O’Donnell’s Other Gaffe
With all the attention being paid to Christine O’Donnell’s “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” gaffe, a lot less attention is being paid to what she said about evolution and intelligent design. The exchange occurs starting around the 12:00 mark and ends around 15:00 in this link.
Even though O’Donnell had been on tape in the 90s saying “evolution is a myth” she’s been trying to distance herself from her past. She has several times refused to answer whether she accepts the theory of evolution. This time she answered the question – she doesn’t. Is it any surprise that someone who said scientists are making mice with human brains doesn’t know anything about science?
O’Donnell tries to turn the teaching of science into a local school issue. That’s just not true, as has been ruled many times. States and local communities are still covered by the U.S. Constitution (that’s why the Tea Party belief that states can establish a state religion is just wrong). O’Donnell is wrong on two fronts: local schools are not allowed to teach religious doctrine in public schools (really is she saying schools could teach sharia if the community wanted?) and “intelligent design” is no theory it’s just warmed-over creationism.
The test case for O’Donnell’s beliefs was Kitzmiller v. Dover:
In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, tried in 2005 in a Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, “intelligent design” was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore, unconstitutional to teach in American public schools.
As the first case to test a school district policy requiring the teaching of “intelligent design,” the trial attracted national and international attention. Both plaintiffs and defendants in the case presented expert testimony over six weeks from September 26 through November 4, 2005). On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones issued a sharply-worded ruling in which he held that “intelligent design” was, as the plaintiffs argued, a form of creationism.
The judge in the case was a George H.W. Bush appointee, BTW. TalkOrigins has a full archive of the trial testimony and coverage. The major finding of the case was that intelligent design was a word coined in 1987 after the court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that “scientific” creationism can’t be taught in schools. The highlighting testimony was Barbara Forrest who showed the words “intelligent design” simply replaced “creation” in these creationist textbooks.
The best resource for anti-evolution arguments is TalkOrigins Index of Creationist Claims. (Yes, there’s an app for that.) Of course, the Index already has a rebuttal for O’Donnell’s assertion:
1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
- Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
- Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
- Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
4. If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
It drives me seriously nuts that common English has changed the word theory from this:
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).
To the common colloquial meaning of “wild-assed guess.” Just remember, a theory is something that has been observed, tested and verified. Most of all it can be tested. Intelligent design can not be observed nor tested and therefore can not be science. That’s why it can’t be taught as science. Hey, I would have no objection to a science teacher using the example of intelligent design creationism to show the difference between a scientific theory and religious doctrine, but I doubt that’s how O’Donnell wanted it to be taught. Evolution is the basis for modern biology – it is the central unifying theory.
Tags: Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnell, DE-Sen
Here, here, UI. Excellent post. Wonderful !
can we all agree to the following:
“Christine O’Donnell is intelligent” is neither theory nor fact. At best, it is an opinion.
Evolution is all still theory, no less, as compelling as the evidence is and how widely it is accepted. Not that I’m against it. I’m not.
Why aren’t monkeys turning into humans today?
Where does the “why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans” fit into O’Donnell’s acceptance of “intelligent design” and evolution ? I would have more respect for her if she stuck to her belief in pure creationism. It looks like to get elected, she’s the one who is evolving.
I would have more respect for her if she stuck to her belief in pure creationism.
There is no difference between creationism and “intelligent design.” It’s just an attempt to pretend that it’s explained by science.
Well, sorry to all my lefty friends, but the fact that ANYONE gets out of high school unclear on the contents of AT LEAST the Constitution through the first 10 amendments and the standards of the scientific method and meaning of the word “theory” is a terrible indictment on our education system.
Tort reform, my ass. If these people really understood their problems, they’d be suing their school districts for educational malpractice for releasing them into the adult world so woefully undersupplied with the ability to recognize facts.
While papering over the fact that the so-called intelligent design community can’t be bothered to do science — they do media manipulation.
heragain has the Comment of the Day.
Im dont think you can blame the schools entirely.
School’s hands are tied by PTA, and other parent organizations who exist basically to hamstring teachers at the first sign their kid is an idiot…. or being taught something they don’t really like, or they get bored.
I’ve seen extra curricular activities such a band totally fall to an ignorant parent association who thinks they know more than the instructors. Once they weaken and ultimately destroy it, they blame…. yup, the school and teachers.
And God help a teacher if they dont have tenure. They are venerable to any parent who wants to wage a personal war. I had a great young teacher in middle school who rubbed a parent the wrong way at an open house. This jackass spent the rest of the year building up support, telling lies and ultimately got a very talented and popular teacher let go. That little experience teaches schools to not try and find innovative educators because some jerk-parent might decide to cause problems.
There is no question that some schools are the problem, the NCLB act is a major hindrance on education, but i don’t think parents are getting enough blame. A teacher can’t really be effective in a classroom where a lot of the kids have been raised to think they are super special and can do no wrong. Where they are disrespectful and if they fail, they know mommy will yell at the teacher and not them.
I know i know, no one HERE has kids like that, you are all wonderful parents with smart and respectful children. But only 7 years removed from high school and having done a few stints in teaching, i can say there are a bunch of little jackasses out there with parents who will never put blame anywhere but somewhere else.
somewhere else.
Our school are turning into a place where they try and make it through the school year without a shooting or a lawsuit.
UI, intelligent design implies that a higher power may be at the root of life and the way it evolves. Creationism, as taken from the bible, says that the world was created in six days blah blah blah. There is a difference.
Not in science, FBH. There’s absolutely no proof – other than faith – that a higher power had anything to do with evolution.
FBH: Not really. A “higher power” that cannot be shown by the laws of physics is basically “God.” Unless they mean space aliens.
intelligent design implies that a higher power may be at the root of life and the way it evolves
It isn’t an implication, it is ID’s organizing lie.
What the ID’ers can’t do is any science to prove their claims the way that evolution has been.
UI, intelligent design implies that a higher power may be at the root of life and the way it evolves.
That’s not quite right – ID is pretty specific. The central principle in ID is that most life is too complex to have evolved, that God did it instead. They talk about “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” So they accept change in bacteria – you have too, otherwise why would you need antibiotics but that change magically stops with higher species. Some of them are actually Young Earthers.
There are religious people who accept both the concept of God & the theory of evolution. They generally believe that God created the laws of Physics. To me, it looks like you’re conflating the two.
Christine uses the theory of gravity line to explain how she rides away on her broom.
I think that is the principle of “hot air rises.”
ID is like the theory of the celestial spheres.
It is superficially plausible, but you have to keep adding more and more complexity to explain emerging empirical observations.
Ultimately the whole model becomes unsupportable, and it is obvious that the simpler explanation is correct and better fits the observed facts.
The trick with ID though is the need for ever more complexity is explained away by positing a magical entity.
Maybe it is aliens Geezer, who really knows. It’s all really just speculation isn’t it ? Science has it’s limitations ,and when it reaches those limitations, there are still usually questions unanswered.
But science knows its limitations. Anything that comes after what has been discovered is a leap of faith. And that’s the point, FBH. Intelligent Design is not based on science. It may promote “some” science and then it veers off into… trust me, I believe in god/aliens, etc. And while it may make you feel better, there’s simply no proof.
And, in science, it is just as important to disprove something. Show me where Intelligent Designers are attempting to disprove god. Science is not one-sided.
The discovery of new questions always leads to even more questions, but scientists don’t just make up answers and then consider it settled. Unanswered or even unanswerable questions are OK.
And now we have the stunning brilliance of Glenn Beck:
Benen then goes on to point out the demand for knowledge in South Korea and China, and then concludes:
“We all hear talk from time to time about “American decline,” but I hope people appreciate the ways in which stupidity spreads like a cancer, undermining our ability to thrive, prosper, and compete in the world.”
If you’re looking for the real threat to our country… there it is. The embracing of stupidity.
Pandora, it’s not a leap of faith for me. Faith would imply that I may have some interest or something to gain from my opinion . I’m merely speculating that there could be a “higher power” or “plan” or “grand scheme” involved in our little rat race. ”
By the way, what’s up with all the labels these days, “ID’ers”, what the hell is that ? Maybe some of you should be called the “science only bunch” or SOB’s since you love labeling so much.
I believe ID was used to save time. Sorta like… LOL, OMG, etc.
And what you’re doing, FBH, is hypothesizing without ever trying to prove, or disprove, your speculation. That’s not science – not even close. That’s faith, not fact. Science relies on fact. Scientists may “believe” something, but they won’t stop there. They need proof – something IDers are quite happy to do without… or else they’d be trying to prove and disprove the “intelligence” in ID. But they aren’t.
And, my, aren’t we testy. No one is questioning what you believe. We’re simply asking that you prove it before allowing it in a classroom.
“We all hear talk from time to time about “American decline,” but I hope people appreciate the ways in which stupidity spreads like a cancer, undermining our ability to thrive, prosper, and compete in the world.”
So true. Republican idiocy is far from harmless.
“By the way, what’s up with all the labels these days, “ID’ers”, what the hell is that ? Maybe some of you should be called the “science only bunch” or SOB’s since you love labeling so much.”
I thought “ID’ers” was being nice. If you prefer “proudly ignorant goon” or “stupid lying unintelligent theocrat” that works for me.
Works for me too.
“We’re simply asking that you prove it before allowing it in a classroom.”
Pandora, I never implied that it should be allowed in a classroom, and I can no more prove the existence of some “intelligent” entity with science, than you can disprove it with science. I can give you guesses of my own based on existing science , but no more than that. That is why I refer to it as speculation.
ya know, we arent that far off from Righties blaming Obama for solar eclipses and sacrificing virgins for rain. they seem to be in a marathon-sprint back to the 1400s.
just remember bags, do what the wizard in the magic picture box tells you…. or your crops wont grow.
Great post, UI. You are absolutely right about the nature of theory. Furthermore, everyone really knows that scientific theories are founded on verification. If these creationists were really so hot about the so-called speculative nature of theories, they would be stepping off the roofs of buildings to test the theory of gravity.
*sigh* Then what is your point, FBH? I think you lost it.
Science and Faith are difficult to meld.
I saw a Planetarium “show” at Fels Planetarium in Philly years ago.
It was called, THE LAST QUESTION, written by Isaac Asimov.
The last question was: Can entropy be reversed?
The answer was no, but the ending melded science and faith and left me in tears.
I wonder if O’Donnell’s fundamental dishonesty in hiding this belief was part of her handler training?
ID is creationism wearing a condom to keep the religion from spilling out.
Its proponents (cdesign proponentsists – Google it!) are the same people and groups who have lost the battle to teach biblical creation in public schools; they’ve simply switched tactics to pushing a vaguely sciencey-sounding paradigm to wedge their beliefs in where they don’t belong. Until they offer some positive, specific evidence, though, it all just boils down to the good ol’ argument from ignorance.