Creationism & relativism
March 9, 2005 10:24 AM   Subscribe

Creationism in our schools may be more a product of liberal relativism than of Christian Fundamentalism. "But even on a seemingly clear-cut issue such as creationism, the division is not so sharp. Liberals have often been at the forefront of questioning the authority of science. It is liberals who have argued that science education should respect cultural differences and that the curriculum should be immediately relevant to everyday life of students. Creationists have leapt at the opportunity presented by educational theories to put the knowledge of pupils on the same level as that as scientists, by putting forward the demand to 'teach the controversy'." Previous (and very different) MetaFilter discussion of ID here. Current FPP about the dangers of PC liberalism here.
posted by OmieWise (112 comments total)
 
I'm looking forward to having time to slog through that whole article, so that I can say "what a load of crap" with more certainty.
posted by gurple at 10:35 AM on March 9, 2005


I don't know what Kaplinsky's been smoking, but when he writes things like this:

But in historical terms creationism is weaker than ever before. Christianity has long been a powerful force in US culture. It is hard to make the case that it exists today in a more fundamentalist, or a more right-wing, politically influential, form.

It's clear that he's either blind, ignorant, or disingenuous. And that's where he lost this reader. How can I lend credence to someone who has obviously divorced himself from reality, to borrow a phrase?
posted by clevershark at 10:39 AM on March 9, 2005


"science education should respect cultural differences"

I don't remember hearing that about science education.
posted by destro at 10:39 AM on March 9, 2005


Look, it's very simple. You teach that their are multiple viewpoints, briefly describe them, then go on to expound on the theory that is currently held by most experts in the field. Ideally kids should be taught to make their own decisions, but they have to be informed first.

the curriculum should be immediately relevant to everyday life of students.

Is this meant to suggest that knowledge of evolution isn't relevant? Because you could make a case for that, but you could also say the same about algebra. Doesn't mean it's not worth teaching.
posted by squidlarkin at 10:44 AM on March 9, 2005


I'm not sure I completely agree with him, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. In the middle of the article, where he begins to link the rise of 'bias guidlelines' with the exlicitly pluralist 'teach the controversy' strategy of Intelligent Design (sic), I think it gets very interesting.
posted by OmieWise at 10:44 AM on March 9, 2005


Did Kaplinsky get some of that "faith based funding" like Armstrong?

Damn liberals and their creationism!
The nerve of them advocating such crap in the schools!
The well funded Armageddon Corps are gonna be pissed when they find out that the liberals are horning in on their territory!
One more liberal instigated and supported Scope's monkey trial and I'm giving up my liberal badge and asking for a refund of my dues!
[/smartass remarks]
posted by nofundy at 10:51 AM on March 9, 2005


I think there is a valid point here. Most of my friends are quite well educated, and highly critical of the Christian right. And yet they many are all to ready to believe in astrology, tarot, crystals, homeopathy, the magic herb of the week, past lives, and "buffet line" spirituality [i.e. they take what feels good from Native American, Hawaiian, Buddhist, and pseudo-Celtic traditions, and leave behind what is difficult or challenging].

If I challenge this - for instance, if I refuse to answer 'what is your sign?' - the inevitable response is a disdainful: "Well, M is a scientist. It's just another religion, but he won't acknowledge that."

This disdain for science seems to cut across left and right, seculars and believers.
posted by kanewai at 10:52 AM on March 9, 2005


the theory that is currently held by most experts in the field.

Most? All. Evolution is the fact, natural selection the theory -- and although there is some controversy over the exact nature and scope of natural selection, creationism is simply not on the table of modern biology. Period.
posted by docgonzo at 10:52 AM on March 9, 2005


Why stop at including creationism? How about teaching the old polytheistic Greek religion to people in biology class? I don't think people are nearly inclusive enough!
posted by clevershark at 10:56 AM on March 9, 2005


t's clear that he's either blind, ignorant, or disingenuous. And that's where he lost this reader. How can I lend credence to someone who has obviously divorced himself from reality, to borrow a phrase?

Clevershark, come on. Christian fundamentalism in the US may be more pervasive then it was in the 1960's, but is it worse then in the 1860's, or in the 1600's?

Is this meant to suggest that knowledge of evolution isn't relevant? Because you could make a case for that, but you could also say the same about algebra. Doesn't mean it's not worth teaching.

I don't think you could make that case for algebra at all. Higher math is needed for just about every professional feild out there, and needed to get into collage. Evolution, on the other hand, is not needed for anyone who's not going into biology, epidemiology, farming or other professions that deal with biology.

For whatever reason, "Life Sciences" is seen as one of the core sciences that kids should learn about, along with Physics, Chemistry, and Earth Science (geology/astronomy). If it's going to be taught, it should be taught correctly (with no mention of creationism, except maybe a helpful guide for refuting creationist arguments, IMO)

Aaaanyway, I thought I'd relate a anecdote about my high school education. Ames High was big into political correctness. We read lots of "multicultural" books in the English program, to the point that I began to wonder if all literature dealt with race relations. Then I realized the point was to learn how to analyze the books, and that it didn’t really matter what they were about, the school board just happened to pick those things.

I remember my western-civilization class, discussing the Holocaust, and cognizant that many people were holocaust deniers, I wondered if perhaps their should be some consideration to the “sensitivities” of holocaust deniers in the curriculum, so as not to offend them. And then I thought, “What a strange thing to think.” But it would fit with the pattern of being sensitive to everyone. PC people may become so worried about not offending anyone that they become self-defeating and not capable of taking on their enemies.
posted by delmoi at 11:08 AM on March 9, 2005


Between this and the PC article referenced in the FPP, is this the beginning of a "you have no one to blame but yourselves" attack on the American Left? I'm beginning to wonder...

The only people to blame for the increasing prevalence of Creationism in public schools are Christian fundamentalists. Period.
posted by mkultra at 11:09 AM on March 9, 2005


Hooey. Hooey.

Saying science education should be relevant to the student's experience means you don't teach gravity by talking about avalanches to students in Florida.

It doesn't mean you take discredited, logically inconsistent crap that doesn't stand up to the scientific method next to widely accepted and tested theories.
posted by nathanrudy at 11:14 AM on March 9, 2005


I think that Kaplinsky offers a thoughtful discussion about the appeal of intelligent design, and why it has or hasn't been successful. And he himself admits that, though multiculturalism concepts have crept into science curricula, the impact is not the same as in the humanities. (Like the study that compares advocates of Afrocentrism and intelligent design.)

Clevershark, there's some merit to his statement that creationists are losing ground. (On preview, what delmoi said.) Legal challenges to creation science or intelligent design have been largely successful. Plus the comparison of the Da Vinci Code to the Left Behind series is pretty compelling anecdotal evidence that not everyone kowtows to biblical literalism.

Slightly more problematic: Kaplinsky seems to lump together Christians as the opponents to evolution. But they're not quite so monolithic. Check out, for example, this description of the Catholics' position on evolution.
posted by Scooter at 11:15 AM on March 9, 2005


I was reading through this to find any good evidence that actually supports his thesis. I kept reading hoping for example, he would provide the name of a single relativist that is on the forefront (or backfront) of pushing creationism as a second science. He doesn't provide that (although I will admit the blather and long-windedness reduced me to skimming through the last half of the article). He just says things like "an editorial supporting creationism teaching appeared in the liberal New York Times" - as though just the mention of New York Times and liberal was enough to show that that editorial must have been from a relativist viewpoint.

This guy sounds like a cranky conservative who believes in evolution and is really embarrassed by the fact that fundamentalist creationists are also right wing, so he has to rationalize an argument that he can't support. In the end, his argument was almost as convincing as creationism.

As for the comment above about the person with liberal friends who believe in junk, well yes, there are a lot of liberals who believe in crap. It still boils down to believers who would twist science to fit their agendas. (Take half of the programs at the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicines). Believers not relativists.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:16 AM on March 9, 2005


This Kaplinsky guy seems to equate good strategy, such as the "wedge" strategy that ID proponents are adopting, with weakness. He says, essentially, "why would they have to resort to such tactics if they were as strong as they used to be"?

I think he's confusing the choice and use of effective strategies with weakness. Fact is, the Christian Right, and the Right in general, are a lot smarter about their marketing ("framing", what have you) than they used to be. A lot smarter than most of the left has been lately. I want to see better evidence than he's giving me that they're losing ground.
posted by gurple at 11:18 AM on March 9, 2005


I've never heard of anybody pushing for Astrology to be taught in school.
posted by destro at 11:19 AM on March 9, 2005


Ah, but as any good southern Christian will tell you, Catholics are not Christians.
posted by flarbuse at 11:20 AM on March 9, 2005


I too think its not such a left-right thing as an anti-intillectual thing. People on both sides of the eisle love to ignore data if it doesn't fit thier preconceived notions.
"You have a pHd in Physics? So what my viewpoint on physics is just as valid as yours."*

*This strawman brought to you by Ford...
Have you driven a Ford latley?
posted by ozomatli at 11:22 AM on March 9, 2005


First the Marxists came for E.O. Wilson and the Sociobiologists, and the Academic Left.

They the Liberals came for the evolutionary biologists, and the Academic Left cheered.

They the Deconstructionists came for the "socially constructed patriarchal Western" scientific "paradigm", and the Academic Left cheered.

Now the Christian Fundies come for Darwin, and the Academic Left says, "what, we set a precedent????"


Science is science when it doesn't care if you get offended on the way to its discovering the truth.
posted by orthogonality at 11:31 AM on March 9, 2005


My point wasn't that people are pushing astrology to be taught in schools [although, in 7th grade - c 1980 - we did have a six week course in ESP as part of our biology class. And yeah, it was on the final]. It's that the idea of science, and intellectual discourse, is under attack from both left and right. And this makes it more vulnerable to attack from fundementalists.

The biggest irony in the article was that a Georgia County required textbooks to post this disclaimer on evolution: This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

As all science should, really.
posted by kanewai at 11:32 AM on March 9, 2005


The "evolution is an irrefutable fact" people have always seemed to me to need some clarification. I have no doubt that intraspecies microevolution occurs: that is, within a species genetic modification occurs over time. But it always seemed to me that there is serious doubt about interspecies evolution. How is it that human beings evolved into the unique capacity for language? Making infinite use of finite resources is something unique only to language. The only other place it can be found in the sciences is on the molecular level. It just doesn't make sense that this capacity would just spring up and only spring up in humans.

With some phenomenon only being able to be explained by random chance, I would say that interspecies evolution isn't a slamdunk. And since it isn't, I don't really see where one can be so sure that there isn't something that gave humans things as unique and useful as language.
posted by dios at 11:39 AM on March 9, 2005


Not to be an ass dios, but maybe you should ask someone qualified in biology to answer your questions before you annouce that you have found a hole in evolution. I am sure that your concerns have been addressed before. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it doubtful.
posted by ozomatli at 11:44 AM on March 9, 2005


I think he's confusing the choice and use of effective strategies with weakness. Fact is, the Christian Right, and the Right in general, are a lot smarter about their marketing ("framing", what have you) than they used to be.

You're right, and make no mistake, ID is indeed the "thin edge of the wedge":

Many Biblical (or Genesis) creationists ... realize that the IDM ‘doesn’t go as far as we like’, but think that this is a reasonable price to pay for what they see as a potentially effective ‘thin edge of the wedge’ strategy. They reason, ‘Let’s just get the camel’s nose inside the tent, then we can concentrate on these other issues. Let’s win one battle at a time.’

In theory, I have no problem with science teachers noting that not everyone agrees with Darwin's theories, there are others who believe that things such as the human eye suggest that there was some sort of design involved - because this is a true statement.

But the problem is that none, and I mean none of the local school board yahoo types who want ID in science class want it because they have legitimate scientific concerns about Darwin's theories. They want the camel's nose inside the tent, with an eye on getting the rest of the damned thing inside soon as possible.
posted by kgasmart at 11:46 AM on March 9, 2005


wow. humans are the only ones with language. wait 'till the rest of the animal kingdom finds out. oh. wait. they already had language before us. ooops.
posted by ewkpates at 11:49 AM on March 9, 2005


dios writes " With some phenomenon only being able to be explained by random chance, I would say that interspecies evolution isn't a slamdunk."


You forgot to qualify that: "With some phenomena I, dios, can only explain by random chance...."

It's the Argument from Personal Incongruity. Just because you can't imagine the answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

Caesar couldn't have explained the working of an internal combustion engine, but that doesn't mean your Ford was created by God.


And evolution isn't about random chance, although that's a common misperception/slur: mutations are (more or less) random, but evolution is anything but, as it only conserves mutations that are advantageous.

(Advantageous, that is, in some particular environment, and only more advantageous that some other allele -- it's entirely possible for an often deleterious mutation like sickle-cell to be conserved, and in fact it's conserved in proportion to the incidence and lethality of the malaria it protects against in its heterozygous form, even as it kills its carrier in homozygous form.)
posted by orthogonality at 11:50 AM on March 9, 2005


Argument form Personal Incredulity, that is.

I am a slave to my spell checker.
posted by orthogonality at 11:51 AM on March 9, 2005


Gurple and Clevershark: Assuming you've read the article in full by now, are you still so dismissive? It seems he makes a number of good points which I think at least deserve discussion. If you exist in an environment where a museum can't call native creation stories 'Myths' for fear of insulting a culture - you create the possibility of people demanding that their 'non-myths' be taken as seriously as science (rather than seriously as science). And, again, the article points out that it wasn't until 1968 (within living memory) that laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution were struck down. And not until '87 was creationism taken out of the classroom - so creationism was very much stronger for a large part of last century.

Whether the current situation is the fault of liberal pluralism is up for discussion - but the argument is made with reference to actual situations and events and thus at least deserves more than a 'what a load of bollocks' response. At the very least, you can attack the article's examples and conclusion - otherwise it's just knees a-jerkin'
posted by Sparx at 11:52 AM on March 9, 2005


Making infinite use of finite resources is something unique only to language.

"Making infinite use of finite resources?" How does language do that?

With some phenomenon only being able to be explained by random chance

Evolution isn't random chance. It's random chance plus natural selection. "Evolution is like a tornado hitting a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a 747" is an old creationist attack, but it's not a good analogy for evolution.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:56 AM on March 9, 2005


Wow, those guys at spiked don't ever get tired, do they?

This essay is largelyblah but the notion that liberals have been at the "forefront" of questioning science is crap. It is yet another dig at the completely made up bogeyman that is "liberal relativism." I've never heard anyone seriously advocate "multicultural science" or "science by consensus." There has been much debate about the extent to which "scientific truths" are influenced by culture, but nobody questions the scientific process itself.
posted by nixerman at 11:58 AM on March 9, 2005


wow. humans are the only ones with language. wait 'till the rest of the animal kingdom finds out. oh. wait. they already had language before us. ooops.
posted by ewkpates at 11:49 AM PST on March 9


Language is unique to humans. No other species has language. They can communicate, but no other species has the capacity of language; making infinite use of finite resources. I'd love to be corrected, but I distinctly remember studying that in linguistics. So if you can correct, please do. Otherwise, you look quite silly suggesting that all animals have language.

As for orthogonality and ozomalti:
If there is an explanation of the phenomenom of language, please share. I am not aware of one. Nor are linguists like Noam Chomsky. But please explain it to me. I'll listen. I wasn't trying to act like I single-handedly disproved interspecies evolution. I was just offering one particular question. By all means, please explain it instead of just insulting me.
posted by dios at 11:59 AM on March 9, 2005


Making infinite use of finite resources is something unique only to language.

Dios, not to take issue with the rest of your arguments, as others have and will do so much more effectively than I could, but could you clarify what that sentence means? It intrigues me.

posted by signal at 11:59 AM on March 9, 2005


Making infinite use of finite resources is something unique only to language.

"Making infinite use of finite resources?" How does language do that?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:56 AM PST on March 9


Human language is the only thing in the natural sciences that displays the charateristic of infinte use of finite resources. Or discrete infinity. To find anything else like it in the world, one has to look at the cellular level.

Basically, words are finite, but one can make infinite use of them. You can make as many constructions as possible with them. I think Wilhem von Humboldt was the first to note it.
posted by dios at 12:04 PM on March 9, 2005


Christian fundamentalism in the US may be more pervasive then it was in the 1960's, but is it worse then in the 1860's

One significant difference is that since the late '60s, Christian fundamentalists have become actively, directly involved in politics and policy. This was a strategy consciously adopted by the Right around the time of the Wallace campaign, Nixon's infamous "Southern strategy," etc. By contrast, up till that point many strains of religious fundamentalism generally kept out of politics as fundamentalism -- that is, politics was often seen as too "worldly" an issue to even partake of in the first place. In other words, the people who believed the end times were just around the corner largely didn't vote (much less run for office) back then. Now they do.

On a related note, there was somewhat more of an awareness of politics along class lines, rather than "moral" ones -- which explains, in part, why you could have left-wing farmer-labor cooperatives in the 1930s (for example) that obviously included rural/urban members as well as religious/non-religious ones. I'm not saying that that happened all the time by any means (nor, of course, that fundamentalist challenges to science didn't exist before -- cf. Scopes, of course), but that paradigmatically, the concept of political commonality regardless of religious commonality did exist in a way that seems to have been largely eradicated since the post-1968 GOP strategic shift to claim the mantle of morality/religion for themselves.
posted by scody at 12:05 PM on March 9, 2005


dios writes "By all means, please explain it instead of just insulting me."

I don't think I was insulting you, just pointing out your use of poor arguments. It wasn't meant as a personal slam, it's part of the process of debate.
posted by orthogonality at 12:07 PM on March 9, 2005


I can make an infinite use of a stack of peanuts. You're talking gibberish.
posted by destro at 12:07 PM on March 9, 2005


Basically, words are finite, but one can make infinite use of them. You can make as many constructions as possible with them.

"As many constructions as possible" is not "infinite." The number of possible books of, say 200,000 words or less is very, very large, but it is not infinite. The number of possible libraries containing 10 million or fewer books, each with 200,000 words or less is still finite. Language allows for a very wide variety of thoughts that can be expressed, but not an infinite amount--at least not given a finite space and a finite time.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:08 PM on March 9, 2005


The liberal-conservative distinction doesn't make much sense when it comes to opposition to "relativist" interpretations of science. For starters, the most vocal opponents of what Kaplinsky is attacking are all liberal-to-old left--e.g., Alan Sokal. It's more of a sociologists/theorists vs. real, live scientists thing.
posted by thomas j wise at 12:12 PM on March 9, 2005


Sparx, those two points aren't related at all. The question of the truth value of Native American myths is in no way related to the question of what is and what isn't science. This is another sloppy example used by the author. Even if we all got together and declared every creation myth under the sun to be "true" this wouldn't affect science, and particularly the study of evolution, one bit. The claim that multiculturalism somehow undermines science is nonsense. Scientists don't care whether you respect the beliefs of other cultures or not.

And, dios, there's an in fact an infinite difference between very large numbers and infinity. I don't see where you got this mistaken idea. The number of possible combinations of words for a given language may be large but it is by no means infinite.
posted by nixerman at 12:13 PM on March 9, 2005


destro: no you can't. You are missing The Point. Do some google searches to read about language, discrete infinity or "infinite use of finite means." You'll see that it has nothing to do with the ability to do things with peanuts.

DA: I misstated myself when I said "as possible." That was incorrect statement on my part. Language displays the characteristic of discrete infinity and is the only thing other than the cellular level that does. You can make infinite constructions out of finite means. As far as I know, this concept isn't even disputed in linguistics since the 1800's.
posted by dios at 12:14 PM on March 9, 2005


the theory that is currently held by most experts in the field.
Most? All.

Eh, not so fast. I've met some scientists who are highly respected within the science community who reject evolution. Just last semester, we had two nationally known scientists- one a creationist, one an evolutionist- have a debate here. Both are good friends with each other and was very interesting. But, just like those who are against stem-cell research, it is really very easy: just study a discipline within the sciences that doesn't conflict with your personal beliefs. It's not really that hard.

Why stop at including creationism? How about teaching the old polytheistic Greek religion to people in biology class? I don't think people are nearly inclusive enough!
The difference being is there is some stuff floating around there with scientific backing that support creationism. I'm not going to say the science is all that valid, but it is there nonetheless.

Slightly more problematic: Kaplinsky seems to lump together Christians as the opponents to evolution. But they're not quite so monolithic. Check out, for example, this description of the Catholics' position on evolution.
Word. I went to Catholic schools 2-12 and evolution was taught with nay a problem.

It just doesn't make sense that this capacity would just spring up and only spring up in humans.
And the same could be said for all biological life: why can living organisms undertake processes inorganic stuff can't? Your idea is completely relative to how inclusive you want to make your test group. Plus, the development of language has taken place over many eons- it didn't not just appear in one generation.

To find anything else like it in the world, one has to look at the cellular level.
Doesn't that kind of debunk your theory of Making infinite use of finite resources is something unique only to language.? One of the basic underlying concepts of biochemistry is that finite elements & building blocks can make infinite macromolecules through catabolism (and vica-versa through metabolism).
posted by jmd82 at 12:14 PM on March 9, 2005


One significant difference is that since the late '60s, Christian fundamentalists have become actively, directly involved in politics and policy.

Absolutely right, which is why I laugh every time I hear the fundies try to claim credit for, say, the Civil Rights crusade of the '60s - when it fact it was liberal Christianity that fought that battle while the likes of Jerry Falwell sat on the sidelines.
posted by kgasmart at 12:17 PM on March 9, 2005


I kept reading hoping for example, he would provide the name of a single relativist that is on the forefront (or backfront) of pushing creationism as a second science

and also to nixerman: I don't think that's the point. It's the evironment that relativism has created that has allowed one group to say 'We should be treated as a second science' - and then when science attempts to shut them down then say 'see, we're worthy of discussion'. It's not relativism explicitly that allows this, but the social environment it has created has given rather more freedom and legitimacy to certain agendas than they would like.

Or at least that's what I took from the article.
posted by Sparx at 12:18 PM on March 9, 2005


nixerman writes ""And, dios, there's an in fact an infinite difference between very large numbers and infinity. I don't see where you got this mistaken idea. The number of possible combinations of words for a given language may be large but it is by no means infinite."


No dios is correct: he's saying that one can always lengthen any sentence, creating a new thought or idea, to an infinite length if desired, even using very few words.

I demonstrate:

"dios said 'foo' about evolution."

"nixerman said 'dios said "foo" about evolution.'"

"dios said 'nixerman said "dios said 'foo' about evolution.'"'"

And so forth.

The infinity comes not from the combinatorial nature of language -- which as you points out, alone would just make for a very large universe of fixed-word-length sentences, but from the ability to add additional words, thereby multiplying the previous total possibilities by the number of words that can used in the new "slot".

In practice, of course, there seems to be a threshold beyond which recursive sentences such as my example become un-understandable, as if the "stack space" (an analogy from recursion computers) in the human brain is limited by physical constraints.
posted by orthogonality at 12:20 PM on March 9, 2005


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt
and
A Harvard Paper that looks like it deals with it.

For those of you who think I am just making this up.
posted by dios at 12:21 PM on March 9, 2005


LAs for orthogonality and ozomalti:
If there is an explanation of the phenomenom of language, please share. I am not aware of one. Nor are linguists like Noam Chomsky. But please explain it to me. I'll listen. I wasn't trying to act like I single-handedly disproved interspecies evolution. I was just offering one particular question. By all means, please explain it instead of just insulting me.


No diss man, If I was an expert in biology I would no doubt try to help you.

Onto the "making infinite use of finite resources" I don't know how exactly to take that to be honest. Being from a physict background I can tell you that there are oodles of physical systems with discrete but infinite number of states. Using a square conduction metal box I can produce an infinite number of standing waves inside of it, but all of them are discrete in nature.
posted by ozomatli at 12:23 PM on March 9, 2005


devilsadvocate, no one said anything about finite space or time. there are an infinite number of combinations of words. don't believe me? let's start counting.

re: language and other species: dios, you're truly talking out of your ass here. verbalization is unique to humans, but many other species have "language." i point to other large primates first, but there's hundreds of examples -- whales, birds, bees, etc. i could go on, perhaps infinitely.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:26 PM on March 9, 2005


dios,
Ok I read the bit and I will grant you that language is "making infinite use of finite resources", but I guess I still don't see the connection with evolution in the macro or micro sense.

p.s. I am not being obtuse.
posted by ozomatli at 12:27 PM on March 9, 2005


Sparx, the relativism you see in popular culture is not an academic construct. You'd be hard pressed to find a intellectual willing to seriously defend any truly relativist position. Here's a funny Guardian article that jokingly addresses the issue. When you say the "environment that relativism has created" I feel you're being completely dishonest or perhaps lazy. Relativism, as a philosophy in the different fields, has been gone for a long while. It might make sense to say "the environment that a hyper-politicized culture has created" or perhaps "the environment that media-driven democracies has created" or something along those lines. There would be something to those statements.
posted by nixerman at 12:29 PM on March 9, 2005


ozo: it is unique at the level of organisms, as I said. On the cellular or molecular levels, it exists. But much ink has been spilled about how at the level of organisms, discrete infinity only exists in the creative aspect of language. And only humans possess it.

Incidentally, this is all why no one has been able to teach apes language. Though many noted linguists have tried for centuries to teach animals language, they have all failed. When scientists claim they can, they have been proven to false, usually because of suggestive questioning by the linguist. La Mettrie thought it was just a defect in the articulatory organs. But he was wrong. Its because no other human has the capacity for language. And why would one suspect that we could teach an ape to use language? It would mean that they always had the capacity but just couldn't figure it out. That would be along the lines of assuming that man can fly, but we just never figured it out.
posted by dios at 12:31 PM on March 9, 2005


A column in the school paper here tried to argue along similar lines regarding the stickers added to textbooks in Cobb County. The writer of the textbook itself responds here, and another awesome bio professor gave the proverbial smackdown in a letter to the editor the following day.
posted by rafter at 12:34 PM on March 9, 2005


Hat Maui: they do not have language. They can communicate, but their "calls" are not langugage. The calls might mean a finite number of things, but they cannot use them in any manner that could be called language. Language is unique to humans.

ozomatli: As far as how that relates to macroevolution: I just stated, how is it possible for just one species to have something so unique and useful? There has to be some explanation of why humans are capable of it but no other species is. I don't pretend to the know the answer. But at some level, I suspect the answer will have to come back to something like chaos theory. And to some, that isn't any more gratifing or reasonable than believing there is a design. That's all my point was.
posted by dios at 12:35 PM on March 9, 2005


In practice, of course, there seems to be a threshold beyond which recursive sentences such as my example become un-understandable, as if the "stack space" (an analogy from recursion computers) in the human brain is limited by physical constraints.

A neat example of human stack space I remember from a computer science class:
The girl the dog the boy kicked bit cried.
posted by spacewrench at 12:40 PM on March 9, 2005


Language displays the characteristic of discrete infinity

I wasn't sure what you meant by "discrete infinity," so I googled for it and found some linguistics papers. This one[PDF] gave me some insight. The author writes: "Discrete infinity is infinity because of the capacity of what it has to produce infinitely many sets of objects by composing ad infinitum a finite set of building blocks.

That is, language can theoretically express an infinite number of ideas, if there's no limit placed on the number of words which can be used to express the idea. (On preview, what Hat Maui said.) But as a practical matter, only a finite number of ideas can be expressed; a human can only read or hear a finite number of words in a lifetime!

There's nothing rare or unusual or special about this either. It applies just as well to forests and trees as it does to ideas and words. The placement of trees within a forest can theoretically create an infinite number of different forests--given an infinite space for the forest to grow in!

While it's trivially true that language has the property of "discrete infinity" in that sense, I fail to see how that is at all unusual or special.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:48 PM on March 9, 2005


While there is some (but not conclusive) evidence to suggest that neanderthal had language, there's also some (but not conclusive) evidence we interbred, thus not quite constituting a separate species. The possibility remains, however - that we were not the only species to develop language.
posted by Sparx at 12:49 PM on March 9, 2005


Doesn't Koko the guerilla use sign language Dios?


Anyway, what a load. Everything is a theory. Much of physics is a theory. Quantum theory, for instance, but I am not demanding my own theory, that has no evidence, be taught in schools.

To me it's less liberals than right wingers wanting to coopt a liberal frame of thinking out of context, taking something like the arguments applying to de-segregation and applying them, incorrectly, to science.
posted by xammerboy at 12:49 PM on March 9, 2005


Doesn't Koko the guerilla use sign language Dios?

Only to keep quiet when she's out on ambush.
posted by rafter at 12:52 PM on March 9, 2005


Hmm. I would like to know the name of jmd's "well respected scientist" who is a creationist. When my university had someone come by to argue for creationism they got a person who phonied up his credentials and gave one of the shallowest, most uninformed arguments I've ever heard. I was insulted as a Christian, and I told him so.
I've read through a lot of creationist literature. It doesn't even do a good job of what it could possibly do: identify genuine matters that are not well explained by evolution (let's face it, there are still huge gaps in going from self-replicating molecules to something like DNA plus enzymes). Even then he lack of explanation does little to help the alternative explanation, that of creationism. Just because we couldn't imagine how the kidney worked in the 19th century, didn't mean that it required a divine explanation. Instead, creationism relies on the active misrepresentation of evolution. Evolution is not randomness, evolution is not even survival of the fittest (at least not in the sense that that phrase is generally used).
On the other hand, as I've said before, it takes faith to accept evolution. That is because it requires the mind to imagine periods of time that are beyond its natural capacity, and to think in terms of millions of years.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:53 PM on March 9, 2005


Complete gibberish. A dog with three different types of barks can create an infinite number of variations of combinations of any length with those barks. What that proves about language is nothing. It's irrelevant.

A platypus is unique too, does that mean it didn't evolve?
posted by destro at 12:55 PM on March 9, 2005


DA: You aren't really grasping what discrete infinity is or why it is unique. The arangement of trees isn't the same thing about what we are talking about. The creative capacity of language, the ability to make infinite use of finite means. That we are mortal doesn't reflect on it it all. There is al gap where only humans are given something as unique and useful as language.

The implications of it? Well, some linguists argue that it is what gives us everything that seperates us: politics, art, writing, cities, computers. By langugage, we are able to express infinite ideas.


Complete gibberish. A dog with three different types of barks can create an infinite number of variations of combinations of any length with those barks. What that proves about language is nothing. It's irrelevant.

A platypus is unique too, does that mean it didn't evolve?
posted by destro at 12:55 PM PST on March 9


That is completely wrong. You really aren't grasping what this is about.
posted by dios at 12:57 PM on March 9, 2005


Wow dude, you just blew my mind.
posted by destro at 1:01 PM on March 9, 2005


Dr. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh is a researcher who strongly believes in the ability of primates to use language. One of her most impressive observations involved a bonobo chimpanzee named Kanzi. Savage-Rumbaugh tried to no avail to train Kanzi's adoptive mother to use a keyboard of symbols. The researchers were surprised to find that Kanzi had been eavesdropping on his mother's lessons and had acquired a substantial vocabulary. From then on, Kanzi was not given structured training like his mother, but was taught while walking through the forest with his trainers. By the age of 6, Kanzi had acquired a vocabulary of 200 words and was able to construct sentences by combining words with gestures or with other words. Kanzi's most notable accomplishment was captured on videotape: he was told, "Give the dog a shot," and he proceeded to inject his stuffed dog with a syringe. Savage-Rumbaugh argues that Kanzi's language was initially dependent upon contextual cues, but that once he mastered a substantial vocabulary, he could respond accurately to 70% of novel commands from a concealed speaker. Critics say that Kanzi's accomplishments are not proof of language ability in primates because the crucial element in language ability is production, not comprehension.

but one example, and it's hardly confined to primates.

there's of course Rico the border collie. while at the animal sentience site that's linked, check out many more examples.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:02 PM on March 9, 2005


Doesn't Koko the guerilla use sign language Dios?
posted by xammerboy at 12:49 PM PST on March 9


I don't know of any linguist other than Penny Patterson who thinks this. She interprets everything for him, and many people think she uses suggestive cues. More importantly, she won't let any other scientists or linguists analyze her work.

Herb Terrace, a good linguist at Columbia, tried and let his results be studied. His experiment with Nim Chimpsky showed that isn't anything there. Penny Patterson and Koko is either experimental delusion or wishful thinking.

All the other linguists who tried have failed.
posted by dios at 1:04 PM on March 9, 2005


dios: Koko the talking monkey.

Lots of animals have language. Bees have language, insofar as they "tell" each other things. I don't see how human language is so unique.

I'm also in the camp that fails to see why the infinite nature of language means God made the world. Please explain. Plenty of things that occur in the wild are insanely unique. That doesn't mean that they didn't evolve that way. One time I saw a snake eat a toad. I thought, "Holy crap, that's the wierdest damn thing I've ever seen! Way to go, natural selection, gettin' that snake's mouth to be so big it'll hold a toad!" I didn't think, "ACK! BRAIN MELTING! Cannot handle complex input! God made world!"

BTW - kudos, dios, I now scan religious MeFi entries for your handle because I know you'll inevitably say something that sticks in my craw. I guess that makes you famous...to me...
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:07 PM on March 9, 2005


dios, you keep repeating phrases like "the ability to make infinite use of finite means" or "we are able to express infinite ideas" without any explanation of what they actually mean, giving the impression that you half remember some book or class from a long time ago, but not enough to actually make a cogent point.

Please, without using the phrase "infinite use of finite means", in what sense is language's combinatorial possiblities qualitatively different from those of, for example, whale songs or leopard spots?
posted by signal at 1:09 PM on March 9, 2005


Hat Maui: I'm familiar with Kanzi and Washoe and the rest.
It just isn't happening. No serious linguist or scientist believes these results and they are disproved when these "scientists" allow their experiments to be studied.

For instance, here is one take:
Most language experts dismiss experiments like the ones with Panbanisha as exercises in wishful thinking. "In my mind this kind of research is more analogous to the bears in the Moscow circus who are trained to ride unicycles," said Dr. Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies language acquisition in children. "You can train animals to do all kinds of amazing things." He is not convinced that the chimps have learned anything more sophisticated than how to press the right buttons in order to get the hairless apes on the other side of the console to cough up M & M's, bananas and other tidbits of food.

Dr. Noam Chomsky, the M.I.T. linguist whose theory that language is innate and unique to people forms the infrastructure of the field, says that attempting to teach linguistic skills to animals is irrational -- like trying to teach people to flap their arms and fly.

"Humans can fly about 30 feet -- that's what they do in the Olympics," he said in an interview. "Is that flying? The question is totally meaningless. In fact the analogy to flying is misleading because when humans fly 30 feet, the organs they're using are kind of homologous to the ones that chickens and eagles use." Arms and wings, in other words, arise from the same branch of the evolutionary tree. "Whatever the chimps are doing is not even homologous as far as we know," he said. There is no evidence that the chimpanzee utterances emerge from anything like the "language organ" Dr. Chomsky believes resides only in human brains. This neural wiring is said to be the source of the universal grammar that unites all languages

Dr. Terrace says Kanzi, like the disappointing Nim Chimpsky, is simply "going through a bag of tricks in order to get things." He is not impressed by comparisons to human children. "If a child did exactly what the best chimpanzee did, the child would be thought of as disturbed," Dr. Terrace said.
posted by dios at 1:11 PM on March 9, 2005



For instance, here is one take:


care to provide a link? and just who is this mysterious dr. terrace?
posted by Hat Maui at 1:17 PM on March 9, 2005


Sorry. Forgot the link. It's from a '95 NYT article. I'll dig it back up if it is in the archive.

And Terrace is Herb Terrace a famous Columbia linguist. He raised Nim Chimpsky to try to test the Gardner's test with Washoe. He showed that the 20 years of Washoe was one of the great wastes of time.
posted by dios at 1:26 PM on March 9, 2005


I think this idea of language as being somehow greater on an imaginary scale of uniqueness is flawed. You could always find a unique feature of some species, say the ability to synthesize protein X or the ability to burrow through the ground using a particular movement, and the fact that you find language to be amazing or incredible because it "makes intfinite use out of finite resources" has nothing to do with whether or not it could have evolved, or why other animals doen't have the same ability.

Other animals have gotten by just fine without language, just as we have gotten by just fine without color changing skin. That is all that needs to be explained in evolutionary terms. If you think that the launguage ability could not have evolved from a species that didn't have language, tell me why, otherwise it really is no different from any other unique ability in a bilogical or evolutionary sense.
posted by beegull at 1:27 PM on March 9, 2005


Here is a reprint of it. NYT archives be damned....
posted by dios at 1:28 PM on March 9, 2005


dios writes: "Hat Maui: they do not have language. They can communicate, but their 'calls' are not language. The calls might mean a finite number of things, but they cannot use them in any manner that could be called language. Language is unique to humans. "


How do you know?

Admittedly, among some species there appears to be a strictly limited set of calls.

But as I pointed out while defending your idea of infinite sentences, you don't need an infinite number of words, just the ability to recurse.

Language probably is unique to humans, but partly that';s because every time animals have been shown to possess aspect of language, "language" has been redefined to exclude those aspects. So saying language is unique to humans is close to being tautology, and as such, it doesn't reveal much more truth.

But you're not interested in revealing truth, you're interested in falsifying evolution. All well and good, but looking for unique species traits isn't too convincing. Trunks are unique to elephants, but does that mean elephants did not evolve?

Language can both be unique to humans and evolved from animals, just as the elephants' relative the sea cow has the rudimentary structures that in the elephant became the trunk.

Indeed, language to me seems evidence in favor of evolution. Many creatures have hyper-developed traits where those traits are responsible for its livelihood. Woodpeckers have hypertrophied neck muscles and skulls, to survive the relentless impact of their heads against hard wood. Sea lions have hypertrophied rear limbs, but the males reach gargantuan size, because the males compete fr exclusive access to harems.

In the case of humans, relatively slow naked apes on the savannah deprived of trees and the arboreal abilities of their ancestors, communication was one of the few tools allowing their survival. That language developed so quickly and to such an extent argues that evolution strongly conserved the mutations leading to it.
posted by orthogonality at 1:29 PM on March 9, 2005


You aren't really grasping what discrete infinity is or why it is unique.

Apparently I'm not. I'm looking forward to your explanation of it.

The arangement of trees isn't the same thing about what we are talking about.

Why not? How is it different?

The creative capacity of language, the ability to make infinite use of finite means.

If I didn't understand what you meant by "making infinite use of finite means" before, merely repeating the phrase is unlikely to further my understanding of the concept.

Well, some linguists argue that it is what gives us everything that seperates us: politics, art, writing, cities, computers.

Perhaps not art, but I won't deny that humanity's capacity for language--much more advanced than any other animal, at the very least, if not unique--is largely responsible for politics, writing, cities, and computers. I fail to see how this relates to your point, however.

That we are mortal doesn't reflect on it it all.... By langugage, we are able to express infinite ideas.

But that we are mortal, and thus capable of receiving only a finite number of words in a lifetime, is central to the concept, at least as I understand it from the paper I linked as well as the two links you provided.

From the Wikipedia article you linked, "Chomsky frequently quotes Humboldt's description of language as a system which 'makes infinite use of finite means', meaning that an infinite number of sentences can be created using a finite number of words."

As I understand this, "using a finite number of words," means that there are only a finite number of words in the English language--but it does not place a limit on the actual number of words used to express the idea.

I'm not sure I'm explaining that well--it's the difference between the number of different words and the total number of words. The sentence "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." has nine words, but only eight different words; "the" is used twice.

My understanding of "an infinite number of sentences can be created using a finite number of words," means that the number of different words in the sentence (eight, in my example) is necessarily finite, but the number of total words in the sentence (nine, in my example) need not be finite.

If my understanding is correct, it means that language on an abstract level could be used to represent an infinite number of ideas, but on a practical level--given the mortality of humans, and that a human can receive only a finite total number of words in a lifetime, only a finite number of ideas can be expressed.

To put it another way:
Number of different words = finite
Number of total words = infinite
Ideas that can be expressed = infinite
(This is what I understand to be meant by "Language makes infinite use of finite means.")
But,
Number of different words = finite
Number of total words = finite
Ideas that can be expressed = finite
(This is the practical reality, given the mortality of humans.)
Based on my understanding, it is true that language "makes inifinite use of finite means," but it is not at all special, because a forest does the same thing. If I am misunderstanding the concept, I welcome further explanation from you, but be forewarned that merely repeating "Language makes infinite use of finite resources" will not further my understanding.

On preview: "If a child did exactly what the best chimpanzee did, the child would be thought of as disturbed," Dr. Terrace said.

Even most 'disturbed' children have the capacity for language, and presumably the ability to make "inifinite use of finite means." Koko may not have the capacity for language that an average human child has, but even if she has as much capacity for language as a 'disturbed' child does, that seems to still be a capacity for language.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:30 PM on March 9, 2005


so dios, i'll accept your rebuttals of the primate stuff out of my own ignorance of the studies you've mentioned.

but i'll ask again: what about Rico?
posted by Hat Maui at 1:34 PM on March 9, 2005


You still have not proved the:

Humans unique == no evolution

Chomsky believes in it, why don't you?
posted by destro at 1:35 PM on March 9, 2005


As biologists like PZ Myers keep arguing, it's easy enough to find scientists who don't believe in evolutionary theory--physicists, for example. It is, however, very difficult to find biologists who don't believe in evolutionary theory.
posted by thomas j wise at 1:42 PM on March 9, 2005


Back in the day, we went to school, recited the Lord's Prayer, then sat down to science class and learned about evolution.

Actual detailed Bible teaching was done in church, Sunday school.

The system seemed to work fine. I was never taught any conflict between the two and I still don't see one.

So I find it entirely credible that 'liberal relativism' between then and now has at least enabled this situation where folks think it appropriate to teach the Bible in public schools. Never seemed either necessary or appropriate before....
posted by scheptech at 1:44 PM on March 9, 2005


Interesting discussion about language happening here, who would have thought?

Dios is presenting an interesting form of the argument from design. Language is a highly complex behavior that appears to be exclusive to humans. We can argue about what constitutes language, if there is a difference between communication and language, or even if a form of communication must be a certain level of complexity in order to be categorized as a language, but this is all a distraction (though a good one.) The example of language is given as a proof that it is possible that the world was made from an intelligent designer. unfortunately, one cannot get there from here. That the world appears complex and organized doesn't imply a creator at all. At most it could be argued that there must be a designer, but there is no way to ascertain the nature of this designer, ie. the designer may be a sentient perfect being or it could be a system of natural events without any agency at all. We can't prove God made the world using the argument from design.

The point is largely moot, in my mind, as the nature of God is not revealed in the world at all; God is outside the world and cannot be known in the context of the world. All we, as humans, can know of God is contained in faith. To attempt to make scientific arguments that support religion is ultimately an expression of doubt, not a reach for certainty.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:13 PM on March 9, 2005


DA, you appear to be correct that the argument of discrete infinity requires the ability to construct an infinitely long sentence: This property of discrete infinity accounts for the fact that there is no limit in principle to how many words a sentence may contain. So, in practical reality, it's unattainable. But I think the fundamental difference between this property of language and the communication between animals remains. By which I mean, if you had both a person who could literally say an infinite number of words using a finite set of vocabulary he could express an infinite number of ideas. OTOH, if you had a dog who could literally bark an infite number of barks, using again a finite set of vocabulary, it could NOT express an infinite number of ideas becase the dog remains incapable of relating the individual barks to each other in a meaningful way. Yes, it would be able to create an infinite number of patterns of barks, but taken together they wouldn't have any meaning separate from the individual barks. A sentence constructed in human language expresses ideas that are not necessarily inherent in the individual words; animals do not have the same ability.
On preview, elwood,
We can't prove God made the world using the argument from design.
I feel the need to be pedantic and point out that ID needn't be taken as a proof; it could just be an alternate theory.

Note that nowhere did I say that I believe in ID, or for that matter that I don't. If you're going to attack me, do it for misrepresenting the language/communication distinction, as I may well have done.
posted by solotoro at 2:27 PM on March 9, 2005


By which I mean, if you had both a person who could literally say an infinite number of words using a finite set of vocabulary he could express an infinite number of ideas.

No, I still don't agree. Even if this person could say an infinite number of words (let's say he's immortal), he still has a finite mental capacity. Even if he could say a sentence consisting of 512,973,214,513,232,084,203,205 words, I doubt he could comprehend the idea contained therein (presuming the same idea couldn't also be expressed in a much smaller number of words).

Now if you want to posit a person that has not only infinite lifespan but also infinite mental capacity, that person could comprehend an infinite number of different ideas, but I would argue that that person is so different from what we know as "human" that what can be said about him (relevant to this discussion) does not apply to humans.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:42 PM on March 9, 2005


if you had both a person who could literally say an infinite number of words using a finite set of vocabulary he could express an infinite number of ideas

You know, I doubt this. I think the person would almost certainly repeat themselves eventually, unless they merely started counting. The conceptual capacity of the human brain is not infinite and there's a set amount of information processing ability within the universe itself.

Of course, once you have an an immortal, omniscient being able to manipulate a universe's worth of of information - the question of God is rather moot.

ID needn't be taken as a proof; it could just be an alternate theory.

A theory with no evidence is merely a daydream.

on preview: Seeing as I just point for point came up with what DA said - does that make me the Devil?
posted by Sparx at 2:52 PM on March 9, 2005


Why stop at including creationism? How about teaching the old polytheistic Greek religion to people in biology class? I don't think people are nearly inclusive enough!
posted by clevershark at 10:56 AM PST on March 9 [!]


There's still a thing or two about anatomy, physiology, embalming, and chemestry that the "Ancient Egyptions" knew extensively.

Basically, words are finite, but one can make infinite use of them. You can make as many constructions as possible with them.

But in language, English and Japanese especially come to mind, it's what is NOT said that becomes half+ the message. That and the fact that so many words have multiple meanings makes me amazed daily that anybody can possible communicate anything to anyone else at all...





Oh man.. Dios is trying to unseat ParisParamus from his throne as KingTroll....Good Show!!
posted by Balisong at 3:13 PM on March 9, 2005


Oh man.. Dios is trying to unseat ParisParamus from his throne as KingTroll..

actually, i disagree. not in general, but this is perhaps the least trolling dios has ever done in any given thread in which he's participated. so dios, kudos, i guess.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:20 PM on March 9, 2005


Amazing how debates about evolution always come back to the whole man/monkey thing.

Creationists are, quite simply, desparate to draw a definite distinction between humans and "animals", because it's what the bible requires. Humans were created on a separate day. Humans have sin. Humans were given the Earth.

Science teaches us that humans are a type of animal.

This is the point biblical creationism has the main philosophical argument with, and they feel the need to drag the rest of biology down with them. However, it has very little to do with the actual, real study of evolution that is occurring in modern biology. But man/monkey is what the debate always returns to. Dios draws our attention to Chomsky (a linguist, not an evolutionary biologist, one should remember!) because he fits into the camp that believes that there is definite distinction between humans and other apes. Chomsky serves his purpose. Linguistics serves his purpose (maybe). The rest of evolutionary theory isn't so easy to dismiss.
posted by Jimbob at 3:38 PM on March 9, 2005


Good points, DA, Sparx, and Jimbob. I guess it comes down to drawing a line in the sand, and saying this is language and that is not. And it's never that easy, is it?

And my comment about ID was, as I said, pedantic. Calling it a worthless proof is fundamentally different than calling it a worthless theory.
posted by solotoro at 3:55 PM on March 9, 2005



Oh man.. Dios is trying to unseat ParisParamus from his throne as KingTroll..

actually, i disagree. not in general, but this is perhaps the least trolling dios has ever done in any given thread in which he's participated. so dios, kudos, i guess.


No really... I recognise it from my own trolling strategy..
Devils Advocate. Make outrageous or otherwise ironicaly/mirror image analogies that really make sence when you read them.. I do it all the time at LGF...
People hate it and attack you personally when you bring it up. It derails the conversation into arguing just the outrageous points you bring up, or they ignore you, and you loose interest.

It's Trolling.... Paris does it.. And so does Dios...

And so do I... heh....
posted by Balisong at 4:25 PM on March 9, 2005


uh, what?
posted by Hat Maui at 4:40 PM on March 9, 2005


Darn trolls! Get back under the bridge! :)

Even religion evolves and it sometimes seems it also devolves.
posted by nofundy at 4:47 PM on March 9, 2005


I am quite amused that when Dios claims macro evolution is BS he gets called-out for "Argument from Personal Incongruity"... and then half of MeFi does the same thing when it comes to "discrete infinity" as an aspect of language.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:00 PM on March 9, 2005


Darn trolls! Get back under the bridge! :)

You'll PAY your toll, one way ot the other!! Argh!!
posted by Balisong at 5:10 PM on March 9, 2005


This whole debate over creationism vs. evolution always confused me. I am Christian and I fail to find them inconsistent. When you take the good book too literally you get forced into these untenable arguments about how the Earth is only 6,000 years old etc. If these guys could see just a wee bit of allegory or at least acknowledge that dates and times may not be entirely accurate, even if the sentiment and teaching basically are, then most of these problems will melt away.
posted by caddis at 5:14 PM on March 9, 2005


Dios has done a great job of showing us how creationists argue, they don't. He's presented no evidence, cloaked his rhetoric in a science that has nothing to do with biology, and completely derailed the discussion. He should be commended for getting a bunch of interested and intelligent people to talk about something that has absolutley no bearing on ID (sic) or creationism, thereby making it seem as if his arguments (which could not be argued as they were completely ill-formed) somehow cast doubt on evolution.

Many people pooh poohed the article for claiming that relativism might have something to do with the reason that ID (sic) is making inroads in some school systems, but I have to say that I found it relatively persuasive on this point. By detailing the ways in which cultural relativism has (I think justly) fought to make curricula more inclusive, the article makes a pretty convincing case that as a matter of policy ID (sic) begins to look like another kind of cultural relativism. I don't think that the author ever argues or tries to argue that scientists or 'prominent relativists' support ID (sic), just that policies about cultural relativism create a climate that ID (sic) proponents have been smart to exploit.
posted by OmieWise at 5:36 PM on March 9, 2005


(Totally off-topic)

Dios: As someone with a linguistics degree, I honor you for attempting to fight the good fight. You're a far better man than I, who just started keening in aggravation and had to leave the thread, shaking my head and clucking my tongue in a mixture of disgust, sorrow, and frustration.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 5:37 PM on March 9, 2005


ozomatli: Spot on. Antiintellectualism is as American as apple pie and large capacity firearms. It lies at the roots of both creationism and the general dumbing down of American discourse.

As for the Argument from Personal Incredulity, I have difficulty conceiving how bats see by sonar, but they do anyway. Why would God design those pesky bats like that?

Why language? Natural selection, of course. Populations of "speaking" hominids stuck together, in true primate fashion, moved away from "non-speaking" but otherwise genetically similar compadres, and reproduced among themselves. The sine qua non of speciation is that genetically similar populations separate and cease or fail to interbreed. Eventually, the separated population--through "microevolution" (so misnamed by The Divine Troll)--lost the ability to interbreed with the "nonspeakers." It is not a case of Mrs. J. Fred Muggs giving birth to Tom DeLay, for example.

If The Divine Troll accepts "microevolution", or the genetic changes attendant to sexual reproduction and genetic drift, He (or She, for that matter) buys into the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution. Personal ignorance of the mechanism of speciation may allow one to posit the existence of a demiurge-of-the-deck that supervises speciation while conceding that all other natural mechanisms operate unsupervised.
posted by rdone at 5:52 PM on March 9, 2005


Balisong, I understand that this discussion is difficult to follow -- Lord knows, I'm having a tough enough time -- but, if you have nothing to add would you please be quiet.

I respectfully ask that you allow the rest of us to enjoy it.

Hey, look over there, a shiny thing! Why don't you go see what's up?
posted by cedar at 6:03 PM on March 9, 2005


Dios: I wholeheartedly disagree with you about evolution, but I appreciate you explaining your beliefs and I especially appreciate the discussion around "discreet infinity" - I hadn't heard of that before.

I think you over stress the uniqueness of human language, but I'm willing to offer that as a given for sake of argument. I agree with what others have pointed out that "unique human trait" does not point to "god created".

The "hard" science side of me is unhappy with the term "discreet infinity" as it is used by the "soft" science of linguistics. It reminds me of how appalled I was when I first saw how economists applied mathematics to models with obviously flawed assumptions (ie. producers and consumers possessing perfect knowledge).
posted by Bort at 6:35 PM on March 9, 2005


Discussion? It started as a discussion, but ended up as a derail when a bunch of people started pooh-poohing some arcane linguistics idea instead of just ignoring it as off-topic.

Or if was on-topic, requiring that Dios get around to getting very clear on his counter-argument, instead of trying to prove him wrong regarding a concept for which he claims subject-matter expertise.

I know nothing whatsoever about this idea of discrete infinity. I'm quite satisfied to accept that the idea is indeed well-established, well-accepted, and correct.

I don't see how it proves a damn thing about evolution one way or the other. Instead of braying on about how discrete infinity language must be some whacky theory, I'm gonna ask the more relevent question: how is it any different than, say, the old canard about eyeballs necessarily having been deliberately designed?

Same shit, different bucket, far as I can see.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:48 PM on March 9, 2005


I've been thinking about the argument of people v. dogs and language v. communication, and I think I used a bad example. What I should have said is that DA's "person that has not only infinite lifespan but also infinite mental capacity" would be able to express an infinite number of ideas in human language, but not in barks, because animal languages don't have the grammar to tie separate concepts together.

There, done. I'll shut up now.
posted by solotoro at 6:50 PM on March 9, 2005


I am Christian and I fail to find them inconsistent. When you take the good book too literally you get forced into these untenable arguments about how the Earth is only 6,000 years old etc.
posted by caddis at 5:14 PM PST on March 9


While obviously evolution is a threat to Young Earth Theory, it is also a threat to the doctrine of original sin. With evolution there is no possibility of Adam and Eve, and therefore no Fall, and no original sin. This is the greatest problem for the Christian who accepts evolution - if there was no original sin which required forgiveness, what purpose did Christ serve?

and on the matter of the derail, it's a fascinating one, so I'm not complaining.
posted by mek at 7:45 PM on March 9, 2005


It's not a threat to Original Sin as a metaphor however... Problems on a massive scale usually result when metaphors are ignored, misunderstood, or worse, taken literally...
posted by juiceCake at 8:34 PM on March 9, 2005


Let's cut to the chase here...just name one thing that does not evolve.

Physical constants don't count because we don't know for sure what they were before 4006BC.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 8:39 PM on March 9, 2005


dios, and all others interested:

If there is an explanation of the phenomenom of language, please share. I am not aware of one. Nor are linguists like Noam Chomsky. But please explain it to me.

What sort of explanation are you looking for? A step-by-step evolutionary process that would have shaped our primate ancestors' minds into being language-capable? I think that's pretty much impossible without a time machine, but that doesn't mean we can't speculate about structural changes that could have been involved in the process. It could be something as simple as a bit of neural wiring that lets one part of the brain loop back onto itself (thus allowing for the iterative, infinite nature of language, at least in the Chomskian sense of Merging things). Or it could be something tremendously more complicated, but I can well imagine a process whereby each successive evolutionary change gives a bit more fitness to the bearer of the brain thus changed.

Peter Carruthers has some interesting theories of mind and language. If I understand him correctly (and I think I did when I heard him speak a year or two ago), he proposes that langauge is a manifestation of the internal communication system of the brain, i.e. how different 'modules' of the brain/mind talk to each other. I don't know if this helps anything, but there are definitely starting points for investigation into how language came to be. The one thing I've learned to trust in biology is how many surprises it has in store for us, even after we think we've got all the basics nailed down.

On preview: JJF: Physical constants don't count because we don't know for sure what they were before 4006BC.

Huh?
posted by greatgefilte at 9:28 PM on March 9, 2005


I'm with five fresh fish here. If anyone had actually taken dios advice and Googled for "discrete infinity", they would have found that a) it is indeed a respectable linguistic concept and b) that dios is talking completely out of his hat when he says that human language is the only thing in the natural sciences that exhibits discrete infinity: DNA is a language that has has unbounded expression from only four basic elements. Ooops.
(found here)
posted by pascal at 9:35 PM on March 9, 2005


"Discrete infinity" may be a "respectable" linguistic concept, but remains a rather poorly named one. The recursive example of its infinitude is as equally trivial as stating that 1/3 (.3333...) has an infinite number of decimal digits if you don't cut it off at some arbitrary point. Contrast this against, for instance, the truly infinitely variable digits of pi or e.

Linguists may be cluck-clucking their venerable idea's poor reception here, but it's mathmaticians who should be tsk-tsking over the rather clumsy and undescriptive invokation of infinity in the naming of "discrete infinity." "Discrete hierarchical combinations" or something along those lines would be a far more accurate representation of the (useful) model of discrete components being used by linguists and geneticists. The objections in this thread pointing out the trivialities of the "infinite" in "discrete infinity" are logically sound.

For the record, I blame Chomsky for popularizing the dumb name.
posted by DaShiv at 10:55 PM on March 9, 2005


juiceCake: original sin as metaphor is also problematic. Original sin is the idea that there is a universal flaw in humanity, which is inescapable. Even if, by chance, there exists a human being which never sins, even slightly, such a human being is still tainted by original sin, and still requires the forgiveness which Christ offers. This does not parse well if original sin has no explanation, but is rather a metaphorical concept.

I'm not saying that evolution and Christianity are necessarily incompatible, but it takes a lot more doing to resolve the two than meets the eye. Christians are right to feel threatened - they are.
posted by mek at 11:47 PM on March 9, 2005


TO GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT:

This is an interesting article. The author asserts that a concept originally advocated by the radical left, "critical thinking", has become a tool for the radical right. Example: The Wisconsin School Board recently approved a creationist-influenced lesson plan as an exercise in 'critical thinking skills'.

These two paragraphs sum up my point of view:
Opponents of creationism are likely to reply that to accept intelligent design means to be very uncritical indeed. But that is to miss the point. 'Critical thinking skills' are part of the emptying-out of education that makes room for creationism. 'Critical thinking skills' are now an accepted part of the curriculum, yet in practice the term is used to dignify rather ordinary exercises. Critical thinking may be the outcome of a good education. But because critical thinking requires the thinker to be become independent, it is not something that can be taught as part of a curriculum. It certainly cannot be reduced to a 'skill'.

In fact, critical thinking is rarely achieved. The popularity of the term shows a desire to flatter ourselves rather than an upsurge in independent thought. The actual content of the thinking then becomes pretty much irrelevant. Science or creationism, whatever. We still get to congratulate ourselves on our skills. It is this sort of emptying-out of the curriculum with its disregard for subject knowledge that can make space for creationism, and the creationists have clearly spotted the opportunity.
This is the essence of the author's argument. Indeed, "critical thinking skills" are not to be taught in a scientific context. The only discipline I could imagine that would help students achieve "critical thinking skills" is philosophy, a discipline that some countries have incorporated into their highschool curriculum. In France, for example, every student that intends to finish high-school must pass a 4 hour long examination in philosophy for his/her baccalauréat.
posted by ruelle at 12:28 AM on March 10, 2005


pascal: apparently you don't read very well. Dios explicitly excepted the molecular and cellular level of biology.

Funny, I never saw Dios explicitly say he refused evolution, only that he had a problem with regards to language ability as an evolved trait. I found it an interesting puzzle. Maybe he/she is known for trolling on certain issues, I haven't honestly noticed (too much good discussion to make that much notice of trolls).

That different disciplines make different uses of the same words is simply a product of language, DaShiv. Most English speakers are used to such shenanigans and accept it as a matter of course.

ON TOPIC:
I have no problem with the basic assertion of the article. Whether we, collectively as 'liberals' should feel any guilt about it is a different issue. After all, allowing that which could destroy is in our midst is what the American system is about.
posted by Goofyy at 1:20 AM on March 10, 2005


Critical thinking can't be taught? Um, depends on what 'taught' means. Critical thinking was definitely taught by some of my professors. It is done through class discussion, where a student is challenged with an idea, which may be utter baloney, or may not be. It is up to the student to take a position and defend it. This requires critical thinking. My favorite prof. was expert at this sort of discussion. Those that couldn't cope dropped the class, those that remained benefited. Further, this form of dialog was incredible to encourage one to arrive well prepared!
posted by Goofyy at 1:31 AM on March 10, 2005


Well, the end goal of teaching critical thinking is to not just teach the skill but to have the individual employ the philosophy of critical analysis in their day-to-day life. It is this end goal which can not be achieved though a simple exercise. If it was so easy, critical thinkers would be the norm, but this is not the case. Hence Fox News.
posted by mek at 1:58 AM on March 10, 2005


I've got no problem with schools teaching concepts of religion so long as they are evenhanded towards varying concepts. Religion is, after all, a part of the human condition.

What I do have a problem with is schools teaching religious concepts as science. That is just plain wrong.

I agree that there is no disagreement with the scientific theory of evolution and Christian religion. All those who believe there is disagreement are totally ignorant of their claimed belief system and/or have distorted it to an unrecognizable degree to suit some cultural and/or personal goal.
posted by nofundy at 9:18 AM on March 10, 2005


If anyone had actually taken dios advice and Googled for "discrete infinity",

Yeah, it's a real shame that no one did that.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:28 AM on March 10, 2005


Sam Harris' The End of Faith is all about how liberal religious moderates help to fuel extremist religion.
posted by abcde at 11:18 AM on March 10, 2005


More on the religious left .(Salon; reg. or advert req.)
posted by scody at 3:18 PM on March 10, 2005


mek: Christians are right to feel threatened - they are.

And we've been threatened many, many times before.
Yet, somehow, we're still around. Darwinism (read: Natural Selection) has been a bug in people's ass since its inception. Even old C.D. himself expressed doubts. However, it is more a threat to the anti-intellectual than it is to a Christian at peace in God's kingdom. Often the bumbling ape will hide his fear of science between the covers of a bible.
Christians have nothing to fear from natural selection. That is like saying, "God should be afraid! She's about to get offed by a guy with a microscope!" At the risk of sounding horribly possessive, my God isn't so weak that it needs me to defend it from the truth.

If it was so easy, critical thinkers would be the norm, but this is not the case. Hence Fox News.

Amen.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 5:49 PM on March 10, 2005


« Older Why spoil a war plan with facts?   |   Ex-Marine Says Public Version of Saddam Capture... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments