User:GodBlessYou2/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
===Appeals to Scientific Consensus===
===Appeals to Scientific Consensus===
[[File:Sanxbox.JPG|thumb|A sandbox is a fun place to play.]]
[[File:Sanxbox.JPG|thumb|A sandbox is a fun place to play.]]
[[File:Counterpoint text.jpg|alt=Counterargument|thumb|Here is where a counterargument is made, along with a [[Linkin Park|link]] to the main counterargument.]]
The vast majority of the [[scientific community]] and [[academia]] supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of [[biology]], [[paleontology]], [[molecular biology]], [[genetics]], [[anthropology]], and others.<ref>{{cite news | first=PZ | last=Myers | authorlink=PZ Myers | title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? |date=2006-06-18 | publisher=scienceblogs.com | url =http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | work =Pharyngula | pages = | accessdate = 2006-11-18}}</ref><ref>The [[National Science Teachers Association]]'s [http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10 position statement on the teaching of evolution.]</ref><ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom's]] [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref><ref name="AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws">From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] (PDF file), [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws]</ref><ref name=factfancy>[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204(198806)29%3A3%3C520%3AFFAMOH%3E2.0.CO3B2-P ''Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution'', Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520&ndash;522]</ref> (See [[Level of support for evolution]].)
The vast majority of the [[scientific community]] and [[academia]] supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of [[biology]], [[paleontology]], [[molecular biology]], [[genetics]], [[anthropology]], and others.<ref>{{cite news | first=PZ | last=Myers | authorlink=PZ Myers | title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? |date=2006-06-18 | publisher=scienceblogs.com | url =http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | work =Pharyngula | pages = | accessdate = 2006-11-18}}</ref><ref>The [[National Science Teachers Association]]'s [http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10 position statement on the teaching of evolution.]</ref><ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom's]] [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref><ref name="AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws">From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] (PDF file), [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws]</ref><ref name=factfancy>[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204(198806)29%3A3%3C520%3AFFAMOH%3E2.0.CO3B2-P ''Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution'', Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520&ndash;522]</ref> (See [[Level of support for evolution]].)


This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory.<ref name="TB">{{cite news|last=Yonke|first=David|title=Expelled: Intelligent design film fuels debate over how life came to be|url=http://www.toledoblade.com/Religion/2008/04/28/Expelled-Intelligent-design-film-fuels-debate-over-how-life-came-to-be.html#mpl23MPpkQS3Kcpg.99|accessdate=7 January 2014|newspaper=Toledo Blade|date=2008-04-28}}</ref> For example, sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] has also asserted that a "fear of censure"<ref>{{Cite journal|url = http://web.archive.org/web/20040803111554/http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18132/article_detail.asp|title = Fact, Fable, and Darwin|last = Stark|first = Rodney|date = September 2004|journal = One America|doi = |pmid = |access-date = 31 December 2014|quote = "Popper's tribulations illustrate an important basis for the victory of Darwinism: A successful appeal for a united front on the part of scientists to oppose religious opposition has had the consequence of silencing dissent within the scientific community. The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is 'a generally silent group' of biological scientists 'who tend to disagree with much of the current thought' about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure."}}</ref> exists such that any questions regarding the adequacy of evolution may be perceived as support for creationism.<ref>{{Cite book|title = For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery|last = Stark|first = Rodney|publisher = Princeton University Press|year = 2003|isbn = |location = |pages = 176|quote = "My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution. They seem to fear that someone might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on."}}</ref> In [[Ben Stein|Ben Stein's]] much publicized documentary [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]] the alleged discrimination against scientists who question evolution theory is presented as a major obstacle serious engagement with the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent design.]] In the film, Stein interviewed several academics, including biologist [[Richard Sternberg]], and astrobiologist [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], who claimed, according to the [[Toledo Blade]] that "their careers were derailed for failing to follow the party line on evolution."<ref name="TB" /> Similarly, [[Jerry Bergman]] claims he has documented hundreds of cases of scientists "whose careers have been capsized for doubting Darwin." <ref name="TB" /><ref name="Bergman">Jerry Bergman. ''Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters'', 2nd edition, April 2011, 422 pages, Leafcutter Press.</ref>
This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory.<ref name="TB">{{cite news|last=Yonke|first=David|title=Expelled: Intelligent design film fuels debate over how life came to be|url=http://www.toledoblade.com/Religion/2008/04/28/Expelled-Intelligent-design-film-fuels-debate-over-how-life-came-to-be.html#mpl23MPpkQS3Kcpg.99|accessdate=7 January 2014|newspaper=Toledo Blade|date=2008-04-28}}</ref> For example, sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] has also asserted that a "fear of censure"<ref>{{Cite journal|url = http://web.archive.org/web/20040803111554/http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18132/article_detail.asp|title = Fact, Fable, and Darwin|last = Stark|first = Rodney|date = September 2004|journal = One America|doi = |pmid = |access-date = 31 December 2014|quote = "Popper's tribulations illustrate an important basis for the victory of Darwinism: A successful appeal for a united front on the part of scientists to oppose religious opposition has had the consequence of silencing dissent within the scientific community. The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is 'a generally silent group' of biological scientists 'who tend to disagree with much of the current thought' about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure."}}</ref> exists such that any questions regarding the adequacy of evolution may be perceived as support for creationism.<ref>{{Cite book|title = For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery|last = Stark|first = Rodney|publisher = Princeton University Press|year = 2003|isbn = |location = |pages = 176|quote = "My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution. They seem to fear that someone might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on."}}</ref> In [[Ben Stein|Ben Stein's]] much publicized documentary [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]] the alleged discrimination against scientists who question evolution theory is presented as a major obstacle serious engagement with the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent design.]] In the film, Stein interviewed several academics, including biologist [[Richard Sternberg]], and astrobiologist [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], who claimed, according to the [[Toledo Blade]] that "their careers were derailed for failing to follow the party line on evolution."<ref name="TB" /> Similarly, [[Jerry Bergman]] claims he has documented hundreds of cases of scientists "whose careers have been capsized for doubting Darwin." <ref name="TB" /><ref name="Bergman">Jerry Bergman. ''Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters'', 2nd edition, April 2011, 422 pages, Leafcutter Press.</ref>
[[File:Sanxbox.JPG|thumb|Here is the second sandbox sidebar]]

<nowiki> </nowiki>The claim that academics are systematically punished for voicing doubts about evolution has been dismissed and refuted by many leading scientists and organizations.<ref name"NYT">Jeanette Catsoulis. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ref=movies&_r=1& Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) Movie Review] New York Times. April 18, 2008. Accessed Dec. 28, 2014. </ref><ref name=NewScientist12April2008>
<nowiki> </nowiki>The claim that academics are systematically punished for voicing doubts about evolution has been dismissed and refuted by many leading scientists and organizations.<ref name"NYT">Jeanette Catsoulis. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ref=movies&_r=1& Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) Movie Review] New York Times. April 18, 2008. Accessed Dec. 28, 2014. </ref><ref name=NewScientist12April2008>
{{cite journal | last = Gefter | first = Amanda | date = 12 April 2008 | title = Warning! They've Got Designs on You | journal = New Scientist | volume = 198 | issue = 2651 | pages = 46 | publisher = Reed Business Information, Ltd. | location = London, England |bibcode = 2008NewSc.198...46S |doi = 10.1016/S0262-4079(08)61555-9 }}</ref> In response to [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], the National Center for Science Education created a ''Expelled Exposed''<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://www.expelledexposed.com/|title = Expelled Exposed|date = |accessdate = December 31, 2014|website = |publisher =National Center for Science Education |last = |first = }}</ref>, a website with multiple resources criticizing the film including expanded biographical material on each of the six academics interviewed in the film who alleged that they had been discriminated against because of their views. Similarly, an article in Scientific American asserts that Stein provided only a "selective retelling" of [[Richard Sternberg|Richard Sternberg's]] role with the Smithsonian Institution. The film failed to disclose, for example, that Sternberg's departure was planned before the controversy erupted over his decision to publish a paper on paper [[intelligent design]] by [[Stephen C. Meyer|Steven Meyer]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|url = http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/|title = Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...about intelligent design and evolution|last = Rennie|first = John|date = April 16, 2008|journal = Scientific American|doi = |pmid = |access-date = December 31, 2014|last2 = Mirsky|first2 = Steve}}</ref> Stein's assertion of widespread prejudice against scientists who hold religious beliefs was also dismissed by examples of the "[t]housands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true also still religious."<ref name=":0" /> In a 2006 article published in the [[Journal of Clinical Investigation]], a group of scientists argued that the claim that “persecuted scientist against the establishment” allegation made by creationists is a "hoax.".<ref name=":1">"Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped." {{Cite journal | doi = 10.1172/JCI28449 | pmc = 1451210 | pmid = 16670753 | title = Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action | first8 = M. M. | last8 = Cox | first7 = T. | last7 = Powell | first6 = T. | last6 = Berceau | first5 = B. | last5 = Cox | first4 = R. M. | last4 = Amasino | first3 = R. L. | last3 = Numbers | first2 = E. | year = 2006 | last2 = Sober | last1 = Attie | first1 = A. D. | journal = Journal of Clinical Investigation | volume = 116 | issue = 5 | pages = 1134–1138| url = http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134| format = Full free text}}</ref>
{{cite journal | last = Gefter | first = Amanda | date = 12 April 2008 | title = Warning! They've Got Designs on You | journal = New Scientist | volume = 198 | issue = 2651 | pages = 46 | publisher = Reed Business Information, Ltd. | location = London, England |bibcode = 2008NewSc.198...46S |doi = 10.1016/S0262-4079(08)61555-9 }}</ref> In response to [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], the National Center for Science Education created a ''Expelled Exposed''<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://www.expelledexposed.com/|title = Expelled Exposed|date = |accessdate = December 31, 2014|website = |publisher =National Center for Science Education |last = |first = }}</ref>, a website with multiple resources criticizing the film including expanded biographical material on each of the six academics interviewed in the film who alleged that they had been discriminated against because of their views. Similarly, an article in Scientific American asserts that Stein provided only a "selective retelling" of [[Richard Sternberg|Richard Sternberg's]] role with the Smithsonian Institution. The film failed to disclose, for example, that Sternberg's departure was planned before the controversy erupted over his decision to publish a paper on paper [[intelligent design]] by [[Stephen C. Meyer|Steven Meyer]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|url = http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/|title = Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...about intelligent design and evolution|last = Rennie|first = John|date = April 16, 2008|journal = Scientific American|doi = |pmid = |access-date = December 31, 2014|last2 = Mirsky|first2 = Steve}}</ref> Stein's assertion of widespread prejudice against scientists who hold religious beliefs was also dismissed by examples of the "[t]housands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true also still religious."<ref name=":0" /> In a 2006 article published in the [[Journal of Clinical Investigation]], a group of scientists argued that the claim that “persecuted scientist against the establishment” allegation made by creationists is a "hoax.".<ref name=":1">"Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped." {{Cite journal | doi = 10.1172/JCI28449 | pmc = 1451210 | pmid = 16670753 | title = Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action | first8 = M. M. | last8 = Cox | first7 = T. | last7 = Powell | first6 = T. | last6 = Berceau | first5 = B. | last5 = Cox | first4 = R. M. | last4 = Amasino | first3 = R. L. | last3 = Numbers | first2 = E. | year = 2006 | last2 = Sober | last1 = Attie | first1 = A. D. | journal = Journal of Clinical Investigation | volume = 116 | issue = 5 | pages = 1134–1138| url = http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134| format = Full free text}}</ref>

Revision as of 01:20, 7 March 2017

Recommended Placement, Subsection 4.6, below "Appeal of Consequence"

Appeals to Scientific Consensus

A sandbox is a fun place to play.
Counterargument
Here is where a counterargument is made, along with a link to the main counterargument.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[1][2][3][4][5] (See Level of support for evolution.)

This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory.[6] For example, sociologist Rodney Stark has also asserted that a "fear of censure"[7] exists such that any questions regarding the adequacy of evolution may be perceived as support for creationism.[8] In Ben Stein's much publicized documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed the alleged discrimination against scientists who question evolution theory is presented as a major obstacle serious engagement with the theory of Intelligent design. In the film, Stein interviewed several academics, including biologist Richard Sternberg, and astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who claimed, according to the Toledo Blade that "their careers were derailed for failing to follow the party line on evolution."[6] Similarly, Jerry Bergman claims he has documented hundreds of cases of scientists "whose careers have been capsized for doubting Darwin." [6][9]

Here is the second sandbox sidebar

The claim that academics are systematically punished for voicing doubts about evolution has been dismissed and refuted by many leading scientists and organizations.[10][11] In response to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the National Center for Science Education created a Expelled Exposed[12], a website with multiple resources criticizing the film including expanded biographical material on each of the six academics interviewed in the film who alleged that they had been discriminated against because of their views. Similarly, an article in Scientific American asserts that Stein provided only a "selective retelling" of Richard Sternberg's role with the Smithsonian Institution. The film failed to disclose, for example, that Sternberg's departure was planned before the controversy erupted over his decision to publish a paper on paper intelligent design by Steven Meyer.[13] Stein's assertion of widespread prejudice against scientists who hold religious beliefs was also dismissed by examples of the "[t]housands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true also still religious."[13] In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of scientists argued that the claim that “persecuted scientist against the establishment” allegation made by creationists is a "hoax.".[14]

=Additional material

Alleged persecution

Meyer alleges that those who oppose Darwinism are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views. In 2001 he signed the statement of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism coinciding with the launch of the PBS: Evolution TV series, saying in part, "The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."[15]

A wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources have denied, refuted, or off-handedly dismissed these allegations. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assembly woman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison characterized such claims as being a "hoax".[14] In their website refuting the claims in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[16] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:

According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[17]

  1. ^ Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
  2. ^ The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.
  3. ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
  4. ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
  5. ^ Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520–522
  6. ^ a b c Yonke, David (2008-04-28). "Expelled: Intelligent design film fuels debate over how life came to be". Toledo Blade. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
  7. ^ Stark, Rodney (September 2004). "Fact, Fable, and Darwin". One America. Retrieved 31 December 2014. Popper's tribulations illustrate an important basis for the victory of Darwinism: A successful appeal for a united front on the part of scientists to oppose religious opposition has had the consequence of silencing dissent within the scientific community. The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is 'a generally silent group' of biological scientists 'who tend to disagree with much of the current thought' about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure.
  8. ^ Stark, Rodney (2003). For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery. Princeton University Press. p. 176. My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution. They seem to fear that someone might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on.
  9. ^ Jerry Bergman. Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters, 2nd edition, April 2011, 422 pages, Leafcutter Press.
  10. ^ Jeanette Catsoulis. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) Movie Review New York Times. April 18, 2008. Accessed Dec. 28, 2014.
  11. ^ Gefter, Amanda (12 April 2008). "Warning! They've Got Designs on You". New Scientist. 198 (2651). London, England: Reed Business Information, Ltd.: 46. Bibcode:2008NewSc.198...46S. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)61555-9.
  12. ^ "Expelled Exposed". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved December 31, 2014.
  13. ^ a b Rennie, John; Mirsky, Steve (April 16, 2008). "Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...about intelligent design and evolution". Scientific American. Retrieved December 31, 2014.
  14. ^ a b "Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped." Attie, A. D.; Sober, E.; Numbers, R. L.; Amasino, R. M.; Cox, B.; Berceau, T.; Powell, T.; Cox, M. M. (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action" (Full free text). Journal of Clinical Investigation. 116 (5): 1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. PMC 1451210. PMID 16670753.
  15. ^ "100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism".
  16. ^ Challenging Science, Expelled Exposed, National Center for Science Education
  17. ^ Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K - 12 Committee, Florida Senate, March 26, 2008