Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[Alcon]

There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school.  You teach the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Hindu, and all other creation stories in school, but not Christian creationism.  Kind of a double-standard, huh?

She was referring to teaching it in a science class, not a literature class.

Also, we read a healthy chunk of the Old Testament for AP English.  But generally Christian creation isn't taught because the vast majority of students already understand it.  The old mythology is mostly taught for the purposes of understanding other cultures, and knowing literary references (same reason we read the Bible).  Either way, no issue with teaching about the contents of the Bible in school.  Just not in science class.

[Alcon]

Many school districts don't teach it at all.  And as I've said before, it doesn't belong in Science class, but it does belong in school.

Yeah, and it's a shame they don't.  But Palin's quote is about the science classroom.  Maybe you were doing a bit of a non-sequitur there to a more interesting topic.  Didn't think of that -- sorry for hijacking.

[Alcon]

It's a bad thing to most normal Americans.

Now if only the corporate mainstream media would tell us more about her far right-wing record and less about how she was the runner-up for Miss Alaska.

The mainstream media isn't going to do nice things for you if you call it names

[Alcon]

She does not respect other religions. My mom took me out of class when that happend. So many people will object to it. I hate her.

Clearly believing students should be exposed to both sides of a debate makes her hate-worthy.

Again, I would like someone to explain to me why an idea, lacking scientific evidence, should get more credence in a science class, just because lots of people believe it in a culture.

[Alcon]

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

I don't understand how this relates to ID.  If God is an "uncreated creator," then not everything needs a cause.  It makes no real sense to assume that there is a "one magical exception."  Logic is axiomatic--if God can be immune to it, why not something else, even non-sentient?  I've been asking that too, for a good long while, and I've been getting no answers. 

Moreover, even if that did makes sense, this doesn't really relate to ID.  There are plenty of hypotheses about the origin of existence.  ID could be included in that discourse.  But when juxtaposed with evolution as an alternative, it should not be; macroevolution and creation are different subjects entirely, and creationism as an opponent to macroevolution has a greater scientific standard than creationism as an opponent to non-theistic creation theories.  The latter is a genuine "currently impossible to know" situation; the former is not.  It is documentable, it is testable, etc.  ID can feel free to compete on that plain when it is those things.

In any case, what's the point of debating untestable theories?  Again, fine with "limits of science"; not really fond of "random guessing with cultural pretexts" in the classroom.

[Alcon]

(Please see bolded part first )

The question itself is good thing.  It teaches to think, and it shows are limitations.

So, teach limitations.  Why teach theories that do not result from science in a science class?  Because you, and many other Americans, believe them?

What would you feel about students being taught the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It's arbitrary.  It's no more proven than, "things just existed."  Which is fine.  But you're arguing by instinctual assumption, not scientific proof.  And that doesn't belong in a class based on the scientific method.

We're capable of asking this question.  Something that separates us from the bacteria, a crustacean, a fish, an amphibian, reptile, a "lesser" mammal.  Even where we have had some cross species communications, some primates with sign language, they are not asking these questions.  Why are we asking it?

We have several posters here who say, we shouldn't be asking these questions.  I would however define science, broadly, an effort to answer the question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  We divide into numerous small sections of the universe.

Why do we ask that question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  Why are we, alone among species, asking that question?  IIRC, other species both prehistorically and currently, have larger brains, so it's not just a question of humans reaching a critical mass of brain cells.  Did some other, outside intelligence prompt us someway to ask the question?  I don't know, but I have to admit that possibility.

Science, at any rate, is about asking questions.  I do question the tolerance of those people who say, we shouldn't talk about the question, when asked.

Science is about asking testable questions.  Philosophy is about asking existential questions.  I have no problem with teaching the limitations of science, as I've said.  Teaching a specific idea that explains away something in science's blind spots, because a lot of people believe it, does not make sense.

What does metacognition have to do with intelligent design?  Brain size has little to do with brain function, beyond a certain point.  Are you saying that our brains should work like animals of equal size, but somehow don't, so there's a soul or something?  Whatever you're implying, it's very confusing.

And, again, macroevolution is not incompatible with all forms of creationism, so I don't know why you're arguing like that's the dichotomy, here.

[Alcon]

J. J.,

I was probably making an oversimplification, but if you read the rest of muon2's post, there's very little support for your argument there.  In fact, I think he essentially said he opposes it.  His point was not related to theories, or anything likely to come up in high school science, if I'm understanding him correctly.  But whatever.

Scientific explanation can be wrong, as in the case of the Piltdown man.  How does that make it "arbitrary"?  Teaching that science can be wrong, or mis-applied, is fine.  I have said that much.  But you have failed (for three posts now) to provide me for an explanation of why intelligent design should get special treatment.  "Potentially fooled" does not = "arbitrary."  If it did, the entire world would be arbitrary, and that's not what the word means.

Less semantically, you're basically saying:

I. Concession: Evolution has strong evidence for it.

II. Caveat: Science can be wrong.

III. Possibility: Because science has no solid theory for the universe's creation, God's existence is plausible.

IV. Extrapolation: Because God's existence is plausible, it is possible that God would "guide" design.

Correct me where my interpretation is wrong.

(I) is fine.  (II) is all right, too, although no less for this subject than elsewhere.  (III) is also fine -- but you're starting to run into a problem.  What is your scientific proof for (III) being any more likely than other hypotheses?  That's the central problem.  This is not being taught because it is the most plausible idea.  Evolution is a theory.  It has the same status as gravity.  Should alternative arguments against gravity be presented, if they have no supporting evidence beyond "it would be an explanation if gravity were actually untrue"?  No, I do not think they should, in a high school setting.  It's giving ID special treatment just because of cultural issues.

---

Why do we ask these questions?  I already answered that -- we have more complexly designed brains, that allow for metacognition.  Chimps also demonstrate limited forms of self-thought abilities.  What point are you trying to make?  If you said it outright, I might actually be able to address it.

[Alcon]

I don't recall calling it "arbitrary"

"Any explanation is arbitrary including science.  Ever hear of piiltdown man? "

You were confusing "potentially incorrect/flawed" with "arbitrary."

or suggesting teaching ID as a theory.  I think if someone raises it, a student, it is fine and fine to say it is a possibility, at some level.

...

I think it is wrong, and narrow minded, to say we can't discuss a possible explanation, when a student raises it.  It's different to say science, and religion, doesn't know the answer and science is wrong.

That's fine.  My objection was to Palin's suggesting it be taught, not her suggestion that discussion not be muzzled.

Let me try to give you this example:

...

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, a militant atheist, the answer might equal the question.

You seem to be presenting an argument against atheism, which is fine; I'm not an atheist.  You still haven't explained how this relates to ID.  I've already said that the existence of God is plausible enough so as not to be laughed out of a classroom.  You still haven't explained how this relates to teaching ID.

---

What's not to say that metacognition is evolutionary?  You didn't really substantiate that claim.  Abstract thinking is really no more evolutionary, yet babboons possess it.

One final point:  You seem to be arguing that, if two beings have equal brain size, but one has greater brain power, it's a potential indicator that God designed them to be that way.  How does that follow?  "Intelligence" is a function of brain structure.  Larger size allows for more intricate structure, but does not necessitate it.  It's a weak correlation that you're somehow bestowing with vague meaning.

---

In any case, my sole objection to Palin's statement was her (probably instantaneously articulated) support for teaching ID alongside macroevolution in schools.  Nothing you've said really addresses my original concern, just peripheral issues.

[Alcon]

Where did I say this on this thread?

Here.

If you would have read the quote, you would have realized that this was Palin's position.

I've read several articles about this, and in the process have read her quotes nearly a dozen times.  Here's the relevant one:

"Teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both."  She goes on to say it shouldn't be part of the cirriculum, but teaching is a different thing than allowing debate.  She's contradicted herself--which is basically why I think she hasn't contemplated this much.

Emphasis added.  How does Palin's view of what should be taught differ from yours?

If she supports allowing it to be taught in schools as an option, I'm against that.  Schools should enforce their own curricula, but I don't find this to be an acceptable inclusion.  But whether she wants it mandated or not is irrelevant.  I know this is an issue she's not going to push.  I still disagree with her that it should be "taught."

I am critical of people who say, "We shouldn't discuss this." 

Yeah, I know, but I'm not saying that.

Not abstract thinking as much as asking one question.

That doesn't really matter.  They both fall into your criteria, which is your perceived lack of evolutionary benefit.

It's the only correlation we have, what other species have done and how they interact with the environment.  I don't say it's an "indicator" of God, gods, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I do not see any evolutionary mechanism that explains it.  The genus Homo has somehow asked this question, "Why is there fruit?"  It is not tied to survival or to the environment.  It does not seem, at this point, to be tied to brain function or brain size.

There is the question and, so far, there is not a plausible explanation within science for this question being formed.  So far, you have not provided one.

BTW, we are both still asking this question.

There's not a plausible explanation?  You can't possibly be serious.  There has been a ton of scientific research and theory on this subject.  The Human Genome Project has had a lot to say on the matter.

You're using a fairly simple construct of evolution, from all I can tell.  By your standards, evolutionary necessity would have limited us to single-celled organisms.   Besides, I kind of reject the idea that intelligence and critical thinking skills don't have evolutionary positives.

[Alcon]

Acton, you raised the reference:

Acton?

I am saying that there is a difference between a wrong "scientific explanation" and a situation where there is no "scientific explanation."

That's...true.  But regardless of what you're saying, my argument was against teaching ID as an alternative to macroevolution.  I called that "arbitrary."  You then pointed out that science was "arbitrary" by pointing out how it could be wrong.  That does not make it "arbitrary."  There is a difference between "arbitrary" and "wrong."

The posted comments were made a day later clarifying this comment.  The clarification was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Which needs further clarification.  There is an official state curriculum, too.  That may be what she was referring to.  Since that contradicts her prior comments, the only belief that wouldn't entail self-contradiction is:  I encourage teachers to teach it, but it shouldn't be part of the official curriculum.  I disagree with that.  If she misspoke originally, then I don't have an objection.  But since she reiterated, I doubt she misspoke.

The Human Genome Project is pretty irrelevant to this. 

You're quite incorrect.

The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't a key question to survival.  It may deal with Homo becoming a higher thinking creature, but it isn't necessary for the survival of the genus Homo.  Becoming a higher thinking creature is not necessary for the genus Homo (and was possibly fatal to other members of the genus Homo).

We, humans, ask "Why?" Other species don't.  Proto-humans did.

I've heard you talk around it, but I've yet to see you answer the question or science answer the question, "Why do humans ask why?"

I have already given you a very valid (albeit simplified) answer.  Metacognition is a function of critical thinking.  In fact, it's an extension of critical thinking.  It's on the same continuum.  Critical thinking has documented evolutionary benefits.  Hence, why some of our primate relatives have abstract thinking abilities that, as you mention, are not essential for survival.

The brain is not some sort of mysterious box whose functions we don't understand.  We know why we're more intelligent than other primates, and it has almost nothing to do with brain size; that correlates somewhat, but we also understand brain complexity, which correlates absolutely.  So, why bother with brain size?

You also didn't answer my question: If your only criteria for evolving is survival, why would anything evolve beyond a single-celled organism?  The answer is, they're not as good at surviving -- because there are not "fittest."

Anyway, I have trouble thinking that anyone could be at all familiar the current research and assert:

1. That the Human Genome Project is irrelevant; and,

2. That science has not developed any remotely plausible answers on this issue.

I'm far from fluent on evolutionary science, but I'm fluent enough to know those are wrong.

[Alcon]

J. J.,

Yes, I understand that Palin's governmental policy is not disagreeable to me.  However, her personal opinion (that ID should be taught) is.  That's all I've ever claimed.

You just re-iterated the same point you made before.  You replied to neither of my contentions:

1. That other species demonstrate abstract thinking skills, that go beyond "where is the fruit?"; and,

2. That abstract thinking, and logical, humanistic thought may have evolutionary benefit.

The latter is my (heavily simplified) "remotely plausible answer."  Your contention seems to be that there has to be an obvious, direct evolutionary benefit, i.e., a life or death situation.  I pointed out that single-celled organisms were able to sustain themselves as single-celled, but they evolved anyway.  You're operating on a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary process, and demanding I define things within that construct.  The problem is, your construct is not reality.  It is demonstrably unreal.

If you had read the article I linked to you on the Human Genome Project and its impact on our understanding of the human brain's evolution, instead of just ignoring that part of my post, you'd know that.

But, really, I'm not sure what to say.  This has been the focus of scientific debate, contention and research for decades.  You seem to have been completely unaware of that (you thought the Human Genome Project was irrelevant), so it seems like you haven't bothered to look for potential answers.  So, it's really not surprising that none of come to you.

P.S. To complete the jerkocity I'm unintentionally demonstrating in the tone of these posts...yo momma!

[Alcon]

I'm not sure that this was her "personal opinion."  It seems only that it should be left to the local board and not required by the state (court action might cover the former).

This seems to be a "straw man" or "straw woman," at this point.

I'm not attacking a position she never held, so it's not a strawperson ().  She said that she supports teaching of ID aside macroevolution, just not forcing it in the curriculum.  I disagree with the former.

Where?   I have not seen it, in that regard.

It was a big deal ca. 2001.  I actually remember my dad coming home when I was eleven, and talking about baboons for like an hour for some reason.  This was why.  (Note: Text "this" is a link)

This, as indicated, is a subclass of "abstract thinking," but it marks a leap from the the practical.   Thinking about piling rocks up to stand on to reach the fruit is abstract thinking; it does make sense to develop this abstraction, and logical thinking.  I can understand that thought developing.

What is the evolutionary benefit of asking why the fruit is growing?

You're missing my point.  Metacognition comes when a certain level of analytical thinking is developed.  That level could be reached by evolutionary benefit.  It may not be beneficial to know why fruit exists, but things that require equal (or comparable) cognitive ability may be.  It's not beneficial for baboons to think abstractly, as I just demonstrated they do; but they do, because they are capable of it, for reasons that may be beneficial in other sectors.  Intelligence is also a factor in mating, thankfully for you .

Since you still have not answered my question, I'll attempt to give you a clearer answer.  I can understand, very easily, how abstract thinking and logical thinking can prove to be beneficial to a species.  I've hope the example of the rocks will show that.  I cannot understand how the the particular question of "Why is the fruit here," is a benefit to the species, within the context of where the genus Homo was at the time.

I haven't answered your question because I do not accept the premise upon which it is built.  You are committing a logical fallacy called petitio principii, or "begging the question."

What link, I didn't see one.

The blue "quite incorrect" in this post.  Maybe you're on a low-contrast monitor and missed it; if so, click here (warning: PDF).

As I said, what link?  I have been passingly familiar with the HGP, and checked it out, cursery, to see if there was something that was relevant.

Well, if your understanding is only cursory, I can see why you might not be familiar with the extent of the application of the HGP.  I've spent several hours reading about it, and I still have barely scratched the service.  I can see why someone with a basic understanding might assume the HGP doesn't address brain evolution -- but it very much does.

Poor li'l Alcon, I've suck my finger the eye of his god, Science (didn't even come close to killing it, and don't want to), and now he's running home to Mommy.

I was kind of being self-deprecating there to apologize for the somewhat adversarial-seeming tone I unconsciously take on during debates...ouch, though.  The third-grader in me is deeply hurt.

(But, seriously, I'm sorry if I did take on that tone.  I don't have contempt.  After all, you have been Just and spared my god )

[Alcon]

There is a difference between saying, "If it comes up, you can talk about it," and "I want you to teach it."  I'm sorry if that distinction is too abstract for you, but I think even the baboons would get it.

I wonder how good baboons' memories are?

Palin: "Teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both."

Thank you for the link.  Again, however, I am not referring to "Analogical thinking" as the article describes it.  An example here might be, "The fruit is small and round, and it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so it must taste good (or better)."  That still isn't the same thought process.

The question that was as asked was "The fruit is small and round, so it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so why is it here?"

But neither are evolutionarily necessary, so by your logic, baboons are also gifted with a property that science doesn't understand.

Mating, perhaps not in your case, is instinctive, so that would not apply (Thank you trilobites.).

Oh, really, so mate choice is not at all defined by intelligence?  I'm sorry to hear you've had such bad luck.  Or, is that your excuse? 

You've missed the point entirely.  It is not that our genus developed the capacity to ask, "Why is there fruit," it is that they did and then spent resources to try to learn the answer.  Their answers were not necessarily right, but they still attempted it.

No, you have tried, and failed, to define my question, in your terms.  You've assumed that all "metacognition" is helpful to survival.  It is not.

I can make an argument that some things involving thought processes are helpful.  Toolmaking, even some art, as an illustration are helpful.  The question "Why is the fruit here," is not one of the helpful ones.  The questions "How do you make a spear tip," and "What does a pregnant woman look like," are helpful.  The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't.

I have not ignored your question, or redefined anything you said.  I don't consciously ignore questions.  In fact, I have answered it four times, by disputing your postulate, by saying that metacognition is a product of evolutionary beneficial brain development.  You've still not answered to this.

Metacognition develops not separately from, but with, critical thinking.  You can see this by comparing the regional developments of different parts of the brain.  In fact, our brain structure is essentially the same as apes, just with the critical thinking centers more developed.  So, hell, there -- you have organic proof that metacognition comes along with greater development of critical thinking.  It's not some separately-developed part of the mind, because it's the same sort of thought process.  And, in tool-making behaviors and problem-solving behaviors, you have proof that critical thinking is evolutionarily established.

Now, if that is not an adequate response, you need to tell me what I've failed to address (that isn't fruit from the tree of disputed poison status.)

Homo did ask that question, and they came up with an answer.  Let's say that their answer was, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) gives us this fruit."  That answer is a construct.  It is something that was solely created in Homo's mind; we know it's the wrong answer.  Why continue to believe that answer is correct when it does not produce results.  Why continue to believe in it, if it fails?  I can understand inventing rituals to try to convince the FSM to give them fruit, but why continue to waste resources on them without tangible result?  In the words of a certain presidential candidate, why "cling" to that belief in the FSM?

It does not make a great deal of sense to ask the question or hold on to even a constructed answer, from an evolutionary standpoint.  Yet genus Homo has done it, uniquely in terms of intelligent species.

This is an interesting argument, but the problem is that your rhetorical questions have other answers.  People also cling to a general irrational belief that they have more control over their lives than they do.  This is exhibit time after time.  Where do you think superstition comes from?  Chance gambling behaviors?  Those are demonstrably untrue; people still cling to them.  In fact, cognitive bias defines a whole hell of a lot of human behaviors.  Superstitious behaviors, and cognitive biases, are rarely redacted unless directly challenged or disproven--and sometimes, not even then.

Still, though, you're getting your theological philosophy in my science.  I like both, but you've branched out to trying to prove that God exists.  I dunno why.  These are interesting arguments although not without flaws (hence why I'm an agnostic), but what are you trying to prove/dispute with them?

I have downloaded the other PDF and will read it.

OK, cool

[Alcon]

internet fights over religion = winnable, but at a cost.

Like 100,000 words of wasted typing, or everyone realizing you're a puerile jerk who reads APA publications on car trips?  A bit of both? 

[Alcon]

Hahahaha, those weren't even the costs crossing my mind, but they work.

I mean, you're on the right side of things and there's no way that successful and rational arguments won't bring you to the fact that creationism should not be taught along side actual science, but it's a difficult journey to make on the internet forum.  If someone is truly open minded, I think the winning arguments are already all out there for her to absorb, possibly on wikipedia but I haven't checked.  If not there, at least some other easily Google-able source.

Except, No one is really making that argument in this case that ID should be. Palin said, and granted it was a clarification of an a statement she made the day before:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

The claim that she feels that Palin does favor the teaching of both is a straw man argument, that seems to be in vogue with the Democrats this year.

No, it is not.  She said she supported teaching it -- twice.  She then clarified to say that she didn't want it in the curriculum, which was probably a reference to the official state curriculum.

What else would, "teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both," followed by "it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," mean?  Maybe she contradicted herself, but she didn't specify, so the only way this involves a non-contradiction is the scenario I described.

I'm not pulling a "strawman" on anyone

[Alcon]

First, I did read it, and their conclusion, which isn't relevant to our discussion, can be summarized as this:  "Maybe the upregulation of genes was a mutation, maybe it was natural selection, ah, we don't have a mechanism."  It doesn't answer the question.

You said there were no plausible scientific explanations.  You've just read several, and the footnotes contain articles that suggest others.  They have no less scientific evidence behind them than divine intervention, yet you seem stuck on that.  And you didn't admit you were wrong about the HGP, either.  Whatever.

The question "Why is the fruit here," in the context we're discussing, is something more than an abstract question; it is a metaphysical one in this context.  Seeking the answer does not help genus Homo survive.  Arguably by diverting resources from other things, hunting, gathering or tool making, for example, it limited survivability.  Yet Homo insisted on asking the question and came up with answers.  And Homo is still asking the question, abet in a non metaphysical context.

I'm not saying that shouldn't ask the question; it's a good question.  I'm asking:  Why are we asking this question?  Why aren't other intelligent creatures asking it?  Why does it now seem at least to be an instinctual question?  Important questions, and we don't have an answer.

But, for the umpteenth time, abstract thinking leads to metacognition.  They are part and parcel of development of the same parts of the brain.  Basic understanding of brain structure, as I just told you in the last post, makes this evident.  Why do you keep ignoring that point?

The key here is her comment:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." [/u]


There is a distinction between, **I want it taught with other things,**  with "I don't think there should be a prohibition" are different.  That her second comment was clarification of the first, should be sufficient to say that Palin feels that the state should not "prohibit" the discussion of it, if it comes up in class.  Sorry, but that seems very clear.

She has said:

I. ""Teach both [macroevolution and ID]"

II: "I am a proponent of teaching both [macroevolution and ID]."

III. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

IV. "It [intelligent design] doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Under your interpretation, which is that she wants it to be debate-only, her statements (I) and (II) are false and contradicted.  Besides, she has never said she wants it to be debate-only, so that's a leap of assumption.  She has just said she doesn't want debate to be disallowed (III), and that she doesn't want it to be part of the (state-mandated?) curriculum (IV).  But, for your interpretation to be true, you have to make an assumption about something that she didn't say, and assume two of her four statements were false.

Now, my interpretation is that she personally thinks it should be debated (fine) and taught (not fine), just not by state mandate.  This interpretation requires no falsehoods on Palin's part, and incorporates all four of her statements in total.  It also requires no unstated assumptions (beyond arguably the caveat that follows.)  So, not only is it a reasonable interpretation, it's the more reasonable assumption.

Caveat:  If we interpret (IV) to refer to individual curricula, then (I) and (II) are obviously contradicted, and she has stated two mutually-exclusive policy positions.  Still, not your interpretation.

(Although I still think the most reasonable assumption is that she doesn't have an entirely articulated position on this, and was just going with the flow.  )

[Alcon]

J. J.,

Did you not check the studies in the footnotes like I mentioned?  That's probably a rhetorical question.  Honestly, I'm starting to suspect the only thing you did is read the conclusion of the study and try to rephrase it.

And for the upteentth time, that is not the question.  It is not, repeat not, if the mind of an earlier genus Homo could process the information.  It is, what sparked that interest and why did they dwell on it?

Are you now arguing that any thoughts exterior to survival are remarkable?  That other beings' brains only think about survival, and nothing else?  That's ridiculous.  Apes think of other things, at their cognitive abilities, that are not necessary to survival.  Apparently you didn't read the abstract thinking study I linked you to.

Do you reject either of these ideas?

I. Metacognition comes along with a development in analytical thinking.  They go hand-in-hand.

II. Animals have thoughts that are not specific to just survival.

If you disagree with (I), you need to refute my brain development example.  If you disagree with (II), you need to give me proof of a mechanism that limits thoughts, or proof that thoughts are limited in other animals.  Otherwise, taken together, they substantiate my position and destroy yours.

She said, no points one and two are not my position.  Maybe she misstated it, maybe she was initially "going with the flow," maybe she flipped flopped, maybe she thought about it and said, "No, I don't think that was a good idea."  The position she then claimed the next was was points III and IV.  She said finally this was her position.

You should re-read my last post.

She never said points (I) and (II) are not her position?  She said that it does not have to be in the curriculum.  She could support not forcing teaching via state curriculum, but supporting individual teachers doing so.  That, again, incorporates all of her statements without any contradictions.  You choose to make one arbitrary assumption, and assume two contradictions.  Why?

[Alcon]

Here, actually, I won't make you dig through footnotes.  I'll do your research for you.  Look up Bruce Lahn's work with the ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) on whatever academic databases you have at your disposal.  Then, if that fails your plausibility test somehow, I guess then we can discuss your underlying tacit argument of theism.

But, first, I'd still like to know why you're arguing theistic evolution -- unless you're arguing that Palin agrees with me, and disagrees with you.  I'm a little lost on that

[Alcon]

I did read it, and it doesn't support your conclusion.  I have no disagreement that the brain of the genus Homo evolved to process more complex thought.  That is not the issue.

I made two assertions:

1. The Human Genome Project is related to the topic at hand.

2. There are plausible, or possible, explanations other than "God did it."

Both of which I've supported.  Which "conclusion" are you talking about?

I argue that, while abstract thinking, and they referred to it as analogical thinking, IIRC, clearly can be related to survival.  I would argue that "How can get I to the fruit, that is out of reach," and "Why is the fruit here," are both abstract questions; both require abstract thought to answer.  One answer leads to a payoff, food.  The other does not.  The second, in this context I'll call metaphysical thinking.


...

I no not disagree.  Do you feel that metaphysical thinking comes along with analytical thinking?

Yes.  They originate from development of the same parts of the brain.  Do you have a basic, working understanding of the structure of the brain?  If so, you know this is true.  Allowing one, but not the other, would be an artificial block imposed on the primate brain.  You haven't explained why we should assume this.

Basically, yes, I think that animals, even working animals like a dog that herds other animals, are limited to perhaps two thoughts, survival and gratification, and I'm not entirely sure of the second.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.

Because, as governor, she does not control or order individual teachers.  She could mandate them to do certain thinks by putting it in the curriculum, but states she does wish to do so.  This more relates to the role of a governor, not her views ID.

Nor can she force them to allow debate.  When you want to believe she doesn't support teaching ID in schools, you argue it must have been a mis-statement, because she can't force that as governor.  But you accept that she was talking about her personal opinion on teaching when she said that debating should be allowed.  Do you think she believes the state government has a right to enforce that, and actively supports forcing allowing debate?

If not, you can't have it both ways; it's special pleading.

Palin is saying, it is not the role of state government to either require or prohibit it.  (The courts have said it's not the role of local government either.)

Which I'm essentially fine with, but if she personally supports teaching it alongside macroevolution, I am disagreeing with that opinion.

[Alcon]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

[Alcon]

I have a plausible explanation for why genus Homo developed tools, language, and yes, even art.  I have no plausible explanation for why genus Homo made the metaphysical leap.  There are a lot of "possible" explanations, God, the gods, a mutation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And I just provided you with a source of one to look up (Lahn, whose study also mentions other hypotheses.)  Did you miss that link too?

Now you effectively saying, science doesn't know, science doesn't have a good idea, have faith in science.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.

Nothing wrong with skepticism.  I'm skeptical too -- that's, um, science.

I do have faith in the scientific method, not necessarily faith in the scientific conclusions.  I assume they are correct, unless they are demonstrably flawed; if you consider working on an assumption faith, fine.  You're trying to equate faith to empirical evidence and doing a remarkably bad job of it.

The is an artificial block; it's called survival of the fittest.  When Homo began to think about these things, it takes resources away from survival.

Example:  We have two groups of genus Homo, A and B.  They are the same species, have the same culture, two or three generations ago, they were the same group.  The group became separated a while back and equal numbers live about 100 miles apart.  Both groups are hunters/gathers/scavengers, tool makers with language; the have a certain level of intelligence and they reproduce.  While separate, each group lives in the same environment, same food, same water, same predators.

Group A stays the same.  Someone in group B starts asking the metaphysical question, "Why is the fruit here."  I'll even assume that the question enters the guys mind through perfectly normal natural means.  The other members of the group start asking it; when they think about it, they are not doing the things group A are doing, i.e. hunting/gathering/scavenging/having sex/making tools.

All thinks being equal, in 50 years, which group will be more viable?  Which group has better chance of producing descendants that will be around in 100 years, less than a blink of the eye in the scale we're discussing.

Both groups can make technological advances, better tools.  Where are those technological advances more likely to occur?

You have a pretty common misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the theory of evolution.  Evolution occurs when a mutation happens, and that mutation increases the likelihood survival.  Evolution does not happen because nature says, "gee, you know what would be awesome? Lasers."

The trouble is, the mutation you suggest (never thinking about anything outside of survival) would require a drastic change in the primate brain.  You cannot remove the parts of the brain, or the systems within it, that allow for metacognition, without removing survival skills.  That is because, as I have already stated, metacognition is just advanced critical thinking.

What you're proposing would require an artificial block in the brain that allows only for logic, but without affecting any other survival skills.  Such a mutation is, I'd think, essentially impossible.

Basically, yes, I think that animals, even working animals like a dog that herds other animals, are limited to perhaps two thoughts, survival and gratification, and I'm not entirely sure of the second.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.

Once again, you've have to look at analogy thinking that isn't related to survival or gratification.

Read the study I linked.  How was that related to either?  It wasn't -- it just happened to go along with processes that are.  You're proving my point for me.

Where does she say that she will "force" them to permit debate.  She's saying that they should not be prohibited by the state. 

You said that her comments about being for teaching ID obviously must not be accurate, because that's not something the governor can control.

But when she says that they should permit debate, you seem to claim she is just speaking to her own opinion on what should be done in the classroom.

It's special pleading -- you're arguing one thing must be true in one case, but arbitrarily refusing to apply it to another case.

In any case, your interpretation still requires more assumptions and two prior incorrect statements on Palin's part, and mine doesn't.  Yet, you're sure mine is wrong and yours is right.  Why?

I'm essentially Biden's position of legalizing rape, but if he personally supports legalizing rape, I am disagreeing with that opinion.

Uh, what?

[Alcon]

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

I do not see any instances of this, and I just reviewed the thread.  You can quote them, if you'd like.  Either way, I'm not advocating that position.

[Alcon]

There are a few others as well.

Fair enough.

I looked at the Preuss, et al., article that said it.

Oh, OK, I guess that makes the Lahn study not exist?

No Alcon, I have not suggested anything of the sort of "artificial block."  I am suggesting nothing other than natural selection.  A group that divert resources, including the time to think about the question, to metaphysical pursuits seems much less likely to survive. 

The Preuss paper talked about causation, and mutation was one.  Fine, it's possible, but once that mutation occurs, and Homo begins its pursuits of the metaphysical, that doesn't look like it is a trait would be helpful.

I will note that you didn't answer my question, which leave me with the suspicion that you don't like the answer.

Again, because I didn't accept the premise that such a mutation/evolution would occur.  If I don't except the premise, your question is irrelevant.  It was rhetorical anyway, since the answer would be obvious.

The mutation was increased critical thinking skills.  Until you can explain to me how the brain would develop to think critically without metacognition, you're whistling Dixie.

Stop confusing metacognition with metaphysical thinking.  And stop confusing humans with the genus Homo.  There were other species of the genus Homo that thought metaphysically as well.

Metacognition is a form of metaphysical thinking.  You're nitpicking irrelevantly.  I understand the difference, but since my (supported, unrebutted!) contention is that they are essentially the product of the same process, I did nothing wrong by using them interchangably.

Because, she came out the day after and corrected her statement.  The second statement referred to the first.

Lol, you're running in circles.  I already pointed out that the two aren't mutually exclusive statements, and you've totally ignored that.

[Alcon]

Well, J. J., you've apparently decided that:

1. You're not going to do any work in researching or understanding this, even if I give you direct citations.  And, seriously, anyone who could make a statement, like the HGP is irrelevant to this, clearly has very little knowledge of this subject -- even less than the limited I have.

2. You're going to refuse to answer my questions (e.g., on brain development) while complaining I don't answer questions, even if I note my objections to their premises.

3. You're going to unsubtly disregard things I spend several posts explaining, like how Palin's statements aren't logically mutually exclusive.

You're officially swimming in confirmation-bias-land (you?), and Lunar's right, there's just no gold at the end of the rainbow, here.

[Alcon]

J. J.,

I understand your contention is that there's no evolutionary basis for metaphysical thinking.  My contention is that it is part of critical thinking, is not a separate function, and has no reason to appear as such a mutation.  I may be wrong, but I don't think you've explained how it would.  Either way, I've answered your question--"why did homo genus begin to ask 'why is the fruit her?'"  Because their brains evolved to that point, and nothing stopped them from thinking that way.  Your over-use of the smiley doesn't change the fact that you keep ignoring that.

Your religious analogy is ham-fisted.  I have "faith" (that is, working assumption) in the scientific method because it is based on empirical evidence.  My faith isn't an axiom, beyond the axiom that "what I observe and experience in the world, I assume is true."  I have axiomatic assumption in the truth of the scientific because I have axiomatic assumption in the truth of reality through empirical observation.  It could be wrong, and I accept that.  But on one hand, you have faith in observable reality vs. faith in a book not demanding any empirical proof.  Apples and kumquats.

I have no idea why you're giving me an example of changing one's mind; it's a concept I understand.  Unlike Palin, I obviously did, because my statement (II) consciously contradicted, and redacted, my statement (I).  That's not true of Palin's statements -- they're not mutually exclusive.  She can both personally support teaching ID (I), but oppose it being in state curriculum (II).  She could have been expounding (II) on that point (I), and you continue to ignore that.  You're being intentionally dense.  I hope.