Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[Z]

In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

"Just to clarify for those who are passing by."

Gee... you'd think an empty failure at rebuttal could at least be creative, the second time around...

Oh, come on, hammy - you know you're dying to say, "I know you are, but what am I?"



It'd be one of the smarter things you've said since posting here...

 

[hammegk]

Gee... you'd think an empty failure at rebuttal could at least be creative, the second time around...

Bunkie, you may not be as smart as you think you are. Some conversations concern things with nuance and substance; what you do is pound on square little pegs in round little holes using a mallet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's probably best to let the adults talk, hammy. Now go back to the kiddie table and be quiet.

 

[Z]

It's probably best to let the adults talk, hammy. Now go back to the kiddie table and be quiet.

Now, now, thai - you ought to know that it's best for the mentally challenged if you talk to them as equals...

 

[tsg]

No, that's not the point; at least not the one I'm making. I'm just asking how my fellow evolutionists can seriously claim that understanding ID is a bad thing - while, at the same time, saying that evolution does not directly affect religion?

Because Kansas is trying to redefine science so that ID can be taught as fact. That is the whole point of the thread. Evolution does not affect religion simply because it makes no claim one way or the other about the existence of a supernatural creator.

I'm not talking about taking any science education away from anyone.

The Discovery Institute, the Kansas BOE and the Dover BOE are. They want to "balance" the teaching evolutionary theory, claiming that evolution is full of holes while offering ID as a reasonable and well supported alternative when neither of those claims is true. That is taking science education away from a lot of students.

I agree that ID is not science and should not be taught as science. But it should certainly be taught in modern studies class and philosophy classes and religious studies classes also have considerable merit in preparing kids for life in society.

I don't disagree. ID belongs in philosophy or theology studies if it is going to be taught at all. But, at the same time, I wouldn't disagree with any decision not to teach ID simply because it's not even a well thought out philosophy. If you want to teach about what ID claims, simply teach about Christianity. The truth is that ID is simply Christianity tempered to try to sneak it into science studies.

I think the point here is: can you teach ID in such a way that you don't promote ID?

It's the difference between teaching about a belief system ("some people believe life was created by an intelligent supernatural being" in a theology class where other religious beliefs are examined) versus teaching the belief system as fact ("life was created by an intelligent supernatural being" in a science class as fact).

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, that's not the point; at least not the one I'm making. I'm just asking how my fellow evolutionists can seriously claim that understanding ID is a bad thing - while, at the same time, saying that evolution does not directly affect religion?

Well your example shows that it doesn't. You are an "evolutionist", and religious. So is, say, kittynh. I think Flick would give us the balance of probability right now, and it hasn't provoked a spiritual crisis. Wallace and Dobzhansky were devout. Darwin's only problem with God was the problem of sufferring in nature, and he said that he thought a man would be a great fool who said that you couldn't be a sincere evolutionist and a devout theist. If you look in the Skeptic's Dictionary (written by an atheist) under "Intelligent Design", it points out that the truth of evolution would not rule out an Intelligent Designer who chose that as his method.

Even Dawkins, who evangelizes for biology and atheism, has never reasoned from the former to the latter --- and I bet he would if he could.

If you look at the Pandas trial, there's a very interesting bit in the tesimony of one of the experts, on science education, explaining how they go about explaining how science does not go against faith.

There doesn't seem to be any big issue here. The theory of evolution, like the Copernican theory, is religiously neutral except to a few bozos who insist on treating the Bible as a science textbook.

 

[Ed]

Kinda backtracking on the "goddidit" claim as being inevitable of believing in "God", aren't you?

HypnoPsi

Since I never said that you have me perplexed.

I don't see how materialism is a religious belief. It sounds like a hail mary pass frankly.

(which is an amazingly ironic quote given my equal loathing for sports and religion)

 

[Beth]

Because Kansas is trying to redefine science so that ID can be taught as fact. That is the whole point of the thread. Evolution does not affect religion simply because it makes no claim one way or the other about the existence of a supernatural creator.

This isn't quite true. Kansas is indeed trying to redefine science so that ID can by taught, but not as fact, rather as another theory regarding how life came to be on earth. Also, the study of evolution DOES affect the religious faith of many people. I can personally testify to that. You can read the book "Three Scientists and their Gods" for more examples. It depends on the faith, of course, but children from families of fundamentalist religions that take the bible literally are particularly vulnerable to the study of evolution precipitating a loss of faith.

I know it's easy for people who do not hold such beliefs to laugh at those parents, concerned about their children's religious beliefs being undermined, but it does happen and for those people, it is a very real crisis with serious repercussions. Such a loss of faith can lead to a rift in family relationships that may last for decades or even lifetimes. It is not something to be taken lightly. Because there are enough of those people living in Kansas, they have elected a conservative state school board to provide a solution to that problem.

While I'm not thrilled about the solution they are implementing, I can at least understand why they are doing it. Most of the posts I read here indicate that the majority of those who are condemning the decision of the Kansas BOE are completely off base in their assumptions about why this is going on. These people are not idiots, they are intelligent caring individuals who are attempting to shape the education of the children in their society in ways they feel are best. I can disagree with their approach whilst still respecting their intelligence and their motivations.

Condemning them as stupid and/or ignorant and attempting to overpower them in the political forum has simply led to a seesaw of approaches as the power balance tips first one way and then the other. It doesn't move our society forward in any direction. I don't know what the best solution is, but I think that teaching science, particularly evolution, without regard to the implications that such theories have for many religious beliefs is what led to this situation. As long as we continue to ignore those repercussions, our society will be divided in this fight for the minds of our children. If you think that is for the best, recall that currently the ID'ers are winning in Kansas. There is no guarantee that science will ultimately win anywhere.

 

[Ed]

It depends on the faith, of course, but children from families of fundamentalist religions that take the bible literally are particularly vulnerable to the study of evolution precipitating a loss of faith.

In that case their faith is a veneer. Why should truth be subject to superstition?

Incidentially, if that is the reason, they just lost.

 

[drkitten]

So, not only are you going to insist that ID is not taught in biology you also want to see it actively debunked in some other class like modern studies, philosophy or RE?

Not at all. I'm happy if nonsense is never mentioned at all.

I merely insist that anything that is taught is taught on the basis of legitimate scholarship, fact, and evidence. If the IDers insist on having their particular brand of superstition and pseudoscholarship taught, then it's their lookout.

 

[Z]

If people choose faith over facts and superstition over science, they deserve rifts in their family relationships. They deserve a lot worse, in fact. But society need do very little, because those who choose faith over fact are doomed to extinction anyway.

Personally, having only read about the Kansas trial here, I think the defendents have an extremely weak case; however, knowing how judges are nothing more than politicians and bow to public pressure just like any other politician, I believe the IDers will win this case - and probably the appeal as well. The pendulum has been on the side of rationality for a very long time, and I'm certain it's about to swing the other way, and that we're doomed to suffer a generation or two of a modern Dark Ages; hopefully, I'm wrong.

 

[William Parcher]

Even Dawkins, who evangelizes for biology and atheism, has never reasoned from the former to the latter --- and I bet he would if he could.

I think that Richard Dawkins really does reason that the evidence for evolution by natural selection takes classic religion off the table.

Insofar as, a creating and designing god is incompatible with evolutionary theory. If that kind of a god is the basis for a religion, then Dawkins would say that that religion is being refuted by evolution. He would also go on to say that anyone can believe whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that the belief is supported by any evidence.

 

[Dymanic]

Most of the posts I read here indicate that the majority of those who are condemning the decision of the Kansas BOE are completely off base in their assumptions about why this is going on. These people are not idiots, they are intelligent caring individuals who are attempting to shape the education of the children in their society in ways they feel are best. I can disagree with their approach whilst still respecting their intelligence and their motivations.

Condemning them as stupid and/or ignorant and attempting to overpower them in the political forum has simply led to a seesaw of approaches as the power balance tips first one way and then the other.

As far as the political struggle, I find myself wanting to respond with the schoolboy's refrain: "they started it".

There simply isn't any avoiding the fact that (with the possible exception of some of the founders of the movement, who surely know enough to make them culpable of outright dishonesty) those who want ID taught as science are ignorant about science (most of them probably don't know much about ID either). Informing someone who is ignorant that they are ignorant is delicate work; I've never been very good at it myself, but I've decided that tolerance for ignorant people is something worth working on. Though it took practice, I've learned that I do have the option to just smile and nod, keep my mouth shut, and look for their good qualities. Besides that, whenever I feel a pressing need to go on a crusade against ignorance, probably the best place to start is by cracking open a book and taking on a little of my own. But there's a difference between minding your own business ignorant and in your face ignorant. These people aren't content merely to wallow in their own ignorance, they want to infect an entire generation with it. In the struggle to resist that, some feelings are going to get hurt, and that's too bad; but it's worth struggling against.

I think that teaching science, particularly evolution, without regard to the implications that such theories have for many religious beliefs is what led to this situation.

Above all, science must be objective (maybe I should say: it should strive to be as objective as possible). How can that be adhered to if scientists must keep one eye on the implications their work might have for various religious belief systems? It may be true that the study of evolution affects the religious faith of many people, but for that matter, so does geology. Should teachers of geology have to tiptoe around as well? The study of astronomy is sure to undermine somebody's beliefs too. I mean, how much should we hold back so as not to upset anyone?

 

[Beth]

As far as the political struggle, I find myself wanting to respond with the schoolboy's refrain: "they started it".

Understandable, but not they way they see it. Nor does it matter. The argument started with Darwin and thus before either of us were born. It's no longer relevant who started it. The important question is: How can we resolve the issue without tearing our society in two?

I've decided that tolerance for ignorant people is something worth working on. Though it took practice, I've learned that I do have the option to just smile and nod, keep my mouth shut, and look for their good qualities. Besides that, whenever I feel a pressing need to go on a crusade against ignorance, probably the best place to start is by cracking open a book and taking on a little of my own.

I quite understand and agree. I have developed over time a very similar philosophy.

But there's a difference between minding your own business ignorant and in your face ignorant. These people aren't content merely to wallow in their own ignorance, they want to infect an entire generation with it. In the struggle to resist that, some feelings are going to get hurt, and that's too bad; but it's worth struggling against.

Actually, I think they would be content to wallow in their own ignorance if it were allowed. It isn't. When evolution is required by the state standards, it is perceived as the government interferring with their religious beliefs. Personally, I think this is a valid point and one that isn't given much credence in public forums like this one. The insistence of ID being included in the curriculum is basically a result of that point being ignored and therefore, they have resorted to ID as an attempt to nullify the effect of the teaching of evolution on the faith of their children.

Above all, science must be objective (maybe I should say: it should strive to be as objective as possible). How can that be adhered to if scientists must keep one eye on the implications their work might have for various religious belief systems? It may be true that the study of evolution affects the religious faith of many people, but for that matter, so does geology. Should teachers of geology have to tiptoe around as well? The study of astronomy is sure to undermine somebody's beliefs too. I mean, how much should we hold back so as not to upset anyone?

I don't have a good answer to your question. I do think that scientists who are doing research often do so with little regard to the potential implications of their work and whether or not that is a good thing is debatable, but not really the issue at hand. Here we are discussing not what should be researched, but what should be required teaching in public schools. A somewhat different kettle of fish.

My own personal opinion is that we should not require any child to learn things their parents find objectionable. That encompasses a great deal of controversial curriculum, not just ID and evolution. I realize that isn't a particularly popular opinion, but it's mine. However, I also don't think that just because someone finds something in the curriculum objectionable, that is sufficient grounds to remove it from the curriculum for everyone, only for their child. Those ideals are mutually exclusive in our current education system, thus I tend to favor radical departures from our current system that would allow for the education of children to be tailored to each individual child based on their own unique needs. There are a many reasons to favor that type of approach that have nothing to do with the evolution/ID debate. However, that's a subject for a whole 'nother thread so I'll stop there.

Thanks for listening.

 

[Beth]

If people choose faith over facts and superstition over science, they deserve rifts in their family relationships. They deserve a lot worse, in fact. But society need do very little, because those who choose faith over fact are doomed to extinction anyway.

You are entitled to your opinion over what they deserve. However, I think it is a different matter when the government knowingly pursues a policy that precipitates such outcomes and disregards those foreseeable consequences and the negative impact upon the lives of their constituents and their children. The appropriate response of citizens who are unhappy with such a policy is to organize and express their displeasure at the ballot box. That is what has occurred in Kansas.

Personally, having only read about the Kansas trial here, I think the defendents have an extremely weak case; however, knowing how judges are nothing more than politicians and bow to public pressure just like any other politician, I believe the IDers will win this case - and probably the appeal as well. The pendulum has been on the side of rationality for a very long time, and I'm certain it's about to swing the other way, and that we're doomed to suffer a generation or two of a modern Dark Ages; hopefully, I'm wrong.

I think you're confusing the Dover trial with the Kansas BOE hearing on evolution that took place a few months ago. In Kansas, it's a done deal, ID will be in the curriculum - at least until the next election.

 

[drkitten]

I think you're confusing the Dover trial with the Kansas BOE hearing on evolution that took place a few months ago. In Kansas, it's a done deal, ID will be in the curriculum - at least until the next election.

Will it? The ACLU isn't filing any suits there?

 

[Beth]

Will it? The ACLU isn't filing any suits there?

Not yet. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

 

[Ed]

You are entitled to your opinion over what they deserve. However, I think it is a different matter when the government knowingly pursues a policy that precipitates such outcomes and disregards those foreseeable consequences and the negative impact upon the lives of their constituents and their children. The appropriate response of citizens who are unhappy with such a policy is to organize and express their displeasure at the ballot box. That is what has occurred in Kansas.

.

It happens all of the time. Who are the nuts that don't want blood transfusions and the doctors end up getting court orders to save their lives? Actually, I think that I recall that the "revealed word" changed on that score. There are many biblical teachings that the state would interfere with that some fundimentalists would be all to happy to impliment. So it goes.

 

[hammegk]

...those who choose faith over fact are doomed to extinction anyway.

Which successful civilization do you cite comprised of more atheists than ~atheists? Of course atheists also have beliefs, one being that "physical, objective, reality" exists.

 

[Z]

If we allowed parents to remove their children any time a fact is taught that undermines some belief, the classroom would become a never-ending carousel of students coming and going. Some ethnic students would leave history class if a discussion of slavery and its economic benefit to Colonial America ensued. Then the population would shift again as we enter biology, and the fundies pull their kids to keep them from learning that God isn't responsible for how creatures are today. Following that, the New Agers yank their kids while astronomy is discussed, and the 24 or more constellations in 'the Zodiac'. Then some brief chaos as the Breatharian kid has to be monitored during lunch, and then the National Socialist's kids have to be watched while Art class discusses African animistic symbolism in art; then, during Music class, all the Fundies leave again, since we'll be studying non-Gospel music for a bit...

And so on, and so forth.

And when testing time rolls around, and no one scores more than about 50%... what then? Oh, I know - drop all the standards, pass all the kids, and watch the world continue to slide into anarchy and chaos.

Sorry, Beth, but I'd rather see the government give all the faithful a huge wake-up call, teach the facts, and tell the families to get over the nonsense and the bull - if the kid misses lessons on evolution, flunk him on that section. Education shouldn't be about catering to faith, but providing a good, solid basis for the future of mankind.

Beth's idea is a PRIME example of the damage that organized religion has on the world - and I know I've said (or tried to say) it before: when ignorance is preferable to faithlessness, we've failed as a race, and it's time for the roaches to have their turn.