Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[Z]

Which successful civilization do you cite comprised of more atheists than ~atheists?

Typical strawman.

I said those who choose faith OVER fact are doomed to extinction. Like faith that the volcano won't ever erupt, over the fact that it's about to... happened before. Faith that God will cure the Plague. Faith that AIDS only affects the wicked and sinful. And so on.

It's fine to have faith. It's not fine to accept faith OVER fact. When faith and fact collide, fact should be chosen - full stop.

Of course atheists also have beliefs, one being that "physical, objective, reality" exists.

Everyone has beliefs. Some are supported by facts, of course... which are nothing more than consistant and verifiable beliefs.

 

[Z]

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's called 'grow up and get a life', and yes, the government should be doing just that.

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.

You're right - since the OP mentioned a current event in Kansas, I mistakenly thought this was the trial that was current. Still - I was right, it seems, the IDiots won, and the pendulum has started its shift back to ignorance.

The Dover trial is bound to come out the same way. And many more in the near future.

Perhaps... the first days of the fall of the American Empire?

 

[Dymanic]

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.

That is a good point. But considering the excesses to which some have been driven by religious beliefs in the form of the most extreme forms of fanaticism, it seems to me that the government has good cause to interfere at some point (the question, obviously, is where).

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 worth debating. We're not going back to the caves. Scientific inquiry is going to continue to move forward. Consideration of the potential implications of doing science is about as likely to act as a deterrent to proceeding with that activity as consideration of the potential implications of having sex is to act as a deterrent to that activity. Might as well stand on the beach to stop the tide.

...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.

What is seems to boil down to is whether students should be taught about what has actually been learned as the result of scientific research, or something else.

My own personal opinion is that we should not require any child to learn things their parents find objectionable.

What if their parents find all of it to be objectionable? Are children still chattels, or do they not in a sense belong to society as well? What if the parents happen to be among the most extreme of fundamentalist fanatics who would limit their children's education to endless study of scripture? Does the State not have a right to require parents to take responsibility not only for providing for their children's basic needs, but also for seeing that they recieve at least the minimum level of education they will need to become functional members of our modern society? If that need is not met, and the children cannot function in society, will the parents shoulder that burden alone, or will not the State incur considerable costs as well?

 

[Beth]

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.

Er, yes, it would be an untenable approach. That's why I favor a radical departure from our current education system for children.

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.

Evidence please? . The fact is that homeschoolers essentially routinely tailor education to the needs of the particular child, follow no set curriculum or standards and the kids educated in that manner consistently outperform their more traditionally schooled peers in all areas - including science!

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.

We agree on the basic premise that education should be about providing a good solid basis for the future of mankind. I simply disagree with your assessment regarding the effect of religious faith on education. I don't think that education with repercussions to someone's religious beliefs should be forced on their children against their wishes. Further, I think that those who want their religious beliefs to be a part of the education of their children are within their rights to do so and there is no credible evidence that their doing so is determental to their children's education.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I am no fan of ID or creationism but I am at a loss to understand how being taught creationsim or ID (even to the exclusion of evolution) would have a negative impact on anyone's later education or career unless they chose to pursue evolutionary biology.

Unless of course we're suggesting that it's a slippery slope.

No, it's not a slippery slope. It's because they are misleading the students on what evolution IS. Their materials state what they figure evolution is, and then they say why it is wrong. They don't actually teach evolution, they clearly make evolution look ridiculous without actually teaching what evolution really is. It's like saying clowns are the devil. They take a picture of the devil and tell the students that it is a clown. Then they point out why it is evil.

They completely trash evolution with strawmen. So the kids never actually learn evolution, and they then have no choice but to figure it's stupid.

So how can you learn biology or evolution with lies? The students are left with teachings that make the supernatural seem like common sense. How do you then choose to ever pursue science in any seriousness after that? You'll be left with a bunch of kids who have no idea what science and the scientific process is about.

I will search out the thread that showed the classroom materials and highlight what I'm talking about...I haven't had time to see what all has been coverd already in these 4 pages of the thread, so I aplogize if I'm repeating.

I can't find the thread where I quoted some lesson plans in the education threads. However, I at one time did find lesson plans...but now I can only find a critique of the lesson plans.


http://pharyngula.org/index/comments/a_summary_of_the_ohio_situation/

http://www.ravallinews.com/articles/2004/03/04/opinion/viewpoint/valley.txt

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/anti-evolution/

 

[Beth]

It's called 'grow up and get a life', and yes, the government should be doing just that.

I'm sorry, but I' don't think I'm following you here. I don't know who you are suggesting needs to 'grow up and get a life'. Further, you seem to be saying that the government should go ahead and actively pursue policies regardless of the fact that many of citizens perceive the policy as harmful - is that correct? And if the citizens later throw out elected officials who advocated that policy and replace them with elected officials that change the policy to be more to their liking - such as a policy that requires the teaching of ID in public schools - you are in favor of this? Because I thought you were arguing the other side.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm trying to download a lesson plan:
http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis.pdf

I'm hoping to try again from home. It's not working from my work computer...

 

[Beth]

That is a good point. But considering the excesses to which some have been driven by religious beliefs in the form of the most extreme forms of fanaticism, it seems to me that the government has good cause to interfere at some point (the question, obviously, is where).

You're right here. I tend to favor allowing governmental interference only when the fanatic crosses the line into criminal behavior, but there is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree on when the government has good cause to intervene.

What if their parents find all of it to be objectionable? Are children still chattels, or do they not in a sense belong to society as well? What if the parents happen to be among the most extreme of fundamentalist fanatics who would limit their children's education to endless study of scripture? Does the State not have a right to require parents to take responsibility not only for providing for their children's basic needs, but also for seeing that they recieve at least the minimum level of education they will need to become functional members of our modern society? If that need is not met, and the children cannot function in society, will the parents shoulder that burden alone, or will not the State incur considerable costs as well?

False dicotomy. Children are not chattel and neither do they belong to society. Parental behavior is limited by society in many regards, including the fact that parents are obligated to adequately educate their children. If they fail to do so, then society already has the right to intervene ensconced in law. Just as society has the right to intervene if a parent neglects to provide their child with adequate food, clothing or shelter.

However, understanding evolution is not a requirement to becoming a functioning contributing member of society. Further, if you look at what fundamentalist religious fanatics are actually teaching their children when they homeschool, the picture you present of only studying scripture is clearly a strawman - it's not what actually occurs. In general, their children are more likely to become responsible contributing members of our society than the average kid in public school.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you're going to tune education to the perceived needs of each individual child, just make sure that afterward you don't need to tune the world itself to each individual child's resulting worldview.

However, understanding evolution is not a requirement to becoming a functioning contributing member of society. Further, if you look at what fundamentalist religious fanatics are actually teaching their children when they homeschool, the picture you present of only studying scripture is clearly a strawman - it's not what actually occurs. In general, their children are more likely to become responsible contributing members of our society than the average kid in public school.

Oh baby, for this I want evidence.

~~ Paul

 

[tsg]

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.

First, evolution makes no attempt to explain how life began. Second, the scientific usage of the word "theory" does not mean conjecture or supposition as you are using it here. They want Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution as if it had just as much validity. It doesn't. Not by half.

Also, the study of evolution DOES affect the religious faith of many people.

If people cannot reconcile their faith with the known facts, that is nobody's problem but their own. "It contradicts a certain religious view" is a lousy reason to downplay and discredit the facts.

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.

Make no mistake. This is a political, religiously-motivated agenda. They want their religious views taught in public school. Intelligent Design is nothing more than warmed over creationism, a collection of logical fallacies and gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory designed to place religious teachings in public school.

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.

Whatever their intentions, with whatever care and love it is being offered, their actions and their desired result are wrong. End of story. They want the government to teach my children their religious views. That violates my rights. If it was a Muslim or Hindu inspired "theory", they would be the very first screaming about how their rights are being violated. There can be no compromise here.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Something I saw that reminds me of ID:

5 is even and odd,
therefore, God exists.

The premise is false. Even if it was true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion.

Evolution works in simulations. Scientists can describe processes (even if some are only hypothetical) where evolution could come up with irreducibly complex traits.

Even if evolution didn't work, that wouldn't mean life was designed. It would just mean we don't know. Science would march on to the next testable hypothesis.

 

[Beth]

If you're going to tune education to the perceived needs of each individual child, just make sure that afterward you don't need to tune the world itself to each individual child's resulting worldview.


Oh baby, for this I want evidence.

~~ Paul

I’m basing that claim on the fact that homeschooled children perform at close to the 80th percentile on standardized tests in states that require homeschoolers to take standardized tests (the norm is the 50th percentile) and studies that have been conducted showing that homeschooled children are better socialized than their more traditionally schooled peers.

I don’t know that any study has been conducted looking only at people who homeschool and have fundamentalist religious beliefs, but they are a sizeable portion of homeschoolers and I think it’s reasonable to conclude that their children are contributing to those high standardized test scores and socialization ratings. In addition, if you look at those homeschooling religious families, they are often doing so because they wish to ingrain their values into their children.

I don’t think it’s a big leap to conclude that since homeschoolers typically produce children who are both better educated (as measured by standardized tests) and better socialized (as measured by observers watching children interact but blinded to how the children had been educated) and who are homeschooling, at least in part, to instill a set of traditional religious values which include being a self-sufficient contributing member of thier society are going to produce children who are generally at a lower risk of being criminals, on welfare, or otherwise a burden to society.

If you disagree with that conclusion, so be it. If you are interested, I can look up my sources for the facts claimed in my first paragraph, but its not really relevant to the topic of this thread, so PM me if you want me to do that for you. It will likely be Thanksgiving before I have time to look those up for you. It’s been quite a while since I researched homeschooling so it may take some digging in old files for me to find the sources.

 

[Beth]

First, evolution makes no attempt to explain how life began. Second, the scientific usage of the word "theory" does not mean conjecture or supposition as you are using it here. They want Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution as if it had just as much validity. It doesn't. Not by half.

Well, whether or not evolution attempts to explain how life began is debatable. I've certainly heard some evolutionists opine about it. As for my use of the word 'theory', it was in contrast to your claim that ID proponents wish to have ID taught as fact. That is not true. As far as whether it has as much validity as evolution - I agree with you. It doesn't.

If people cannot reconcile their faith with the known facts, that is nobody's problem but their own. "It contradicts a certain religious view" is a lousy reason to downplay and discredit the facts.

IMO, unless the facts in dispute are vital to survival as an adult, it is sufficient reason not to teach their children those facts in opposition to their wishes.

They want the government to teach my children their religious views. That violates my rights. If it was a Muslim or Hindu inspired "theory", they would be the very first screaming about how their rights are being violated. There can be no compromise here.

I agree that it would be a violation of your rights. However, I see it as no more or less a violation of your rights than requiring the teaching of evolution to students whose parents object is a violation of their rights. That's why I think the best solution is to tailor education to the individual student. Then those who's parents (like you) object to ID are not taught that theory, those who's parents object to evolution are not taught that theory. While not the only reason I support greater choice and flexibility in our educational system, it certainly gives me one more reason to do so.

 

[petre]

I’m basing that claim on the fact that homeschooled children perform at close to the 80th percentile on standardized tests in states that require homeschoolers to take standardized tests (the norm is the 50th percentile) and studies that have been conducted showing that homeschooled children are better socialized than their more traditionally schooled peers.

Would there be any studies that compare the scores of students with the benefit of equal parental involvment in their education outside of normal school hours for both homeschooled and non-homeschooled students? Or maybe we could tackle the question from the other side and consider "drop-outs" as homeschooled and see how the numbers add up?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Well, whether or not evolution attempts to explain how life began is debatable. I've certainly heard some evolutionists opine about it.

That's when the subject changes to abiogenesis and/or cosmology.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don’t know that any study has been conducted looking only at people who homeschool and have fundamentalist religious beliefs, but they are a sizeable portion of homeschoolers and I think it’s reasonable to conclude that their children are contributing to those high standardized test scores and socialization ratings.

What portion of homeschoolers are fundamentalists? I hope it's not as high as you say, because that would make me wonder about the agendas of homeschoolers even more than I already do.

I don't see how you're going to have customized a curriculum for every child and still maintain a public school system. Or, for that matter, a private school system.

~~ Paul

 

[PatKelley]

I agree that it would be a violation of your rights. However, I see it as no more or less a violation of your rights than requiring the teaching of evolution to students whose parents object is a violation of their rights. That's why I think the best solution is to tailor education to the individual student. Then those who's parents (like you) object to ID are not taught that theory, those who's parents object to evolution are not taught that theory. While not the only reason I support greater choice and flexibility in our educational system, it certainly gives me one more reason to do so.

There is a fundamental, no pun intended, problem here. The science of biology is evolution. Taxonomy and Zoological studies were the first to start arranging animals into similar groups, and the first to posit relationships. The gears were turning by 1850 with several approaches as to heritibility of changes. If one does not consider evolution, one is not studying biology. Genetics, heredity, animal husbandry, anatomy, embryology, ecology, medicine, and the list goes on, would not exist but for the expansion of the field with evolution.

I've known a number of students sure they could learn biology without abandoning creationism and biblical literalism, but they ended up psychology or political science majors instead. Only the biochemists could seem to stick with creationism, and only if they kept their heads down in their work and didn't look any further than the current run.

Biology would have to be excluded entirely to not teach evolution. Children start to notice the relationships themselves given time, and start asking questions about whether or not animals can mate to make new animals, whether or not an animal can change to fit its environment, and one ends up having to come face to face with evolution again.

This is because, unlike an espoused religious belief, it is a product of reasoning and observation. It is not dictated; it is self-evident. Something is at work, and it is not intelligent design. Try throwing that brick wall up after the kids have become interested and see how far it gets you, or how many children then lose interest.

Eliminate evolution, and hence biology, and you might as well go back to humor theory and make sure your bile is balanced with enough phlegm, or better yet go on to holistic medicine which in no way will lead one on a course of discovery.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

What portion of homeschoolers are fundamentalists? I hope it's not as high as you say, because that would make me wonder about the agendas of homeschoolers even more than I already do.

~~ Paul

I've seen home-schooling rings that warn against "evolution containing" sites. They offer links that have "science" without any reference to evolution, or that have the alternative theistic evolution.

Oh, just look at this tasty tidbit:

http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html

Homeschooling, that like ID, preaches against evolution...since evolution is all about atheism. Nasty nasty atheism.

evolution is an abstract and generally non-observable phenomenon, and living things do seem well-designed for their environments

... (allows students to become) more willing to develop powerful theories of creation that explain the data better than any evolutionary competitor

ID is better known as "theistic evolution" among home schoolers. They of course lie about actual evolution, as do IDiots. They do figure evolution is "competition".

And don't miss out on this homeschooling headline from "Homeschooling World":

Evolution is Obsolete

http://www.home-school.com/Articles/phs34-kenham.html

You don't have to wonder about homeschooling agendas. You KNOW the agenda.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh my.

~~ Paul

 

[William Parcher]

I can't help but think that the primary cause of the ID/evolution controversy is based in what can happen in a fervently democratic country. A society/country such as the USA, can have a meaningful (and possibly majority) population that somehow disagrees with the findings of any particular enterprise or organization. In this case, a faction of the population disagrees that evolution is the correct (or only reasonable) explanation for life on earth. Democracies are designed to let individuals design, control and basically govern the whole shebang.

It is rather ironic that the USA was idealized and actualized as a reaction to autocratic rule in Britain. When a group wishes to secede or abandon something that they disagree with, they do not automatically reflect upon science to guide or support their motivation.

The conflict here seems to fall upon two differing worldviews. One is religio-spiritualism and the other is scientism. That either or both, want or demand distance from each other, seems natural to me.

The specific battle is largely political. The "ID movement" seems more intent on changing the public school curricula than on changing science itself. This is a tactic that might work even if ID can never hold its ground in any scientific arena. Public schools are not really part of the enterprise of science, per se. Public school boards are not the conventions of science, even if some of their members were educated in science.

The reason why expert witnesses are being brought into these trials is because the school boards and (even biology) teachers are not really engaged in science. Public school biology teachers are educators first and scientists second. Much changes in university situations, where the educators are often directly engaged in the enterprise of science.

It is no accident that the champions of ID are focusing on changing the public school curricula, almost at the exclusion of seeking changes in universities or within science itself. The latter battles were lost over a century ago in a fight that was basically the same.

In spite of being nontheistic and staunchly an evolutionist, I disagree that the ID movement is truly ignorant of science, or anything for that matter. If anything, they are keenly aware of science and its conventions. They have chosen to "attack" a target that they stand some chance of defeating. ID is almost silent in the halls of science, but it is very noisy in the halls of public schools.