However, the teaching and learning of evolution has faced difficulties ranging from pedagogical obstacles to social controversy. These include two distinctive sets of problems: one arising from the fact that many evolutionary concepts may seem, at least initially, counterintuitive to students, and the other deriving from objections rooted in religion.

The editors conclude with expressing their hopes

We hope that the articles in this issue will encourage dialogue among scientists, educators, administrators, students, parents, and citizens concerned about science literacy. We further hope that our efforts will lead to future research into the teaching and learning of evolution at all levels.

I particularly recommend the article by Eugenie Scott on

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “TEACH THE CONTROVERSY” SLOGAN? / EN QUOI LE SLOGAN « ENSEIGNER LA CONTROVERSE » POSE T’IL LE PROBLÈME ? Eugenie C. Scott

Abstract

Teachers are often exhorted by creationists to “teach the controversy.” Although such encouragement sounds on the surface like a proposal for critical thinking instruction, the history of the creationist movement in North America belies this claim. Rather than teach students to analyze and evaluate actual scientific controversies, the intent of “teach the controversy” exhortations is to have teachers instruct students that evolution is weak or unsubstantiated science that students should not take seriously. Such instruction in alleged “evidence against evolution,” or “critical analysis of evolution” would seriously mis-educate students, and should be resisted by teachers and administrators.

EN QUOI LE SLOGAN « ENSEIGNER LA CONTROVERSE » POSE T’IL LE PROBLÈME ?

Résumé. Les créationnistes encouragent souvent les professeurs à « enseigner la controverse ». Même si au premier abord de tels encouragements peuvent ressembler à la proposition d’une méthode de pensée critique, l’histoire du mouvement créationniste en Amérique du Nord dément cette affirmation. Plutôt que d’enseigner aux étudiants comment analyser et évaluer des controverses actuelles scientifiques, la finalité des exhortations à « enseigner la controverse » consiste à faire en sorte que les professeurs enseignent aux étudiants que l’évolution est une science faible ou non corroborée et que les étudiants ne devraient donc pas la prendre au sérieux. De telles directives quant à la présumée « preuve contre l’évolution » ou l’« analyse critique de l’évolution » contribueraient à sérieusement inculquer aux étudiants des connaissances erronées, et les professeurs et les administrateurs doivent résister à ces directives.

Articles

  • WHAT ARE STUDENTS TAUGHT ABOUT EVOLUTION? / QU’ENSEIGNE-T-ON AUX ÉTUDIANTS À PROPOS DE L’ÉVOLUTION ?by Randy Moore
  • CANADIAN PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTION EDUCATION / CONCEPTIONS DES FUTURS ENSEIGNANTS CANADIENS À L’ÉLÉMENTAIRE SUR L’ÉVOLUTION BIOLOGIQUE ET L’ENSEIGNEMENT DE L’ÉVOLUTION by Anila Asghar, Jason R. Wiles, Brian Alters
  • LEARNING EVOLUTION AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE USING EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTING AND ARTIFICIAL LIFE / APPRENDRE L’ÉVOLUTION ET LA NATURE DES SCIENCES AU MOYEN DU CALCUL ÉVOLUTIONNISTE ET DE LA VIE ARTIFICIELLE by Robert T. Pennock
  • BUILDING AN UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION: AN ONLINE RESOURCE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING / DÉVELOPPER UNE COMPRÉHENSION DE L’ÉVOLUTION : UNE RESSOURCE EN LIGNE POUR L’ENSEIGNEMENT ET L’APPRENTISSAGE by Judy Scotchmoor, Anastasia Thanukos
  • UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF GEOLOGICAL TIME / COMPRENDRE LE CHANGEMENT ÉVOLUTIF AU SEIN DE LA STRUCTURE DU TEMPS GÉOLOGIQUE by Jeff Dodick
  • WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “TEACH THE CONTROVERSY” SLOGAN? / EN QUOI LE SLOGAN « ENSEIGNER LA CONTROVERSE » POSE T’IL LE PROBLÈME ? Eugenie C. Scott

Opinion

  • TEACHING EVOLUTION EFFECTIVELY: A CENTRAL DILEMMA AND ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES / ENSEIGNER EFFICACEMENT L’ÉVOLUTION : UN DILEMME CENTRAL ET STRATÉGIES PARALLÈLES by Craig E. Nelson
  • THE EVOLUTION-CREATION WARS: WHY TEACHING MORE SCIENCE JUST IS NOT ENOUGH / LA DISCORDE ÉVOLUTION-CRÉATIONNISME : POURQUOI UN ENSEIGNEMENT ACCRU DES SCIENCES NE SUFFIT PAS by Massimo Pigliucci

Book Reviews

  • TEACHING BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: METHODOLOGICAL, RELIGIOUS, AND NONRELIGIOUS ISSUES (By: Brian Alters) Reviewed by: Glenn Branch
  • THE PLAUSIBILITY OF LIFE: RESOLVING DARWIN’S DILEMMA (By: Marc W. Kirschner & John C. Gerhardt) Reviewed by: Andrew J. Petto

I encourage our readers to click on of the two “contribute” links at website to support Open Access to this journal.

27 Comments

What’s unfortunate about the web page for that issue, http://mje.mcgill.ca/issue/view/54 is that it has Google Ads on it. Three of the five ads I saw this morning were for anti-evolution organizations - gnmagazine.org, multimediaapologetics.com, and creationministries.org.

Isn’t there a way to keep objectionable ads off of a site?

Such is the price to pay for free and open journals. Well worth it.

PvM, Funny how you equate methodological naturalism with “scientifc method”, as if they are one and the same.

But anyway, I noticed that Watson’s controversial comments went largely unnoticed by you. You seem to post pretty much everything concerning Darwinism, but “strangely”, Watson’s words, and his basing on evolutionary theory, somehow passed way above your radar. How come? Too unconfortable for you, PvM?

PvM, In a previous trend you said something that I left uncommented:

Who would have thought that Intelligent Design was so intertwined with religion :-) Thanks Denyse.

Using your logic, one can ask “who would have thought that Darwinism was to interwined with naturalism/atheism/humanism?”

If you are going to resort to motive mongering, anyone can do that. Remember Majerus’ brilliant conclusion after realizing the moths do rest on tree trunks (God doesn’t exist because moths rest on tree trunks!)

Only in Darwinstan such a mindset passes as “science”.

The French translation of Eugenie Scott’s abstract is very poor and awkward. Just one example: “actual” is translated as “actuel”, meaning “current”. The correct word is “réel”. That’s the kind of “false-friend” you’re told about when you learn English in high school.

PvM Wrote:

Who would have thought that Intelligent Design was so intertwined with religion :-) Thanks Denyse.

Mats Wrote:

Using your logic, one can ask “who would have thought that Darwinism was to interwined with naturalism/atheism/humanism?”

Aha, Mats, once again you totally miss the point.

First, the DI and the ID proponents have been claiming (all the way up to and during KvD) that ID is not based on religion, despite the overwhelming evidence that ID is based on a religious viewpoint. So, it is refreshing to see the hypocrisy dropped for once.

OTOH, science has always operated on an assupmtion of methodological naturalsim, that is, that we assume that what we can observe and measure has meaning and relevance. If you take a different stance, such as logical positivism, then you would end up in an endless recursion as you try to find something that you can firmly claim to be real.

If you are going to resort to motive mongering, anyone can do that.

Well, yes, of course. It’s just that scientists largely have a straightforward and open agenda, whereas the IDologists have frequently tried to conceal their true motives (remember the Wedge, Mats?).

Remember Majerus’ brilliant conclusion after realizing the moths do rest on tree trunks (God doesn’t exist because moths rest on tree trunks!)

This strawman is tired already Mats. Leave that dead horse be. If you could ever be bothered to find out the truth behind the stories you’ve been told, you will find that the conclusion is actually that peppered moths illustrate natural selection in action. The details are available in several articles, so I shan’t bore you with them here.

The conclusion that evolution excludes the existence of God is a strawman of your own devising. It is logically impossible to disprove the existence of a being that is intangible. Most scientists do believe in God, and they are also firmly convinced that evolution occurs just as modern evolutionary theory (MET) tells us.

Only in Darwinstan such a mindset passes as “science”.

No, Mats. It is only in whatever strange place exists inside your head that such feeble attempts at argument are going to convince anyone.

First, the DI and the ID proponents have been claiming (all the way up to and during KvD) that ID is not based on religion, despite the overwhelming evidence that ID is based on a religious viewpoint.

The ID hypothesis is simply not based on religion. Unlike creationism, the ID hypothesis as given in Dembski’s 1999 book “Intelligent Design”, does not depend on, require, or start with anybody’s religious text. If you have a copy of that book, you can read it yourself and see.

This is a point which evolutionists remain totally unable to refute.

However, IF the ID hypothesis is true, it rationally, logically FOLLOWS from the hypothesis that it would lend a measure of philosophical support to the belief in theism (because many theists believe that God has communicated, dispensed information, about Himself to humanity.)

Likewise, philosophically, ID would IMPLY a subtracted and diminished measure of support for atheism. Hence the ID hypothesis DOES serve as a potential bridge between science and theology, as Dembski’s book correctly points out.

But remember, possible support for theism is NOT the basis for ID, NO religious text is the basis for ID, but instead philosophical and theological implications FOLLOW the ID hypothesis just like they FOLLOW the evolution position. (That’s not the same as “a basis for.” That’s important to remember.)

*****

Seems clear enough, doesn’t it? But it makes evolutionists upset because they have a seemingly religious need to avoid granting the slightest scientific legitimacy to the ID hypothesis, lest their own religion (evolution) be undermined in the public mind.

(And yes, Michael Ruse has already admitted that some evolutionists DO make a religion out of it, so there!)

FL

So, FL, are you a ‘cdesign proponentsist’?

OTOH, science has always operated on an assupmtion of methodological naturalism,

Actually, no it hasn’t.

Computational chemist Dr. John Millam explicitly demonstrated at the May 2005 Kansas Science Standard Hearings that:

(1) the scientific method predated methodological naturalism by a century.

(2) the scientists who initially gave us the scientific method as we know it(Bacon, Galileo, etc) were NOT into methodological naturalism.

(3) methodological naturalism was developed and clarified under Kant and was actually derived from an agnostic/deistic belief.

“There’s nothing inherent in the scientific enterprise that requires restricting it to natural causes or natural explanations only. Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic.”

–Dr. John Millam, May 2005.

To this day, Dr. Millam’s expert testimony has never been refuted by evolutionists–not during the 2005 Science Hearings, and not afterwards.

There’s the real deal!

FL

FL,

If the ID “hypothesis” is true (assuming that you mean that some designer is ultimately responsible for some features of biology) then it’s still evolution, just not the IDers’ “Darwinism” caricature.

The ID scam, including the designer-free phony “critical analysis,” facilitates personal belief in the mutually contradictory creationist accounts because it misrepresents evolution and encourages unreasonable doubt. But cheif IDers must know that those creationist accounts are failures, because all they would have to do to get something alternative taught is to simply state and test what happened, when and how that contradicts what mainstream science has determined. The fact that they are retreating from what few such claims they have made in the past is a clear indication that they know that ID is nothing but a scam, with no promise at all as science. That, and not any reference to God, is what makes it a religious idea.

The ID hypothesis is simply not based on religion. Unlike creationism, the ID hypothesis as given in Dembski’s 1999 book “Intelligent Design”, does not depend on, require, or start with anybody’s religious text. If you have a copy of that book, you can read it yourself and see.

This is a point which evolutionists remain totally unable to refute.

To “refute” the idea that religious claims like ID have to begin with “religious text” would, of course, leave us wondering where the religious text came from. After all, no religious text relies ultimately upon “religious text.”

What ID depends upon is religious ideas. Not ideas that were necessarily religious or irreligious at a time when religion wasn’t separate from other ideas, of course, but ideas that are now considered to be religious speculation because they’re not based in empiricism. In fact ID primarily does come from a variety of religious texts, especially the Bible, however, as I noted, religious texts themselves are not dependent upon religious texts, so that’s a red herring.

And of course the Kitzmiller decision wasn’t based on “text”, it was based on the religiosity of ID, along with its utter lack of empirical content.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

FL Wrote:

The ID hypothesis is simply not based on religion. Unlike creationism, the ID hypothesis as given in Dembski’s 1999 book “Intelligent Design”, does not depend on, require, or start with anybody’s religious text. If you have a copy of that book, you can read it yourself and see.

Curiously, though, FL, none of the ID crowd supports MDID (multiple-designer ID), even though it is significantly more in accord with the evidence than the form of ID expounded by Dembski, Behe, Wells et al. The only conclusion one can reach from this is that the authors have a specific individual designer in mind.

Secondly, Behe has testified under oath that ID makes considerably more sense if one equates the designer with God.

Thirdly, whenever Dembski (or whichever DI fellow it happens to be) speaks to a partisan audience (i.e. fellow creationists), he makes no effort to conceal his proposal that the “designer” is God.

Fourthly, the official position of ID (as published by Wells, Behe, Dembski et al.) is that ID is not the kind of theory to propose questions about the abilities or motives of the designer. Since ID began as an effort to place a veneer of science over pre-existing creationist arguments, and since science is the business of asking questions and seeking answers, one can only assume that:

Either (1) Every DI fellow is so stupid they did not notice that they could make ID more science-like by asking a set of questions and proposing hypotheses about the designer;

Or (2) The DI was making a deliberate effort to hide the fact that they had a specific designer in mind.

Now, I believe that Dembski and his fellows are many things, but I do not believe he or they are that stupid. Thus, hypothesis 2 is the only reasonable one to propose, based on the available evidence.

As additional support, consider this: Can an atheistic approach to ID be made that has any kind of reason or sense to it? IOW, can we formulate an atheistic ID theory? Erm, well, we could, but the Raellians (sp?) got there first. And they propose many, many incredible things, none of which seem to be rational.

In short, I do not believe that any reasonable non-theistic formulation of ID can be made.

Therefore, FL, ID is a purely religious idea.

But there’s more …

If we compare the published arguments of ID (for example, those in Of Pandas and People) with the published arguments of “creation science” from the early ’80s, we see a remarkable degree of accord. ID uses the same arguments as “creation science”. They are still wrong, and they are dressed up in new terminology, but the relationships are there to be found.

The real clincher, though (as if the preceding weren’t enough), is that early drafts of Of Pandas and People contain no references to ID, but many references to creationism. At the KvD trial, it came out that the first text containing references to ID was identical to its immediate predecessor, with the exception of the replacement of the term “creation” with the term “ID”.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against you, FL. ID arose as a new form of “creation science”. According to the Wedge Document, this was done to get creationism taught in classrooms, so that a whole generation of young people would leave high school without the slightest clue about what is actually good biology, or how modern species arose from common ancestors.

“There’s nothing inherent in the scientific enterprise that requires restricting it to natural causes or natural explanations only.

Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic.”

–Dr. John Millam, May 2005.

To this day, Dr. Millam’s expert testimony has never been refuted by evolutionists–not during the 2005 Science Hearings, and not afterwards.

Actually, “naturalism” was ‘developed by Kant’ (if we accept that claim, which is questionable) in order to leave non-empirical religion free from criticism by religion. It has no basis in fact, either the “methodological” or the “ontological” kind, but is a kind of sop for religionists who do not wish to fight with science.

If “methodological naturalism” is to have any kind of meaning, it simply means dealing with the empirical, with what can be “tested” or otherwise observed. In that sense one could maintain that it has meaning, but then it’s basically a definition making “naturalism” superfluous.

“Naturalism” as such is not the issue whatsoever, and the only issue that matters for ID is that it is not testable or observable in any manner.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Actually, “naturalism” was ‘developed by Kant’ (if we accept that claim, which is questionable) in order to leave non-empirical religion free from criticism by religion.

Oops, I wrote that in too big a hurry. It was supposed to be, “…leave non-empirical religion free from criticism by science.”

Mostly it’s been used that way, too. It’s “new atheists” like Dawkins, and the IDists and creationists, who wish to destroy the old truce wherein religion would make its claims without bothering with evidence (or trumping up “evidence”, like ID does), and science would be left alone to deal with the evidence in the accepted judicial and scientific manner.

You really want religion to be judged by scientific means, FL? Because it loses every time that it makes itself vulnerable to empiricism.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

The ID hypothesis is simply not based on religion.

The IDC movement is simply rooted in religion. It is obvious in its history, its current espousers and the legal judgment that was it forced upon US in the Kitzmiller vs Dover decision.

PvM, Funny how you equate methodological naturalism with “scientifc method”, as if they are one and the same.

Both concepts include basing conclusions on the available relevant evidence.

Henry

The ID hypothesis is simply not based on religion. Unlike creationism, the ID hypothesis as given in Dembski’s 1999 book “Intelligent Design”, does not depend on, require, or start with anybody’s religious text. If you have a copy of that book, you can read it yourself and see.

This is a point which evolutionists remain totally unable to refute.

Well then, describe the specific pattern in the relevant evidence that is actually explained by the notion that life was deliberately engineered by something at some time and place. Then give the logic by which that evidence is explained by the premise. Then make some predictions about something that can then be tested, and which differ significantly from predictions of the current theory, so as to verify the conclusion.

To this day, Dr. Millam’s expert testimony has never been refuted by evolutionists – not during the 2005 Science Hearings, and not afterwards.

So what? Of course science is about what’s testable. I expect that in general that’s what most people think “naturalistic” means. Is there something else that it could be taken to mean?

Henry

From an editor of MJE 42 No. 2…

The creationist ads, in fact all ads, have now been removed.

Cheers,

Jason

FL said:

the scientists who initially gave us the scientific method as we know it(Bacon, Galileo, etc) were NOT into methodological naturalism.

Please demonstrate where Bacon and Galileo made appeals to a supernatural designer in order to support their hypotheses.

FL Wrote:

“There’s nothing inherent in the scientific enterprise that requires restricting it to natural causes or natural explanations only.

Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic.”

While some supernatural claims can be tested, the supernatural does not explain anything as, and history shows this, almost anything can be attributed to the supernatural.

As such it has been rejected by science many times. Is this yet another example of ‘great thinking’ by creationists? First Wise, now another one? A computational chemist … Wow…

You were kidding right? Please explain how one go about applying science to the supernatural. How does one constrain the supernatural?

How does one constrain the supernatural?

Magical thinking, of course.

PvM, Funny how you equate methodological naturalism with “scientifc method”, as if they are one and the same.

But anyway, I noticed that Watson’s controversial comments went largely unnoticed by you. You seem to post pretty much everything concerning Darwinism, but “strangely”, Watson’s words, and his basing on evolutionary theory, somehow passed way above your radar. How come? Too unconfortable for you, PvM?

Love the desperate acts of our dear Christian friend Mats. I post mostly on the ID controversy and provide a scientific exploration of how science explains things.

Remember that your words and actions reflect on the religion you represent, as a Christian I am quite worried by your words and ad hominems.

I am working on an interesting posting about eugenics, mostly because of the nonsense spouted by Dembski and his sidekick Denyse. As far as Watson is concerned, I am not responsible for what people state or do, however silly, I can however expose the vacuity of their arguments. Did you know that there was quite some support from churches for eugenics? They seemed to be quite willing to spread the word to the masses, popularizing the concept. In fact, if creationists are right and Darwinian theory cannot form a basis for morality then Darwinism cannot be held responsible for such evils as eugenics, in fact it requires a foundation for morality that can serve as a basis. In fact, I argue that in the early 1900’s religion formed such a basis. Once again we learn that science can be abused for many purposes. But rather than blaming science, why not blame those who subvert it? Now even Darwin was not free from racism, which was a reflection of society of Darwin’s days, and Darwin even toyed with ideas of positive eugenics although he did never seem to be too committed or impressed.

As such I have a full job on dealing with Intelligent Design but if you have anything to contribute about Watson then please feel free to contribute such. I believe blogs at blogger are freely available to anyone interested.

Sufficient to say that the claims that IQ are related to race have been shown to be mostly lacking. Once corrected for social economic status, most differences quickly disappear. So I cannot really agree with Watson here as he is relying on erroneous data. Luckily science has exposed the errors behind this research and it is unfortunate that Watson appealed to this flawed research.

As to the argument that evolution does not mean that different groups will evolve similarly seems rather unsurprising, after all we have man and woman as one example of a bifurcation. Does this make man superior or inferior to woman. To conclude that people from one group are inferior to another group, cannot logically follow from evolutionary theory but rather requires a foundation in “morality”, such as for instance Christianity. Historically Christianity has placed the woman under the rule of man, in an inferior position. Christianity’s history with race relations has not been much better either. Now as a Christian myself, I surely am ashamed of how Christianity has been so often abused, but if your reasoning is logically extended, then you will hold Christianity to a similar blame as you seem to hold Darwinism for the sins of those who also happened to be Darwinists/scientists/evolutionists. I am sure that you understand the sillyness of such an argument.

Sufficient to say that ignorance, amplified by religion were major reasons for people believing that there were superior and inferior races.

Pretty silly stuff.

PS, Mats, you still owe us an explanation as to how ID defines design.

I am patient and will surely be happy to remind you whenever you show evidence of short term memory loss.

In Christ my dear friend.

Perhaps Mats can explain to us what scientific relevance a supernatural explanation has and why ID has failed to present ANY such explanation?

That by itself shows the scientific infertility of Intelligent Design

How does one constrain the supernatural?

What happened with the IDC scam being touted as non-religious?

If we look at natural agent behavior, as in “design” instead, it is straight forward. Forensics constrain natural design with principles analogous to the ones we research natural processes with, “motives, means, opportunity” vs “processes, mechanisms, initial conditions”.

Applying that to design identification, we could have a process of “perfect design”, and I would like to believe that is the goal of the mechanism of “engineers”. :-P The initial conditions would be something like “market financing”.

But commenter Chris Tucker has made a new proposal. I will call it “twisted design” here:

Chris Tucker Wrote:

”Must always remember creationist are lying sacks of slime.“

Which, curiously, is evidence of ID… if the Intelligent Designer has a very twisted sense of humor.

I think the process that takes sacks of slime to espouse more complicated traits can be identified with evolution. (With an initial helping of abiogenesis, the initial condition is the assemblages of slime.)

So there we have it, creationism followers is secretly a product of evolution and evolution is not so secretly an example of “twisted design”.

Darwin even toyed with ideas of positive eugenics although he did never seem to be too committed or impressed.

I’m not sure you could claim that deliberately decreasing genetic variability by artificial selection is a supported strategy that follows from evolutionary theory.

But considering the potential and possibly very real opportunities for genetic engineering in humans, not only to correct deficiencies, I expect the debate on what eugenics programs was will be illuminated by what we will do freely.

Much will be done to benefit the individual instead of primarily the society/population at large. (Though in fixing deficiencies perhaps the two interests convene.) And the considerable distance to anything resembling basic evolutionary theory will perhaps become more obvious, to the detriment of the IDC scam artists.

The web page for that issue, http://mje.mcgill.ca/issue/view/54, has been sanitized of ads (objectionable or otherwise).

You can also support the McGill Journal of Education with a small donation there.

How does one constrain the supernatural?

Get a charmed amulet, and an en-souled vampire to wear it. But have an escape vehicle standing by; there might be side effects.

Henry

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 20, 2007 1:42 PM.

Science v Intelligent Design: Behe versus ERV 0-2 was the previous entry in this blog.

How do you teach evolution? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter