ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The PBS television station in Albuquerque pulled a documentary on evolution after discovering it was funded by evangelical Christian groups.
==============================
I'm not especially interested in your opinions regarding creationism, evolution, intelligent design, alien seeding, or what-have-you.
But would you have pulled this show or let it run? If you let it run, would you let go as is or would you require disclaimers or other restrictions?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The documentary should be judged without regard to the inclinations of the group who produced it.
[ January 07, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It depends on the content. Was it the content that was objectionable, or the funding source?
Added: *grins at Irami* Exactly.
[ January 07, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Ted Garcia, KNME’s general manager, said, “Had the program been produced from the perspective of an objective body, free of this perceived influence, the program would have been acceptable for broadcast with an appropriate disclaimer.”
If this is correct (can't tell without seeing it myself), then it should have been run with that disclaimer. Funding is always good to make transparent, but the work should be judged on its own merits.
[Word, Kat and Irami. ]
[ January 07, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It shouldn't have been pulled - it should have been aired and let the people who see it make their own decision.
Every PBS program has been funded by outside sources, or at least partially so - tell the public who funded the program and then let it run so people can judge for themselves.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I don't believe there is anything on PBS that I have seen that is totally "objective" so I think he is blowing smoke in his quote.
All he needs to do, if he wants, is post a disclaimer like the network stations do before infomercials. "This does not necessarily represent the views of this station, etc. etc. etc."
FG
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you should use 'so', not 'OK'. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I don't believe there is anything on PBS that I have seen that is totally "objective" so I think he is blowing smoke in his quote.
That was my thought exactly. How many shows on PBS or any station can claim to be completely neutral and unbiased?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of judging by its merits,
quote:“It challenges the idea that this sophisticated machinery and software could arise purely by the means of natural selection and random mutation, which is the core of Darwinian evolution,” Keller said.
Bad enough that the general public gets its science from TV, without making it pseudo-science to boot.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Here's my question, which I can't have answered except by seeing the show in question:
Does it discuss evolution vs. intelligent design in a scientific manner, or not?
In other words, does it say "This could not have arisen by any means other than creation, so it's in fact evidence that there is a Christian God and you better get on board or you're going to Hell." If it says that - then don't air it, it's religious propaganda.
But, if it's more like "There are many questions about the origin of life and no one has all the answers. Some mysteries include what some scientists call "irreducible complexity" Let's look at the claims made by these people and then look at the rebuttals by those that believe these complexities could have arisen by random chance and natural selection."
If it's that - then it should definitely air, because they are intriguing questions. I've read Behe's work (and the article's description of the content made me think of Behe) and I've read the responses by his critics, and I've read his responses to those critics. I don't understand most of it, but I do think it's a worthwhile dialogue regardless of what side you're on.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; it meets essentially none of the qualifications thereof. Any show stating (not necessarily any show arguing, but definitely any show taking it as tacit) that ID is scientific is highly biased.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and its worth pointing out that Behe has published zero scientific papers/books/whatever refuting evolution (I'm not even talking refereed). He has published popular pieces he says refute evolution, but none that has attempted any sort of scientific rigor.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Uh uh, didn't ask for commentary on the validity of the theories.
Also, don't PBS stations often run informercials? Is it the station's contention that none of their other programs have an agenda (something which, I submit, is not automatically suspect)? Was it the content of the program, or the fact that it almost ran in the "Nova" slot, possibly lending it more credibility than the station managers thought appropriate?
[ January 07, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
How can we possibly have an opinion on whether it should be aired or not without drawing on our opinions of intelligent design as science? Clearly, if it is good science, it should be aired. If not, not.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
At Fugu and ID not being a theory...Why not? There are nature shows that bring up the biblical age of the earth computation made by that dingy Englishman, as if to prove that if you don't believe in evolution you are an idiot.
If nature shows will leave theology alone, then we can insiste that theology leave nature alone. This is censorship, pure and simple.
[ January 07, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
What does science matter? The documentary could be worthy of being broadcast without being good science. It could be a good documentary with only a shred of scientific worth.
I like science fine, I just don't think that Public Broadcasting or Public discourse should be limited by its mandates.
[ January 07, 2005, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Oh darn, you edited your post and now my joke doesn't work. Whatever, it wasn't that funny anyway.
[ January 07, 2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: dh ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
You know, regardless of whether Behe's works are scientifically worthless, one of his books got me interested in biochemistry. So even psuedoscience can lead to people discovering real science. I would say to run the documentary with a disclaimer in the correct spot (if there really was a mistake, I wouldn't agree with pre-empting NOVA). That is, of course, assuming that no religious claims are made and the science is actually sound. Fairness does not require running a documentary that says the earth must be flat because otherwise people in Antarctica would fall off.
Then again, the problem with irreducible complexity is that it's impossible to determine which systems are irreducibly complex because it's always possible that each of the components was co-opted from some other system. A mouse trap isn't impossible to make if you're using a spring that was taken and adapted from a fully-functional shock absorber, a base that was once part of a wooden storage box, and bait from a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, for example.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Yowza! That would be one heckuva moustrap.
Nova ran a show that was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. I thought that was odd. It was about Typhoid Mary. I wonder if it was because they tried to be as sympathetic as possible toward her and imply that the public health officials had persecuted her. And in persecuting her, they had convinced her that she didn't really have a problem. It seemed kind of bogus to me. But still interesting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The problem with tacitly assuming ID is a scientific theory is that its a clear indication they aren't holding the documentary up to a high standard.
Trisha: one doesn't just get to say something is a scientific theory. Before something can be considered a scientific theory it must meet a very high standard of evidence, so much that it is generally accepted as a likely reasonable explanation. This doesn't mean that people (scientists) have to think its the most likely reasonable explanation, just that it is a likely reasonable explanation.
I'm not even saying it should be taken off if it argues ID is a scientific theory; part of science is contention, and this contention is a major part of the debate on ID. However, if it tacitly accepts ID as a scientific theory, then the makers have completely ignored a huge facet of the debate they propose to cover. Usually when a documentary or news show says its on something but does a bad job of covering what it says its on, one evaluates it as a "bad" documentary/news show.
And I really have no idea where your comment about the age of the earth thing comes in.
[ January 07, 2005, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
More reason not to have public funded television.
A private station can refuse to show anything they want, with the exception of paid political ads. If this were a private station, the argument would be limited to whether the science was any good.
Now we have to determine the criteria a partially government funded entity should be allowed to use in content-based discrimination.
quote:the teaching and active extension of the doctrines of evangelical Christianity through approved grants to qualified organizations.
Evangelical Christianity does not necessarily require belief in creationism, even using the more constrained definition in use today.
Evangelical <> fundamentalist.
Dagonee
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: If nature shows will leave theology alone, then we can insiste that theology leave nature alone. This is censorship, pure and simple.
Yes, but how do you get those concerned with theology to not take offense by it? Science is often the enemy of religion because of the very fact that science likes to explain things, and religion thinks all things unexplainable were God's work. So, it's hard. I've talked to religious people who think that scientists are desparate to find the missing link, and they are out to disprove God. Scientists don't want to attack God or religion, they just want to stay in their own little world of science. Look at history, the people who cause ripples with science are religious people who deny science.
quote:What does science matter? The documentary could be worthy of being broadcast without being good science. It could be a good documentary with only a shred of scientific worth.
To get back to the main point of the post though, I think in part PBS pulled it because of the lack of scientific value. There's a difference between showing specific proof, with tests and evidence and all that, and then showing a show that lacks the scientific process. Sorry but the scientific value of a claim DOES MATTER when you're talking about a SCIENTIFIC THEORY!
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I don't think ID is a scientific theory by any standard I am aware of, though it is obviously someone's hypothesis.
The age of the earth thing addresses how a show presumably about science will take a potshot at religion. The reason it's dingy is that the guy stipulated a date and time that the earth was supposedly created, which corresponded with some observance at a British university. It is likely that the man was himself poking fun at Biblical chronology, but the factoid is often cited to make bible believers look like fruitcakes.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote: I think in part PBS pulled it because of the lack of scientific value.
quote: The PBS television station in Albuquerque pulled a documentary on evolution after discovering it was funded by evangelical Christian groups.
P.S. That is to say, they thought the show was worth airing until they found out who was behind it.
[ January 07, 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Trisha, that was my impression, too.
quote:Ted Garcia, KNME’s general manager, said, “Had the program been produced from the perspective of an objective body, free of this perceived influence, the program would have been acceptable for broadcast with an appropriate disclaimer.”
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: That is to say, they thought the show was worth airing until they found out who was behind it
That IS suspicious. I'm having a hard time with this because my instincts want to say NO NO NO NO NO to showing it because I dislike a lot of what religious groups such as evangelical christians and such are doing in America. But at the same time the fair and impartial side of me says that it's discriminatory to pull the show JUST because they "Suddenly discovered" who the financial backer was. If they knew the content before they knew the creator and planned to show it, they should show it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:More reason not to have public funded television.
You are just itching to defund public television, aren't you? This sounds like an executive whoops that'll be rectified through the proper channels and probably lead to the most widely viewed mediocre documentary in history.
[ January 07, 2005, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have a very serious problem with government funding of speech, because by its nature, unless it is unlimited, it requires content-based discrimination.
Dagonee
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Anyway, Nova in one story takes DeBeers view that manufactured diamonds are fake, but in another applauds the Japanese efforts to control conditions to produce more pearls. They pitch for who's paying.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Ok Hatrackers, what do you think?
I try not to. I find I get in less trouble that way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag: I'm being quite careful in my statements partly for the reasons you note, and am not just arguing that it is bad science, but that the show does a bad job of going about its stated goal if it tacitly assumes ID is true. To break down my argument with more linebreaks:
AS ID is not considered by scientists a scientific theory
AND some people greatly dispute this position on the scientific validity of ID
AND a large part of the intended to be covered subject matter is disputes surrounding ID and evolution
AND whether or not ID is a scientific theory is highly relevant to the disputes surrounding ID and evolution
THEN any documentary with that intended subject matter which tacitly assumes ID is a scientific theory fails to adequately cover its intended subject matter, and should be removed for doing a bad job at covering what it said it was about.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
We've established that the show does in fact discuss ID.
I guess the issue now is what a disclaimer would need to say in order for it to not betray PBS's ethic of objectivity.
I was asking my brother why PBS wasn't awash with documentaries about Vietnam during the election year, and he pointed out that most shows on PBS are funded by oil companies.
We still prefer PBS over anything else, though I probably only watch it twice a week. Still, it's important to recognize that they are biased.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
All these assumptions are fine, fugu, except that they also can be disputed at any point.
I wouldn't agree with those disputing them, but I don't want the government setting the rules of discourse like that. Fine, use scientific principles when deciding what research to fund. But not in deciding which ideas get government subsidies.
This kind of line-drawing is unavoidable in any situation where the government has limited resources to make available for private expression.
Why have a system that requires government content-based discrimination?
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok Hatrackers, what do you think? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try not to. I find I get in less trouble that way.
Kayla, I have a theory about that. Check out the January 07, 2005 04:41 PM post in the East of Eden thread.
[ January 07, 2005, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Why have a system that requires government content-based discrimination?
Do think we'll EVER live in a society in America where there ISN'T content based discrimination in how government funds are spent?
Outside of television and radio, look at the controversial issues that have gotten funding or have been denied funding. Stem cell research, funding charities and relief organizations that have ties to religious groups, research into "clean coal", renewable energy, medical research. So long as the government controls the purse strings of ANYTHING, this will happen. And I'd argue against cutting government run television and radio. Generally I feel without government sporsorship, NOVA and other shows like it would never see the light of day. The ultimate goal of the station is the public good, and I think in general they do a decent job of it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Stem cell research, funding charities and relief organizations that have ties to religious groups, research into "clean coal", renewable energy, medical research.
And each of these has some purpose other than pure communication. People can agree or disagree about the purpose of these programs, and elect representatives who will pass laws which reflect their opinions. We've specifically decided and enshrined in the constitution that we don't want government deciding what people can say.
Providing resources to allow one group to say what they want and not another certainly violates the the spirit of the principles informing the First Amendment.
If people are uncomfortable with libraries not buying books because of the content, they ought to be uncomfortable with this. Why is a book which a large portion of the country feels is objectionable more worthy of protection than this documentary?
Dagonee
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I don't really know what proportion of funding for a show comes from the CPB, sponsors, and "Viewers like you". Also, I know the production of a show can be funded by one company (say, Iomega) but subsequent airings funded by another (in the case I noticed, Cnet).
In the case of "The Diamond Deception" I think the producers (who are not the "They" of PBS or even Nova) were influenced to favor DeBeers in exchange for access to DeBeers operation. My understanding is that individual documentary makers can submit films to be shown on Nova. Some are commissioned by WGBH.
This show, of course, was merely slated to run in what would normally be the Nova slot, probably instead of a rerun.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Providing resources to allow one group to say what they want and not another certainly violates the the spirit of the principles informing the First Amendment.
I don't think its as clear as all that.
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While that perspective is quite possibly true regarding religion, the authors used a distinctly different phrasing with regard to freedom of speech. There they prohibited the abridgement, not banned laws respecting (unlike religion).
I think that the extension of no abridgement of free speech to no preference in public funding of speech is a modern sensibility, not one written into the Constitution.
[ January 07, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course it's true with respect to religion, and that includes a LOT of speech.
In general, a right is a right because the government cannot take steps to stop you from exercising it. Suppose the government taxed everyone, but gave back all or most of the taxes for those who were willing to sign a waiver of their 4th amendment rights.
The denial of government benefits because of the voluntary exercise of a right by a citizen is coercion.
Dagonee
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: The denial of government benefits because of the voluntary exercise of a right by a citizen is coercion.
When did that happen?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
By that argument, any private military research (along with everything else funded where preference is made based on non-content agnostic ways, such as rolling dice) paid for by the government is coercion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not only that, the 14th amendment would extend such a ban to the states.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I think if the funding source is disclosed and they make a disclaimer, they should run it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By that argument, any private military research (along with everything else funded where preference is made based on non-content agnostic ways, such as rolling dice) paid for by the government is coercion.
How so?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When did that happen?
So you don't think it would be coercion for the government to give $1,000 to everyone who promised not to go to church anymore?
Dagonee
[ January 07, 2005, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: So you don't think it would be coercion for the government to give $1,000 to everyone who promised not to go to church anymore?
Yeah I'd say it counts. I'm asking when it happened.
quote:By that argument, any private military research (along with everything else funded where preference is made based on non-content agnostic ways, such as rolling dice) paid for by the government is coercion.
I don't buy that. When the Pentagon paid Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to build the B-2 that was private military research through government funding, but I don't see how that's coersion. It's only coersion when they threaten to not protect citizens unless they cave to a demand.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah I'd say it counts. I'm asking when it happened.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry.
It happens quite frequently, although not with the clarity I picked for my hypotheticals.
Let me find a good example - I know I studied them, but I'm drawing a blank.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah ah, Dagonee, we already established that religion was a separate case from more general speech.
Actually, as the collection of taxes and enforcement of laws are by definition coercion, I'm not exactly certain if it is coercion that automatically makes it somehow unconstitutional.
You know what, I do reconsider my military research example, though. This is because the commision of military research contracts falls under a power explicitly granted Congress, which means a Constitutional method of evaluation is the suitability to being used in the exercise of that power.
Many things, though, such as governmentally funded arts, research, public television, public radio, and others, would seem to have problems under the principle.
But then I got to thinking, well why would Dag still support public schools, then, since they involve huge amounts of preference in speech? I'm pretty sure you justify it by education being a right (one of those not enumerated ones), as otherwise it would most definitely violate that principle.
Under that framework, where non-enumerated rights justify content-based discrimination in their support, education seems to be okay. But then where do we put things like public television, or publicly funded scientific research, or publicly funded art?
Well, there must be some right which justifies content-based discrimination in those cases for them to be justifiable under that principle in anything like their current form. And given any such right, the question ceases becoming "can the government discriminate based on content?" but "to what degree is it allowable the government discriminate on content in order to protect that right?", a very different question.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Here's the thing- The Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is a religious teaching and can therefore be separated from state institutions such as schools. This has not happened with Intelligent Design and is unlikely to, given that it can't be disproven. Because, unfortunately for non-ID evolutionists, they have not yet been able to create life in a reproducible experiment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That something can't be disproven (in a scientific sense) is excellent proof that its not scientific. That something involves an argument, by Christians for a being mysteriously similar to the Christian God is an excellent case for it being religious.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, if life could be created from scratch using simple chemicals and no intervention by intelligence, wouldn't that disprove intelligent design? At the very least, it would be strong evidence for abiogenesis.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Many things, though, such as governmentally funded arts, research, public television, public radio, and others, would seem to have problems under the principle.
Arts, TV, and radio are all pure expression – that is, expression is the ultimate goal.
Research has other goals: cure cancer, stop global warming, determine if the Caribou really care about oil wells in Alaska.
quote:But then I got to thinking, well why would Dag still support public schools, then, since they involve huge amounts of preference in speech? I'm pretty sure you justify it by education being a right (one of those not enumerated ones), as otherwise it would most definitely violate that principle.
Not at all. Education is most certainly not a right in the sense I would use the word here, although people have a right to education under the current law. It’s just that changing that law to remove that right from everyone would not be unconstitutional.
No, the reason I support public schools is because, again, the goal is not pure expression. The goal is education. Does it involve expression? Yes. A great deal of it. But the goal is not expression.
Again, though, I’d wonder why you wouldn’t think it OK to ban books from public school libraries if it’s OK to knock this show off the air.
quote:Under that framework, where non-enumerated rights justify content-based discrimination in their support, education seems to be okay. But then where do we put things like public television, or publicly funded scientific research, or publicly funded art? Well, there must be some right which justifies content-based discrimination in those cases for them to be justifiable under that principle in anything like their current form.
Again, that’s not my framework. Compare the EBS: it’s designed to fulfill a public function, one that requires expression, but that is an issue of safety and public protection. These are the very core of the police powers.
quote: And given any such right, the question ceases becoming "can the government discriminate based on content?" but "to what degree is it allowable the government discriminate on content in order to protect that right?", a very different question.
Content-based discrimination is inherently suspect. I never said it should never be used. I said, “I have a very serious problem with government funding of speech, because by its nature, unless it is unlimited, it requires content-based discrimination.” Pure expression, ad PBS is, serves none of the government purposes which justify the necessarily discriminatory policy.
Dagonee
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
How would the life be being "created" without "the intervention of intelligence"? You mean set up some primordial soup and spark it with lightning? I guess when that works then it would greatly weaking ID.
String theory can't be proven or disproven, but that doesn't stop anyone from calling it science besides the die hard quantum mechanics.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The goal in public television, luckily, is not pure expression, a large part of the goal's education. Seems to me the content based discrimination you reluctantly accept under education would apply.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And string theory most definitely can be disproven in the scientific sense.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also,
quote:The denial of government benefits because of the voluntary exercise of a right by a citizen is coercion.
doesn't seem to have a loophole for "but only when its pure expression".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And string theory most definitely can be disproven in the scientific sense.
Not yet.
[ January 07, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, since we're sort of on the topic, here's some government paid for speech of interest
It can't be disproven by current technology, but that doesn't invalidate its general disprovability in a scientific sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We'll see.
Perhaps it can eventually be proven wrong. Perhaps it can't -- either because we never figure out how or because it's not wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
String theory can be disproved in principle, in fact even with current technology. Granted, it would require a particle accelerator about the size of the orbit of Mars, but it's an engineering problem, not a fundamental one.
Intelligent design can also be disproven; by 'without the intervention of intelligence' I did indeed mean that humans would just set up the initial conditions, and then wait, just as in the amino acid experiments. Again, for this to work, it would probably require a lab the size of the Earth, and several hundred million years of waiting. That's what it took originally, after all. Again, this is an engineering problem. I don't want to give the impression that I'm holding my breath waiting for it to be solved, though.
I don't think intelligent design is good science. But it can in principle be disproved, unlike the existence of a creator. There are other, better reasons for considering it pseudo-science.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote:And string theory most definitely can be disproven in the scientific sense.
Yes, but Nova devoted 3 episodes to string theory. So why shouldn't PBS promulgate ID?
The thing is that ID isn't modelled after any particular book of scripture, so it doesn't rely on assuming the Christian God (as was mentioned near the bottom of the last page). It merely states that it is improbable that life and the various species arose by strict evolution. I don't see that it is a less valid view that strict uniformitarianism vs. punctuated equilibrium.
But maybe an instance of living macroevolution, meaning a viable Chromosome count change, would happen in my lifetime in one of the millions of species on earth.
Believe it or not, I am not a proponent of ID. But I find uniformitarianism to be flawed. The issue is not simply multiplying time by more and more factors. The issue is that in fifty years of observing all the species on earth, we haven't seen many chromosome count changes. (I'm not aware of any.) The length of geologic time cannot explain the lack of change in the breadth of life. Unless one resorts to puctuated equilibrium events in which large scale mutations are much more likely. And there would have to have been a lot of them. And as we know, the chances are largely against any particular mutation being beneficial instead of deadly.
The uniformitarian answer to this is "well, imagine time spanning even longer."
What really amuses me is the convention of comparing the history of life on earth to a day, of which our species has only been around for 30 seconds. I saw this on David Attenborough's Life on Earth, my Bio 103 class, and again on the video that mocked the biblical time account. I found it highly ironic.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, trisha, there are large numbers of plants and insects which can become true-breeding polyploids. Just google for "plant polyploid speciation".
Then there's that there are several human genetic disorders, some of them in name only (that is, they don't seem to have any downside) which result from having missing or extra chrosomomes (generally sex chromosomes). Just google for "sex chromosome abnormalities".
Chromosome count changes all over the place, those are two very common areas.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Sex chromosome abnormalities don't count. :sigh: If they don't render the person infertile, they are of a nature that they naturally erase in the next generation. (XXYs can have kids but the kids aren't necessarily XXY) All mammals have X and Y sex differentiation chromosomes, and they all have sex chromosome abnormalitites. Though the defect probably leads more quickly to natural selection in other species.
Insects also have the long and short chromosome system for sex differentiation. But it's referred to by two other letters, Z and W I think. I hadn't heard before that insects have reproducible polyploidy. That's actually kind of bad news, in my opinion. But I'll check it out.
quote:Polyploidy Despite the apparent difficulties most theories of sympatric speciation, one form of sympatric speciation is universally accepted -- the instantaneous mode in which changes in ploidy lead to instantaneous reproductive isolation. While extremely common in plants, it is less common in animals and well documented cases are found in the lower vertebrate classes: fish, amphibians, and reptiles.
For example, Gerhardt has identified a case in which a single species of Hyla tree frogs has undergone tetraploid formations. The formation of tetraploid (4n) from the fusion of two diploid parents (2n) leads to a new species of treefrog that can only breed with another individual that has similar ploidy (Gerhardt 198X). The fusion of gametes from a diploid parent and tetraploid parent produces triploid offspring which die during larval stages and the few hybrids that reach adult size are sterile (Johnson. While production of triploids can be achieved in the laboratory, triploids are rarely found in natural populations of Hyla tree frogs (Gerhardt 1982).
Because the diploid parental species achieves reproductive isolation from the tetraploid daughter species in one fell-swoop, sympatric speciation is easy to achieve. Indeed Gerhardt and his colleagues have found that the production of new tetraploid species has occurred several times in this species complex. Diploid populations of Hyla chrysoscelis probably gave rise to tetraploid populations of H. versicolor (Tymowska 1991).
In this case of polyploidy, the whole genome is doubled. In effect, the animal has the same number of chromosomes doing the same number of things. It just has a redundant pair. I'm trying to figure out how the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees survived the fusion of the chromosomes that are in two parts in apes and one part in humans.
[ January 08, 2005, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Human sex chromosome abnormalities don't breed true, certainly. But consider that we have bundles of them, and all the different sorts of species out there, and consider that the extremely frequent rate of sex chromosome abnormalities might in some species result in true-breeding variants, particularly those where sex is not dependent on chromosomes, but on environmental conditions.
And as for polyploidy, while initially they're "just duplicates", after the polyploidy event there's nothing holding the duplicate chromosomes in sync. One might receive a mutation while the other doesn't -- suddenly the animal has all the genes it had before, plus one.
Add a million years, stirring regularly, and you've got a radically different animal/plant/whatever.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I did a little looking around: absent telomeres, fusing is the natural behavior of a chromosome. Now, when telomeres run down all together as the result of natural processes, the cell tends to die, or turn into cancer. But if something came along and only messed with the telomeres on one end for a chromosome or two (there's a number of scenarios that come to mind for this, mostly involving viruses and/or errors in reproductive cell generation) its quite conceivable those chromosomes would bind together, preventing the enzymes from nibbling at them, and resulting in a change in chromosome count without a phenotype change (or a genotype change, really).
I have a cousin doing human genetics research for the University of Irvine. They recruited him specifically because he is a Creationist. It seems that nearly everyone in the field makes evolution the assumption, and that assumption limits the questions they're asking. My cousin doesn't buy into those assumptions, so he is a rare comodity. Because of his assumptions, he is asking unique, yet informed questions.
It's funny, I saw a long and interesting special on Nova about Memes. As far as I know, this isn't a proven or widely accepted science, and yet it was presented.
I think that a better choice for PBS would have been for them to run the creationist show, highlighting the funders, then run a typical, evolution as fact program immediately following. I think that PBS is very good at educating. What could be more educational than putting two impassioned viewpoints side by side?
[ January 08, 2005, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote: Add a million years, stirring regularly, and you've got a radically different animal/plant/whatever.
Yeah, this is the deus ex machina of the uniformitarian view.
The point about all mammals having xy sex differentiation is that the mechanism remains consistent across the class, so I doubt that it is a mechanism for evolutionary change.
It's not a problem of how the chromosome got fused in one person. It's how it got fused in two people who were able to mate with each other. It is further complicated by the difference in how an egg is formed versus how a sperm is formed. Which depends on whether you accept the commonly held theory that women have all their eggs in place before birth.
Uniformitarianism means that the event is either very common or either very rare, but it will continue to happen at approximately the rate that it has been happening in the past. I would find the virus argument persuasive if analogous processes could be shown in other closely related mammals.
Don't make too much of my pointing out the boundary between humans and apes. It occurs to me that you might think I'm arguing "evolution up until Adam and Eve". I'm just using this example because it was the first clear case of nuclear speciation I came across. It naturally involves humans because we are most interested in the genes of humans.
P.S. Ladydove: I thought it was funny that a grad student at BYU discovered that walking sticks have gained and lost wings several times in their evolutionary history. It had been taken for granted that flight is such a beneficial mutation, no species would lose it again once having it. Evolution is full of such assumptions. They are critical to the shape of the taxological trees as they are typically received.
The trilobdontic tooth (grinding teeth) is likewise considered so beneficial that all species that have it are assumed to have a single common ancestor who posessed it.
P.S. on my way to bed I realized that all the examples of polyploidy are in species where self-fertilization is possible. Plants- obviously. Some insects in the absence of males will spawn haploid males. I'm not quite sure what happens with the frogs but I know there is parthenogenesis in some species. It seems especially likely that a frog with the equivalent of XXYY sex chromosomes might be able to act as both mother and father to the next generation. It is interesting to wonder whether the offspring of such would be diploid with genetic mixing or an effective clone as when a diploid frog undergoes parthenogenesis.
Actually, such a clone would not truly be a clone due to the crossover that occures during meiosis. Or at best it would be closer to a clone of one of the frog's parents and not the frog itself.
[ January 08, 2005, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The goal in public television, luckily, is not pure expression, a large part of the goal's education. Seems to me the content based discrimination you reluctantly accept under education would apply.
Nah. The inclusion of educational programs does not make the purpose educational. The purpose is to provide a forum for expression for some ideas that they fear would not be expressed otherwise. That some of that expression is educational is incidental. The “some” is what I have a problem with.
quote:--------------------------- The denial of government benefits because of the voluntary exercise of a right by a citizen is coercion. ---------------------------
doesn't seem to have a loophole for "but only when its pure expression".
When it’s not pure expression, it’s not the denial of a right. For example, students are allowed to wear black armbands to protest war. The response was expulsion or suspension (backed up by threat of expulsion) – that is, the government’s denying of the benefit of education based on the exercise of the right.
“Only when its pure expression” clearly and specifically applies to areas of expression, since the right to free expression MUST be denied to some by the nature of the program. “denial of government benefits” applies to much broader areas. As the major example I’ve given was NOT about expression, I’m wondering why you interpreted it this way.
None of the other examples you cite are at all parallel.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Are you familiar with duck typing (in programming), Dag?
Take a look at the programs PBS has, particularly those its known for. Educational, educational, educational, news, educational, news. That's basically how it goes. And as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.
You don't just get to arbitrarily say what the purpose of PBS is. Browsing through PBS mission statements (found through google), pretty much all of them hold up education as the central thing they do.
And as pretty much all the big PBS programs are educational or informational in nature, I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to call PBS an educational endeavor than an "purely expressive" one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What, exactly, is so important about these (and all the other things I didn't list) that we need to be educated about them in particular, and not about other things?
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No switching the topic, Dag, from whether or not its educational to whether or not its good/important education. Those shows certainly are mostly educational/informational in nature.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Again, could you please explain how Masterpiece Theater is educational? I said, "These are educational?" in the post above.
[ January 08, 2005, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Last I heard students in school certainly spent a fair amount of time studying literature and drama (which masterpiece theater overlaps in both directions). Plus, the show includes short but substantial segments on historical context and similar topics related to the pieces it shows.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: String theory can be disproved in principle, in fact even with current technology. Granted, it would require a particle accelerator about the size of the orbit of Mars, but it's an engineering problem, not a fundamental one.
You contradict yourself. What you dismiss as an engineering problem would include creating technologies that we don't have yet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not so sure about that.
But even assuming that were true, it doesn't invalidate that string theory is, generally speaking, scientifically disprovable. Whether or not its scientifically disprovable with current technology isn't relevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Last I heard students in school certainly spent a fair amount of time studying literature and drama (which masterpiece theater overlaps in both directions). Plus, the show includes short but substantial segments on historical context and similar topics related to the pieces it shows.
That's informational, not educational, and the difference is key. The educational function of schools is to impart a defined set of skills on a defined audience. The educational function of PBS is what, exactly? Which skills are being taught, and who is the target audience?
A brochure (or even video or short commercial) about how to file taxes is knowledge the government needs to impart to carry on its functions. We, as a society, have decided that children should receive a certain type of education, as defined by both national and local standards. Even if PBS claims that it is educational, it cannot identify the target students nor claim to have any kind of ongoing curriculum.
The fact that it has news programs demonstrates further that its purpose is to impart information, not to educate in the sense that schools do.
Regardless, it is a government program that provides a forum for speech, and this forum is extremely limited. We have one example here of either content-based or group-based discrimination. The nature of PBS is such that this type of decision must be made constantly.
Having a program such as PBS puts the government in the position of preferring one type of speech over another, in a forum with no non-speech purpose.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)