[00:00:23]
>> What are. You. Hearing. Or. Is the. Whole. Area. A Laughing I wonder. If R.C. are working. On a lot of. Things are. Good afternoon and thank you all for coming today what I'm going to endeavor to do today is give you some historical background on the debates between evolution this pollution a biologist and people who have criticized evolution and these are different different people different groups over time feel free at any point in this to interrupt me I know what my own voice sounds like I know what I have to say on these matters but I want to hear what you all have to say answering your questions and fielding your comments will be important to me as we go on so initially what I'm going to start with is.

[00:01:48]
Why Evolution. And depending on your background in here whether you're from about your background a policy background an engineering background you may or may not have some familiarity with some of the points on this list mention a few of them to see. Did you sense potentially evolution has been targeted as a point of concern.

[00:02:10]
Starting from the top it is believed perhaps with some justification that evolution disrupts worldviews in a similar kind of sense to where Copernicus and Galileo disrupted world views. In the sense they started to shift from the geocentric point of view point of view where the earth was the center of depending on the time depending on the era the center of the universe center of the solar system to a different kind of view where the sun is the center of our solar system it is believed that evolution does something rather similar that some argue that evolution changed the way we see ourselves the way we see our.

[00:02:50]
World in a fundamental and important kind of light. And some of the ways we're talk about in specific detail but perhaps maybe you can get a sense from some of you in terms of why people would argue that it shakes up world views what kinds of things those evolution say are the least set or least I'll put it this way what do people believe evolution says that might shake up worldviews in a similar kind of way that Galileo and Copernicus might have shaken up.

[00:03:21]
Our thoughts. OK So creation stories is a good starting point so depending on which point of view. Which point of view you're talking about there are creationists who believe that the earth is roughly six to ten thousand years old and that certainly does not work well with an evolutionary kind of viewpoint.

[00:03:43]
So for those who believe that the earth is roughly seventy six to ten thousand years old evolution shakes up quite fundamental quite significant kind of right. That overlaps with the second point on this list in that evolution raises questions about the relationship between science and religion this is certainly not.

[00:04:04]
The new issue and you can see this pretty much depending on your area of interest you can see battles on the relationship between science and religion right and they conflict whether they're into related whether they're separate domains evolution is just one theme amongst many whereby science and religion might but heads in some importance since.

[00:04:25]
The third point which of course overlaps with the other two is the connection to teleology. This term might be unfamiliar to some largely is derived from Aristotle who suggests that natural things are here for a purpose and some will argue that evolution just Rupp's the viewpoint and humans are here for a specific singular purpose or a specific specific set of purposes some argue again that evolution does not allow us to believe anymore.

[00:04:59]
That we are here for a reason now whether rightly or wrongly I'm not really going to go to throwing that direction and wants to own it as something about it but but again some believe that evolution disrupts the idea that we're here for a purpose. Just a quick note about the fourth point the application or I should say misguided application of evolution and social policies.

[00:05:23]
Some of them include sterilizing mentally informed individuals some have used evolution as a justification for social policies and I would say it's a misapplication of a biological view. But some fear that evolution in the way in which many people have interpreted it gives us Jeff the justification for eliminating or oppressing so-called undesirables in the way in which has been done historically including with the Third Reich.

[00:06:01]
So that hopefully gives you some sense for evolution it has been. And target and then of course other things that could be added to this list. So it has resulted as a byproduct of evolution being discussed as a byproduct of evolution becoming famous popular within the scientific with them the education literature released early on when evolution was starting to make its way into the education system in the United States and then only response was to suggest let's keep it out categorically So as you can imagine there were at anti-evolution laws in several different states including famously in Tennessee that suggested that evolution should not be taught that it's a dangerous view that it should not be discussed.

[00:06:53]
With Scopes trial which originally became a red herring in the sense that it became a battle between creationists an absolute level and a biologist about which view was more likely to be right and Scopes trial should have been much simpler in the sense it was it was a trial about a Tennessee law the Tennessee law said you cannot teach evolution and scopes who was about to teach it in Dayton Tennessee was accused of violating the law and instead of purely asking whether he violated the law again they got into debates about whether evolution is more likely to be true than creationism.

[00:07:33]
And just as a side note to this William Jennings Bryan who was the attorney who was trying to prosecute scopes one of the reasons that suggested he was trying to argue against evolution was that he feared the social policies that might emerge as a byproduct of taking evolution seriously so it is believed historians say that William Jennings Bryan.

[00:08:01]
Did not like evolution because of the social implication. Of accepting it. Now as you can see between the first point and second it was roughly forty years over forty years until the Supreme Court firmly decided on anti-evolution laws in the time span of again over forty years or anti-evolution laws were constitutional that you could as a state decide to categorically forbid evolution from being taught.

[00:08:34]
Anything about this before move. Well in terms of my research in the short answers in terms of my research I focus on the U.S. The longer answer is from mining brief survey of what's been going on in Europe I have not seen the same kind of phenomenon. From my familiarity I don't really see it now among my expertise abroad on this issue is a bit limited in terms of the school systems in terms of the law but I had not seen it may or may not indicated at SAP and I did I just haven't detected it typically when I look and I would say and largely focus my attention to European countries but I'm not looking at the U.S. on this issue typically when I grouped into European countries on this issue I had not checked it at the same kind of way as I've seen it may not it states.

[00:09:35]
The next step after anti-evolution laws disappeared or balance treatment X. and just to give you a sense of what they are is if you're going to teach evolution and there's a big if they are because you of course could avoid it if you wanted to if you're going to teach evolution you must teach creationism.

[00:09:55]
And what we're largely talking about is in public school biology classrooms might be middle school probably ice. But balance Treatment Act suggested it is you have to balance out evolution against creationism that it was believed that they are viewpoints that are rivals and both must be discussed if one is well if evolution is going to be discussed the other has to be there as well.

[00:10:25]
These laws met with pretty quick legal challenges. Among the first big cases where this kind of brawl was challenge was in McLean versus Arkansas. In that case and it's something that might be of interest to those of you that tried to figure out whether we can have a dividing line between science and religion in that case they brought into court a philosopher of science by the name of Michael Ruse.

[00:10:54]
He testified that there are a set of criteria a set of demarcation criteria that can allow you to separate science from religion. And what was argued in the cases that demarcation criteria allows you to say that creationism is not science. Now what you might ask and what criteria did you use has he resolved an age old problem here of what is science versus what is known science or how you separate science from religion which I would say are two.

[00:11:26]
Somewhat different questions but has he been able in this case to resolve the difference between science and religion I'll give you a sense of some of the criteria that were suggested. Falsifiability. For those of you who are familiar with Karl Popper he suggested that what counts as a scientific theory is something that can be falsified if you can falsify it and accounts of science and others argued in this case is creationism is not falsifiable.

[00:12:00]
And you give me example of something that we cannot also by. What about something. Some to argue that you can't falsify God Now I don't know if I want to go too far in that direction because I could be a whole other lecture but some will argue that it's not entirely possible to show whether God does or does not exist through scientific methods and again that's a whole other terrain that I'm not really trying to address here but some large you and that belief in God is not entirely falsifiable all we start with Ron and to give you a sense of what Popper is talking about.

[00:12:41]
I could offer you the belief the hypothesis that there are invisible gnomes in this room that make no sound we can't smell them can't detect them but they're here and when they're angry they raise the temperature in the room and when they're said they lower the temperature. Now if you can't detect them in any kind of physical way in any kind of political way some would argue that my theory about these invisible limbs is not falsifiable.

[00:13:10]
And what ruse and others argued in this case is creationism is similar in the sense that you can't use scientific methods to show whether creationism is true or false. The other sorts of criteria that were offered in the case were Does the explanation that creation of software appeal to natural laws.

[00:13:31]
Typically in science we have to appeal to natural laws and our explanations you cannot appeal to miracles or transcendent explanations and what was argued in the case in the McLean Arkansas case was that creationism uses transcendent miracle like explanations for how the world came to be how human life came to be and therefore it's not truly science.

[00:13:59]
There are several other criteria in the case and perhaps if you're interested I could mention others but those. Among the key features of what was argued in the case and how creationism was cast aside. In Arkansas as being a rival theory to evolution so in the case of McLean versus Arkansas all up and saw had to go had to let go of its bounds Treatment Act.

[00:14:27]
Now balance treatment acts were still permitted me to eight states. But were still committed nine states until the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in eighty seven that's when the Supreme Court threw our entire country decided that balance treatment X. should no longer exist that they were unconstitutional.

[00:14:54]
That's an important and big question and I'm not sure if I can entirely answer it in a short amount of time. For the purposes of what I'm trying to do here I'm trying to answer what belongs in a biology class or and I'll get when I get to later steps of this all give you a sense of how I think you determine that.

[00:15:16]
If the question is do I have a firm. Definition for what science is that will put in one category everything that is science and push out of everything that's not science but asking if I had that algorithm if I had that answer I'm not saying that I do I would say there's a more important question to ask than what it science or not and I'll try to give you a sense of what I'm not trying to ignore the question of the term sidestep but except to say to try to address a bit later if you permit me.

[00:15:59]
According to the courts according to the Supreme Court and saw. In that first case and then the U.S. Supreme Court creationism could not be taught. That they were addressing the issue in a biology classroom in a public school now whether it could be taught in. And this gets tricky and perhaps we'll talk about some of the reasons for it whether you can treat talk about another religion class or whether you can talk about it in a philosophy class it was still an open question but some would argue that it doesn't specifically creationists.

[00:16:39]
And they would I would point you towards the Creation Research Society that offers the viewpoint I'm about to say. Some creationists who argue that if you teach creationism in another class besides biology then you're really not treating it on par with evolution and you're almost saying we're going to teach you it but it's false it's it doesn't have any bearing on evolution and less we bring it into the biology classroom so creationists would argue if you teach.

[00:17:07]
Us what a religion class then you're really not giving it it's due as a competitor for evolution. Because if you believe in evolution unopposed and about your classroom saying you're not treating it as the rival they see it as creationist would see it as. OK. You know. What the argument is by creationists that evolution has flaws and unless you present those flaws with the.

[00:18:04]
Biology classroom then you're not doing justice to what the student should be learning that's that's the short answer of course there's more than that to say but that's the short answer. So the follow up on this point before I leave downstream in X.. OK so this last point on the bottom balance treatment X.

[00:18:30]
were gone that was it for them at eighty seven however. It seemed as though that the creationists had been losing and they had been in the courts over time I would say it hadn't been immediate the anti-evolution acts had been around for forty some odd years balance treatment X.

[00:18:51]
had been around for a few decades. After time seemingly creationists had been losing in the legal system. But in that same case I just mention relating to balance treatment X. there was this statement and I would be second to look it over and then I'll comment on it.

[00:19:32]
Just a word about it or a few words. Again is the Supreme Court decision on balance Treatment Act. Within their decision they offered this statement. Read me the things to ask is how should we interpret what's said there. There's a new several different things to look at one of them is what counts as a scientific theory but just part of this debate of course is what counts aside the big.

[00:20:04]
Well I don't know if you think judges and lawyers can do it but in some sense they have to figure out what a scientific theory is and if it's not judges and lawyers who should figure out what a scientific theory is then who else would do it. But beyond the practicalities of it.

[00:20:23]
This provided a justification I should say provided a motivation to continue challenging the law as it pertains to evolution because creationists and others who who see flaws in evolution see hear and inroads challenging evolution in the classroom in essence this is really the key places in the law that permits critics of evolution to challenge how evolution is taught in a classroom.

[00:20:57]
At least one of the main things I'll say about this is the following You can not according to the law of the Supreme Court quoting to state laws you cannot require a teaching of creationism. And I use that word require intentionally You cannot require the teaching of creationism in terms of public school policy.

[00:21:21]
But if you dig into that a bit you can detect You cannot allow it. It could be optional but you cannot name data you cannot require it as a school district the teaching of creationism So in that is hidden that you can permit challenges to evolution as long as they are not required as long as you don't require creationism then you can still allow discussions of challenges to evolution in the classroom.

[00:21:57]
And really anything further on this statement articulated by the court so anything else hidden in there that. If you'd like to point out yeah. Yes that's certainly what circulating in cases like this is right there we're presenting creationism or something and talk about in a few minutes intelligent design or whatever else you want to present is there a secular intent behind teaching it and that's of course one of the things the court is concerned about because of the establishment clause you cannot establish religion in a public school classroom but if there is a secular intent behind teaching creationism or intelligent design then perhaps you have an argument that it belongs.

[00:22:42]
So it's secular intent is very important here and for those of you that like the legal stuff there's the Lemon test which I'm not really going to talk about but I could say more about after if you if you'd like. To test as another test that's been used by the courts to figure out whether something is religious or not in nature the Roman tests address this issue of whether the material being presented as a secular intent or not.

[00:23:14]
So what are we left with. I would say there's two major. Movements and they're often interrelated pertaining to evolution these days in terms of how people are continuing to challenge it in the classroom one attempt is to have textbooks sticker in the front of a biology textbook. As I suggested there they are had been used in states such as Alabama Georgia Oklahoma and just more specific note about our own state it's not state wide that the disclaimer was used it was temporarily used in Cobb County and as far as I understand it was trying to catch up on this to make sure nothing significant happened in recent weeks.

[00:24:02]
The Georgia textbook. Disclaimer runs and for a short time going to be placed in Cobb County school books a district court removed the textbook stickers as being unconstitutional and appellate court decided that this issue needs to be revisited and I don't know if it's been revisited yet I don't think it has or was one of us heard something recent the textbook sticker issue in Cobb County is going to be revisited again although I don't know what date the district court is going to reexamine the issue so at this point in time the textbooks think it's out of Cobb County but it there's a chance it might make a reappearance.

[00:24:46]
I can't do full justice to it but I'll get close. That would be helpful. So that's what was placed in biology textbooks stickers in Cobb County for short time. Supposed to point out to students that evolution and enough I want to use the word controversial but evolution should be examined critically that you should use critical thinking skills when discussing one thing about evolution I would argue need critical thinking skills no matter what your looking at the textbook read specifically what they want you to object address your attention towards evolution.

[00:25:42]
I would agree. But there was specific concern and for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier on this specific concern about evolution. That there are other things in the textbook that don't seem to upset religious convictions don't seem to be as the same kind of by evolution seems to.

[00:26:02]
So textbooks disclaimers. Again had been or had been or currently used in different states and from my assessment I think Alabama is the only state that still has that it's still the only state that still permits it but. I wouldn't quote me on that but I'd From what I've been doing my search is I think Alabama's the only state that still currently has a textbook per se excuse me a textbook disclaimer that's permitted.

[00:26:30]
So beyond the textbooks disclaimers. We have alternatives to evolution. This new torrentially in big vague phrase has been talked about a number of different states including Ohio and Ohio has had several different. Developments with regard to evolution which I might mention later on. This phrase has been articulated by several different states.

[00:26:56]
And what is suggested is you give teachers the option to discuss alternatives to evolution but don't specifically stipulate what those alternatives are in other words you leave it to the discretion of the biology teacher to figure out what they want to cover with regard to evolution. And more specifically challenge is what critiques of evolution if a biology teacher wants a talk about potential creationism intelligent design or no other view that potentially is a rival to have Aleutian.

[00:27:28]
Alternatives to evolution that catchphrase in the law might permit a teacher to do so. So it's intentionally a bit open in terms of what in the target of evolution would be. And it's pacifically designed in that way because it when it's specified that the challenge to evolution is typically that challenge evolution gets shot down by the courts.

[00:28:01]
Excuse me. That's not altogether an easy question to answer because I would say intelligent design is more complicated more sophisticated than creationism. I would say if some of the arguments that intelligent design theorists provide. Could be secular I know and I know I'm being hesitant I know I'm being a bit vague here but bear with me for a minute some of the arguments that intelligent design theorists provide against evolution might have credibility to them and don't necessarily need to be tied to specific religious viewpoint.

[00:28:43]
To be embraced but that doesn't mean those arguments are true and there's I mean those arguments show at pm that day show anything is wrong with evolution but some of what they present a secular minded person could accept. For instance there are different arrows historically there are numerous species that are merge in a short amount of time a relatively short amount of time but it's one of the examples of the Cambrian explosion a rich and sometimes with protein when there weren't a whole host of species that emerge in the relatively short amount of time.

[00:29:20]
Designed to say that gradualism and hopefully this doesn't. Think allergies if you haven't studied evolution that gradualism doesn't explain how so many species could emerge and show short time. And you could very well articulate that argument and be a secular minded person. But that doesn't prove intelligent design is true necessarily.

[00:29:45]
Until you look at the evidence. So potentially there are criticisms that I would argue that potentially are criticisms out there that could be secular against evolution but doesn't mean this criticism or at the end that they true. It quite right. Right quite right I'll very well except I'm not not to reveal too much of my own individual personal thoughts on this but all very well except that there are holes in evolution I don't think there's an evolutionary biologist to say we've answered all the questions but you have to keep in mind that evolution is not just a singular theory depending on what you mean by theory that evolution is a collection of views into related and there are parts of it that still need to be studied and one of the things that sometimes argued about is right there group selection should be taken seriously but not that we as individuals are not selected for it's groups of us and whether that is the way evolution has worked to Storch way that's the debate about Tibet and there are other issues that have debated about within the confines of evolution so to say evolution has some hurdles that people are still working on depending what you mean by those terms it could be true but if you're saying that the entire foundation of it that scientists are questioning the entire foundation of I would say that comment is an incredibly misleading.

[00:31:19]
You'd have to look at the details of what scientists are talking about what details of evolution are and shaking hands. So when we're getting to the question of what might be presented besides evolution in the classroom as many of you have heard in the news mostly. Within the last ten years or so there has been a movement called the intelligent design movement that has emerged as a potential rival to evolution in the classroom.

[00:31:55]
Just give you some highlights of what's being presented and see what you make of it design theorists people who have suggested that Intel. Design is a suitable explanation for how human life began and how human might potentially change over time. Design theorists claim that they largely embrace evolution which as pointed out is different from creationists creationists largely reject evolution the creationists that were talked about earlier in this in this structure have largely rejected evolution intelligent design Peter say there are significant percentage of evolution we embrace but there are holes in evolution that need to be supplemented with a design view.

[00:32:43]
So you might ask What is the design view entailed the short answer is the world human life. Film blotting tigers lions elephants all sorts of things that you see out there in the world are much too complex to app and randomly. That what you see here. The regularities.

[00:33:11]
The sophistication the sophistication of the human eye. The sophistication of our circulatory system could not have been reined in jail it's been ordered to explain how everything got here you have to do add a designer to the picture. And these are two of their technical. Specific kinds of arguments that are used to defend design one is called to reduce a bit of complexity and there are also arguments from statistics by largely by a mathematician and philosopher by the name of William Dembski.

[00:33:49]
Say a word or two about irreducible complexity because that tends to be a key linchpin for the right Intelligent Design theory sort of offering. Ready reducible complexity suggests is this. There are things out there in the world so. I use the human eye for example that could not have happened as a result of a gradual progression.

[00:34:12]
Of design to or say intermediate stages from not having the human eye to be a I there was no selective evolutionary advantage to pass through those intermediate stages until you get to be. What you could not gradually have acquired something like this the human eye and I know mine are a little flawed because of television but we get the point that something like this could not have happened.

[00:34:39]
To the basis of gradualism but any immediate station stages from not having an eye to an I would not be functional. Would not have a selective advantage so they argue for a concept called it reduces the complexity which is supposed to show that certain things out there in the world such as the human eye or even the circulatory system.

[00:35:00]
Could not have happened as a result of gradual steps. So this it least gives you a sense for some what design people start offering. And there's all sorts of other things I could say about design sput I know I can't do justice to all of what they have to say but at least I'm trying to give short sketch.

[00:35:24]
They accept that. Your question they accept that right has been here for thousands hundreds of thousands millions of years except the notion that fossil record is more or less accurate they accept the notion that the earth was not created in six or ten thousand years that's typically what design there are so say brights they will caution you very quickly to suggest evolution doesn't explain it all.

[00:35:50]
And I'm not sure any evolutionary biologist says evolution explains it all but just bear with me they will say evolution had significant roles and that design needs to go in those holes. The easier question to answer as you're probably aware easier question to answer is that Creationists deny common descent design theorists seem to have mixed interest to us I wouldn't say there's a single answer I can offer.

[00:36:31]
And whether they accept common descent I would say certainly some of them seem to. There are certain certainly points that design Pyrrhus are a bit fuzzy about and I would say they seem to have different answers on that point whether common descent. I would think that at least some of them would say it's it's acceptable to to argue for common descent but I wouldn't say it's universal across the board for all to sort of theorists.

[00:36:55]
That we have common descent with an ape like creature for example. Is there something so. I would say that's. It's a pretty fair characterization of the design theory stands male I would say they're not a sexual central set of tenets they all agree to accept that evolution has holes and accept that designer needs to fill in those gaps but all the specifics different design theorists are still trying to fill them out.

[00:37:49]
I would say that they're still struggling if it ever happens they're still struggling to come up with that foundation of the leaps they certainly agree we need to create it they need to criticize evolution. But they don't agree on what their positive view would. Quite yet and that's one of the problems I certainly have had with what I've read from design Piers.

[00:38:12]
It's a lot. Maybe easier is the wrong road but I'll just work with it it's a lot easier to criticize a view out there than offer a positive view and seemingly they're happy percentage of what has been done by design Pearce critique whether or not bring forward a positive thesis.

[00:38:30]
How would this how would something be different if it wasn't designed or what's what's the alternative How do we how do we test this idea that the human eye was designed by a designer some of those details I would say most of those details aren't really there yet but what they are trying to do is say evolution has its faults.

[00:38:51]
Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Right there for those of us that one alone creationism intelligent design together it's probably a bit too quick to do that precisely for some of the reasons you're suggesting creationists wholeheartedly. As a general. Get more specific in terms of different groups of creationists but creationists typically wholeheartedly reject evolution.

[00:39:55]
TELEGIN design theorists tend to accept different dimensions of it. Except in really quibble about the age of. Teachers as much as creationists what. They can accept that the earth is potentially can accept that the earth is older than six to ten thousand years they can accept different dimensions of evolution but there certainly dimensions but they were not as creationists want nothing to do with evolution and suggest the purview is not a supplement to it it's true rival to it.

[00:40:49]
And that's a very big question and that's a question taken up by Stephen Rudd's taken up I should say by Stephen Jay Gould quite some time ago in a battle with Richard Dawkins which I don't know if after going to go down this road where the Dawkins approved group was a dog and still is premier biologists evolutionary biologists in debates about these kinds of issues and they did not agree just as a side note whether you can believe in the soul and believe in evolution at the same time.

[00:41:23]
Dawkins says that you can't have both Either you accept the soul and you accept a religious kind of review or you accept evolution you can't have both of them but you still debates that now it is if you saw the recent Time magazine was it two weeks ago I believe and we three were Richard Dawkins who is that evolutionary biologists Oxford was having debates with Francis Collins who was the head of the Human Genome Project for the United States there too probably are scientists in the world today and they don't agree on the relationship between science and religion.

[00:42:01]
Which highlights that there are still of course debates. About whether things like the soul when you can believe in such a thing and still be. Evolutionary biologist. Yes. There's certainly been back and forth Were they all rubbing challenges against one another that Dawkins Richard Dawkins who is again an evolutionary biologist will say that religious minded folk are too dogmatic and they want to accept evidence and back to Dawkins he's too dogmatic because he refuses to acknowledge different theorems of evidence that he doesn't want to look at and you can continue this debate role and we have for centuries and it's going to keep going.

[00:42:59]
Any. Francis Collins is very much a respected scientist and if you're in the realm of biology and genetics you probably want to work with him so he's a respected scientist and from what I understand of its history he used to be an atheist I don't know what caused the change because I don't know that much about him personally.

[00:43:22]
I've heard him speak but I don't really know what caused the change but he among others will say that religion and science can go him here. Not just it and then no Republican will close in time but just. Just to move things along a bit. This is what design theorists are trying to advocate.

[00:43:48]
Just to give you a sense of what design discipline trying to offer. That phrase on the top teach the controversy which is notoriously ambiguous it means different. To different people but what they generally mean is that the controversy about evolution that evolution has its flaws according to design theorists should be discussed right if school students students in the biology class or.

[00:44:28]
Other things to suggest that third point at a minimum biology teacher should be given the option to discuss design if they want to. At this point in time design theorists have been cautious about whether design should be required they have not openly advocated that design be required in the crosser they suggest that teachers should be allowed to discuss it if they want to but they have not as of yet I should say they have not as of yet openly advocated that design be required in the Crossrail.

[00:45:23]
Should we should we be thinking about how cultures result was kind of conflict in the biology classroom. In the biology class from though. It. Were at least one thing to say about that is where would this form be where you discuss evolution and desire a revolution in creationism or evolution another type of.

[00:45:57]
Read that can get a stupid legal trouble to a public school because I'm OK well imagine but that's at least one thing. That has been suggested as potentially we should have a class on ethics. And values. We could take in various different directions but potentially some would argue a class like that as long as in public schools.

[00:46:26]
Some people think about. It. If they want to have the flexibility and that's one of the options that's been suggested everyone have the flexibility to talk about these issues of a class. So. Good with that suggestion but there's still worry by design theorists that if you don't discuss these matters in the biology class itself that design theory is not being taken seriously as a scientific theory which they think it was.

[00:47:13]
So. Last point. It's wrong assumes a singular point last category of issues. One of the chief among the chief concerns that we need to be aware of in the debates between design evolutionary biologists and the other parties that are involved in debates about what belongs in the biology class for.

[00:47:36]
Your money considerations to think about. And at least one comment there are probably others that will emerge in this race one comment about the first two points even if design is not science that does not necessarily prove it's religion. Some of the things that were quick to do is to suggest that if something a science but it falls into religion it doesn't necessarily problem.

[00:48:05]
They would generally agree that literature is not science but doesn't mean by the fact that literature is religion. So even if Intelligent Design doesn't prove itself to be science depending on how you define that term. Doesn't necessarily show it's religion we have to go additional steps to prove that it's religion which is important point in Friday of different dimensions but it's especially important the courts.

[00:48:30]
Because that's what the courts typically are concerned about is whether theories like design or religion so they have to go through additional steps to figure out whether to religion and potentially violates the Constitution. So that being said. It's something I could elaborate upon in terms of my points here or there are going concerns I can address other issues that were mentioned already.

[00:49:00]
So whenever. What. Is there in peer cope with that. I have about a degree but I'm actually my education is primarily in philosophy and ethics. I have about a degree but its own graduate degree. It. Is very imperil evidence behind the design. At this point and it's related to the fourth point there and this perhaps answers it a bit indirectly.

[00:50:05]
The third and fourth point are related to some degree. Hasn't passed through proper scientific barriers for scientific tests we have in mind there is peer review publication. Speaking about these issues that conferences people writing in dissertations but it is a on his own I would say at this point there's a very big there is a very big gap in the publication record for designing.

[00:50:31]
If you want to get design men in for that doubt we could at least agree that there's not much published out there that they haven't put forward active proposals haven't gotten great in funding. And a step for instance and other complications here but I'm going to go into all of them right now they have not proved their merits in terms of publication for example.

[00:51:01]
Right. Right. That's among the complications yes and that makes it very tricky kind of issue to resolve. Ideally we would say is there empirical evidence Well let's see if anything's published on it you can't just do that as you're suggesting because the people who run the journal editors or the people but I'm going committees might have their sympathies I might suggest this is like astrology we don't want to listen to anything like this so that might be one of the reasons why there's not much published in the area so yes and of course it's more complicated and saying all of the publications The short answer is there's not many.

[00:51:53]
By that mainly by the Discovery Institute but there's not many but if we dig a little deeper it's part of the explanation because of the journal editors that would take. A long investigation to figure out. Yes And we have to figure out what exactly we're testing. One of the things to look at is they happen no matter who it is whether it's evolutionary biologist or design Piers they have to put something forward that specific enough that we can test it.

[00:52:30]
And saying that the human eye was designed is not terribly helpful until you specify how you would test that what would prove it false if the human eye wasn't there and how would you know what evidence do you need to look for to refute it or confirm it.

[00:52:46]
There needs to be something specific that you can test so I would say to you it's not altogether that obvious what you can test about design quite yet. Right right. Right. Yes. Right. Right look at this thing. Right. Right. Actually. Yes And that's that's one of the puzzles in a lot of different controversial scientific issues we have seemingly People are looking at the same evidence for or against global warming and we get publications especially if you look at the popular press you get all sorts of publications going in different directions on whether humans have any role in the existence of global warming.

[00:54:34]
A similar note with evolution in Intelligent Design there's They seem to suggest they're working at the same evidence but they derive very different conclusions and at least one of the things that I'm talking to so and there is a done is to argue by analogy that if you see one of the famous ones you see a watch you know it was designed.

[00:54:53]
But it's not career in these debates when you can carry that analogy to biological creatures it's. SECOND PLACE Yeah. Yes. Well at least one of the things to say is just because people live a different conclusions doesn't doesn't show that they're both equally bright. There's different levels of evidence that can be behind their viewpoints.

[00:55:36]
Or least another thing to say is when we're going to our museums and looking at those fossils. Do we think we know what happened to any degree. Or is it storytelling. In other words do we had justifiable reasons for saying what hangs there on the wall whether it's a fossil a fish or also a dynasty but we have.

[00:56:00]
Reasons for believing those creatures actually existed. Even though in Poli I mean. This could take you know quite some time to explore even though none of us have ever met Napoleon to be upset about reasons we're going to go stood. I guess at least part of your answer and it's and this is not something I can answer very quickly was part of your answer is What do you accept as proof suitable evidence to show that something is true.

[00:56:30]
What is it what's the standard we're operating with if you're saying it's one hundred percent certainty you're not going to get that except maybe mathematics where you're operating with a little or perhaps a little bit lower standard ninety five percent certain this is true and maybe we can do it.

[00:56:46]
Well that's right important I would say. Their. Publications. OK Well I would say that it's in the early stages it's in the early stages were positive theories or positive hypotheses have been offered forward because typically what has been seen in the literature is critique. That evolutionary biologist cannot explain the bacterial flagellum but evolutionary biologist cannot explain the human eye and typically what has been seen at least early on is critique so positive.

[00:58:04]
Sees it and so you. Are being offered then they still need some time to show their worth. Certainly brought there's a debate I really haven't gotten into here is should the public schools certain needs of the local community and the local community are. Almost uniformly creationists and shouldn't the public schools reflect that some debate.

[00:58:43]
And of course we could spend a whole. Hour week month debating on that issue but there's at least one least among the dimensions in this is how much of the public schools reflect the communities that are bedded with and. If there are creationists or intelligent design peers who think our county should the public schools reflect that.

[00:59:08]
We made it I don't know what your thoughts on this but at least we are among the arguments on merit in this. I'm not saying I disagree with you but parents will argue that children should learn about things we hold dear we cherish this kind of belief system our children need to know about it.

[00:59:41]
What is this private school they are for unless it's teaching the kids about things we believe sincerely. That that's what maybe not in science class or miss what some would argue. Right but. On this issue or others should this be an important consideration that the public demands it should that be something factored factored into the mix if the public demands abstinence only.

[01:00:28]
Education should there be in the public school if the public demands it if the public demand that you don't cover Harry Potter and Harry Potter doesn't belong in the public schools should the public schools reflect that and what's taught or if the public demands intelligent design is that one to be in row it's one of the procedures when the methods figure out what belongs in the classroom or it doesn't.

[01:00:54]
And it does not doesn't have to be specific to this particular issue it's a general issue about the public schools. And way. Through. It. Or at least one of the arguments to be made on behalf of the scientists evolutionary biologists. If a community doesn't want to learn about evolution and therefore it's not in the public schools in that region the argument has been made that those school children will fall behind.

[01:01:36]
That when they apply for colleges are running get into scientific programs that they won't be. Up to speed has been the argument with other students that might attend a college. And that's among the arguments that's been out there in terms of why you don't necessary to the public even know we are getting into an age where it's hard to keep community separate from.

[01:02:05]
The last point. I was chart Among the things that has come out the literature is this is teaching students about controversies like the one pertaining to evolution useful in terms of refining critical thinking skills. If it does refine critical thinking skills to debate about evolution and about a classroom in a high school for instance then maybe it's abuse to talk about things like what I'm talking about today.

[01:02:36]
And of course there are different allegiances on this one too. Some would say by merely bringing up the issues like this you might stray into introducing religion into the public school. But on the other hand and this is what design Peirce about Newt and the others to do if you avoid this issue altogether then the students don't really know what's going on.

[01:03:00]
So how do you make that all work out well is of course another. Issue and. I don't know if I have an algorithm for that we use different standards for different kinds of things we apparently think everyone can is suitable to drive around sixteen or seventeen depending on what state you're talking about these days we tend to think that.

[01:03:28]
People are suitably capable to decide whether they want to drink a twenty one so one hour people mature enough to handle this. And it's not altogether an easy question to answer because well in part because religious issues might emerge from this and it's not clear that parents really screw teachers straight into discussions of religion.

[01:03:52]
When their child is fifteen sixteen years of it. Really can. We can certainly raise that kind of issue too. If we don't talk about these controversies at all until you get to college because some of these controversies would just sweep under the rug until you get to college because then we tend to think students are a room with more capable of playing doing them but if we don't talk about any of these kind of controversies until we get to college it would do me a disservice in the sense we're not helping to build critical thinking skills to the process of education.

[01:04:36]
Where. What's the future going to be like. That intelligent design is going to have some struggles getting in the classrooms that Dover was the one district in the United States that made it Intelligent Design rotatory. The school district had to get rid of that policy you could no longer make intelligent design mandatory in Dover and I believe I'm not mistaken they are paying out a penalty for teaching intelligent design a.

[01:05:19]
One dollar probe so I don't remember something he wrote about and physio right but because social run is what they what the restitution what the what the punishment is to Dover for teaching intelligent design but even that aside it looks like intelligent design has been losing it with a good decision the president seems to be the design is going to have a pretty big struggle getting to the concert of high you know changed its school board policy from.

[01:05:46]
Allowing alternatives to evolution not don't go to getting rid of the policy. It's predicted with Rick Santorum refusing. He does he see in Senate that altered alternatives to evolution might have lost one of their key so. Borders that's certain Some suggest. And when you look at different states it seems like the pendulum is swinging twenty words keeping ID out keeping in sorting out.

[01:06:16]
That seems to be where the momentum is going these days. From Ohio to Pennsylvania even in Kansas which is difficult to follow because things seem to change every military. Every time they like the new school board they goes back and forth. So I would say it seems to be against designer.

[01:06:56]
But. He. Did. Well I guess there's a number of things I could say one is are parents going to leave public schools merely because evolution is taught. Potentially a guess it could happen. To some degree or maybe it's decided by the state of Georgia for instance that only evolution was taught and everything also never discussed Well families take their kids out of public schools because of that I guess is possible to some degree I don't know to what degree.

[01:07:44]
But at least another thing to say is evolutionary biologists other scientists will argue that nothing else needs to be there because evolution is what has been established what is the risks accepted for scientific process. In the public schools. At this point I would say no. I don't believe it's showing its merits yet there's all sorts of views out there that need time to be established before they should be in a textbook and it should take time and should there should be a process so we don't throw things in there like phonology we don't throw things in there that haven't proved their merits.

[01:08:40]
That it should take decades before it makes its way to a textbook. A And that's that's a general statement it could be exceptions. I don't know if I would say that absolute but I'd probably go pretty close to it I think you run a very sharp danger I bring it up.

[01:09:10]
And I don't know if I can give you the full list but depending on who starts this conversation or station can easily go in the wrong direction very quickly that you might dangerously mischaracterize evolution as being the only part of science that people ever debated about maybe if you read the news scientists debate all sorts of things whether Pluto is a planet or global warming one.

[01:09:33]
Decades ago whether D.N.A. was complex enough to encode heredity before Watson and Crick was believed to be proteins but D.N.A. if you keep giving this impression that evolution is the thing that's controversial I think it can dangerously miss characterize how science works in a lot of different ways and I'm not so sure we really want to go down this road especially when in most proud to classrooms evolution may be taught for a day or a week and I'm not sure it's the proper forum for really getting.

[01:10:05]
But the stuff. But. So it was certainly there's people who disagree with most of. It's. Quite right I mean a lot of times someone make the argument you don't really learn about controversies in science and to a grad student that it looks like everyone agrees on everything and everyone to know what can take out or hand in hand to make sure science moves forward and it's much messier than that and you probably don't learn that as you're suggesting until later in your career and it's not clear.

[01:10:53]
How much benefit it would be to the students to go into this unless it's done in a very consistent reasonable way and I'm not sure when it would be done that way. I mean if you're if you're thinking from my personal view on it. But. We're. Already. Well.

[01:12:00]
I wouldn't I wouldn't go so far to say is that designed there should stop I work. I would I wouldn't be I would try to be that arrogant to say you should stop doing this because I don't think you are going in the right direction I think they should be perfectly free to do the research they want to do and see if anything comes of it and we have been a bit short sighted historically and probably even now I would say in terms of what we could reasonably think could turn out being true later on we think continents can move and we do.

[01:12:29]
So we sometimes are a bit short sighted in cutting off avenues that might lead. To theories and I'm not going to proclaim I'm going to put my foot down and say you have to stop all your work but I am willing to say as I would argue that it doesn't belong to a high school biology class or what I should say a public school classroom at this point I'm not going to go so far to tell design peers what they should or should not be doing with their.

[01:12:58]
It bets what your search searching for. I would say dangerous in the sense of how the teachers would present it to the students. Correct that it there's a there's a lot of partialities that would be revealed but I would think on this particular issue that's one dimension of it that it might become an opportunity for some teachers to religion Bash and it might become an opportunity for other teachers to introduce their personal religious convictions there's a lot of abuses that could potentially.

[01:13:48]
But that's not the only reason I don't think opponents. Also don't think it belongs because it hasn't passed through scientific they are going to see that. There are all sorts of viable flus out there in the scientific world and if we present all of them in the biology classroom we never get.

[01:14:05]
There's all sorts of scientists who want great in trying to prove string theory want great funding to prove dark matter who want great and fun to prove Well can you prove the existence of a black hole and all sorts of scientists out there that want to do different kinds of projects we can't present all of those to students what we try to do is find the theories find the viewpoints have the most evidence behind them and that's what's presented in a textbook.

[01:14:31]
And I would say jumping a lot of steps if the design is pushed through the process too quickly. Amongst all those other views that place in the classroom. Good question they in terms of discussions in public forums. Material is not the right word they consistently suggest that they are not going to speak about the identity of the designer they leave that aside.

[01:15:09]
They suggest that the design the nature and features of design are they came not explain scientifically what they believe they can explain scientifically is that a designer has to be either the particular features of that design or they say. Scientific evidence is not for it was off that.

[01:15:29]
Now what some people worry about when you start a conversation about design theory is do they have in mind Judeo Christian conception of God in the theories they don't specifically openly suggest as you do judeo christian god but there is the fear that that's what's being smuggled in.

[01:15:48]
And to say that's what's alleged back and forth I'm not going to I'm not going to say whether I believe they're smuggling in something but that is a figure that what's being smuggled in is our guest from conception of a divine building. I thought there was another look so whatever.

[01:16:32]
We have in this is a this is a philosophy debate that depending on who you ask you can get very different answers but certainly there is an argument that scientific methods are not the only methods to arrive at truth but at least the rind issue to bring up is if you're not using scientific methods to discern the truth of a claim should that conversation occur in a scientific classroom.

[01:16:56]
So. Is that kind of method. Something that should be discussed some science classroom I mean you can agree that there are different methods different procedures for getting up the truth but what we typically was just we have to use scientific computer called methods in order to be with a little room so if it's.

[01:17:33]
Anything else I could. Potentially answer. But I think if you take about it I would suggest that the design doesn't belong yet largely because the fourth point. Hasn't been satisfied but we really argue that. We need. Can you determine true. I'm not I'm not ruling that I'm not ruling out those possibilities I'm just suggesting if you're going to have an about a classroom a peer review publication going through the procedures to where it belongs in textbooks need to be satisfied.

[01:18:32]
That. Henry Balor does it much better than I do. Think it's called The Myth of the scientific method that's been around so the news the book I believe it's called The Myth of the scientific method but be that as it may he has description of what he calls the knowledge filter and it talks about all the different claims you have out there in the world from Suzanne Somers claiming that you can cure age aging process which that's been a controversy in the news versus carbohydrates being the.

[01:19:25]
Depending on you know what your were talking about carbohydrates being a good or bad thing for the diet all those claims are out there in the world circulating around and what Ballard suggests is there are different measures there's different procedures that we use as human beings to filter out stuff that's credible versus stuff that we probably don't need to investigate further in the monk the things he suggests is publication peer review conferences debates time.

[01:19:55]
That's the short sketch of some of them. And I know there are others that are missing but that you have people doing the same experiment different play. And they help remove your personal bias you know if I think I have resolved the problem of confusion and someone else across the country either confirms or rejects what I've done that might show that my claims have some credibility depending on which direction that I've experienced Go those kinds of things are what's needed in order for something to be established and it doesn't necessarily guarantee truth in each case because things can pass through the filter and might not be detected in the first year or first two years five years but it raises probabilities that's oftentimes only working with.

[01:20:44]
Really were really sure the earth was flat. We were really sure continents didn't move we were really sure D.N.A. Well I don't know how to rule pretty sure D.N.A. was much too simple for the code for heredity but no time. But those procedures like peer review publication conferences debates help increase the probabilities feet.

[01:21:18]
Eight. Four or you explain combustion through phlogiston that there's something odorless something clear in the Navy air that explains why things best in the frames. Say it's had some to do with oxygen but before or through interesting theories. Take some time for claims to be sorted out. Only that.

[01:22:00]
Or. Right right for instance creationists it's not clear if there's anything. In terms of the critical evidence that would never cause them to give up the belief that the with the six to ten thousand years old and that criticism that. Criticism has been turned on its head against evolution of delegates design theorists suggest that evolutionary biologists will not reject evolution no matter what happens.

[01:22:43]
There are debates back and forth about dogmatism. That certain communities are not going to reject their own belief set and I would suggest to you I could not really do justice to that issue it's a real big one. Of course Thomas takes it up to some degree I take it up for different purposes of my earlier dissertation work years ago but it had to do with expert witnesses in the court it's a bit of a different issue than this one but the short answer is I can't give you an algorithm that answers it's much messier than saying We take a pill of all the biologists out there in the world and if seventy five percent of them say it's true then it's true it.

[01:23:27]
Really keep you something that concrete it's much messier than that it has to do at least in part with whether Connex what other theories whether it's used as a foundation for other work and a pro instance just to give an example the pretty confident about D.N.A. about child gaps rule is that different base pairs go with each other in different kinds of ways because there's so much other work that we want.

[01:23:54]
It's not that it's not a single algorithm of doing opinion polls and there's other dimensions of it that I don't I'm not sure we can really articulate quite yet considering that we. We are a mistake prone. Or. We're. Not. We are or were all we were. Really. Just.

[01:24:44]
A matter how hard no matter how many times. More over the. Line. We're getting into realms a process which I know some of us does stray into philosophy quite heavily and I would there's a number of things I would say one this debate about materialism is not going to be answered in short amount of time I mean this is another dimension to these debates where everything has to be explained in a physical material way and I would say even scientists disagree and you can very well see it with Dawkins versus Francis cold's So there's certainly disagreement with the internal to scientific communities I write it about whether you can use anything besides material explanations in the world but at least they tend to agree that if you are within the realm of science and material explanations is where you're supposed to start.

[01:25:51]
I think. Thank you.