Should scientists debate creationists?

[Father Dagon]

But a school child asking “What good is half an eye?” is a loaded question that they have been trained to ask and it is a derailment of a classroom. There are transitional eyes in abundance, there are transitional fossils in abundance. Some people ask questions because they don’t want to hear the answers.

But aren't the transitional eyes relatively rare, as the shift from no eyes to good eyes was so swift? We are speaking of the rise of a new sense after all...

 

[articulett]

These seem like valid concerns to me:
Concerns about calibration of radiodating techniques
How can random processes give specific values?
How do entirely new traits evolve?
(I didn't read the transitional fossil thread to which you are no doubt alluding)

In fact I think all of these questions are currently being explored in the field.

I find no reason to suspect ulterior motives in those who ask the tough questions.

It's their lack of curiosity as to the answers that makes me suspect... their lack of curiosity to new understandings in the field. It's also the inability to understand why their questions are bad... on par with asking "how far to the edge of the earth"? They show an ignorance and the presumption of an answer more that a real question. The answers to such questions are not simple, and creationists seem to want simple quick answer that they do not have the scientific knowledge to understand. They don't seem to need this information to study gravity or chemistry or physics. Only those who have been infected by creationist memes seem to proffer certain types of questions while showing an utter inability to comprehend the answers no matter how well worded. Your questions are weird... non specific in some ways... you ask questions similar only to those I hear asked by creationists.

How do new traits evolve-- the same way resistance spread through the butterfly population: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274/

Your random processes question is vague as is your calibration question. And you could readily find answers if you had specific questions instead of the vague questions creationists ask. You deny that you have "intelligent design leanings", correct? And yet I don't know of anyone without pretty extensive indoctrination that asks such weenie questions while pretending to be academically rigorous. Those are creationist obfuscation techniques... not really questions designed to illicit further understanding for themselves or anyone else.

Radiometric dating and specificity (how we know what we know) http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

And evolution is not considered a "random process"-- mutations in general are considered random... the way they multiply and spread through populations (natural selection) are not. See the butterfly article. This should be simple to understand. If not, perhaps indoctrination has gotten a hold of your thinking. Nobody but creationists and the uninformed think that evolution is a "random" process. It's biased and the environment hones the info. as it produce replicators that battle it out for the opportunity to leave descendants.

If you can't see how your questions are weenie questions or what the answers are or how to find the answers...or if you think scientists don't "know the answers" then my conclusion is that it's because you are a creationists trying to sound like you have valid scientific arguments or concerns.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[articulett]

But aren't the transitional eyes relatively rare, as the shift from no eyes to good eyes was so swift? We are speaking of the rise of a new sense after all...

No... all eyes are evolving or devolving when no longer used... Not so much in humans because having better vision does not affect survival and reproductive success-- we can correct vision.

However, a little bit of better vision can make a big difference for some animals...and so they live and spawn more spreading on those slightly better vision genes. And eyes devolve away too when they are a liability such as in caves or underground. The area of the brain devoted to vision is overtaken to make other senses more acute. Just as cells start out totipotent and differentiate via the environment and gene instructions... so is the brain to some extent... organisms evolve to adapt and be modified by their environment so that they can survive and reproduce. Those that don't or can't-- die out. We only see a snapshot of evolutionary history. It's genomes that change through times....organisms are just their temporary replicators, recombiners, and possible mutators...

 

[cyborg]

Evolution can be quite ruthless when it comes to eliminating characteristics whose development entail a cost - it is not necessary that you are put at a disadvantage per se, only that you will be out-competed. Just ask anti-biotic resistant bacteria how helpful that trait is when they're out-competed by their non-resistant cousins in an environment where there are no anti-biotics present.

 

[Mobyseven]

You're certainly entitled to disagree. I wasn't trying to convert you, just clarify my position. As I stated earlier, it is a value judgement. We are all entitled to our various values systems.

A value judgment of what though? Science is not a value judgment. Science should be taught as science.

I came to this position after a lot of thought and consideration about various conflicting interests and what I think the probable effects of various approaches would be on our society. In the end, someone has to decide what is best for children in our society. In my opinion, unless they overstep the bounds of the law (which can be changed to reflect the changing values of our society) it's the parents who should be making that call for their individual children. It's reasonable to require that children learn about the basics of the theory of evolution but it's not reasonable to require that they believe it.

'Belief' wouldn't come into it however if the children were well educated enough in evolution to come to a rational decision. Or more accurately, faith wouldn't come into it. Anyone who has been properly taught the theory of evolution has been given the facts, the reasons why to believe in evolution. Creationism does not have those facts to back itself up - that is why I have also stressed the need for a critical thinking curreculum. Children need these tools if the next generation is going to be set upon the path to achievement rather than stagnation.

To further clarify my position: I think the route to achieving the best possible education for every child is through individualized education. I think empowering parents and allowing them more choices will move us towards that goal. Even if some parents make some choices that I don't agree with, I think the overall benefit of vouchers in allowing more freedom and choices in providing education to the children of our society is sufficient to justify supporting vouchers.

The parents who are making the choices you don't agree with are the same ones whose children will make decisions that you and your children disagree with, and so on and so on. The problem is that in each generation the same lies and the same strawman versions of evolution are repeated as dogma, strengthening those views. We need to stop the problem, and we cannot do it unless we accept that allowing parents to teach their children harmful ideas is wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

With "No Child Left Behind", there's barely time for science at all. The central premise is that kids who can't read and do math aren't likely to learn much about science or anything else, and it's hard to argue with that. Here the futility of scientists debating creationists is further underscored by the observation that these deficiencies -- not serious obstacles to grasping creationist teachings -- render the playing field hopelessly uneven.

If science literacy among adults in the U.S. is any measure, then the public school system hasn't been very successful in this area for some time. Maybe abandoning the effort altogether is the best policy. When so simple a thing as the meaning of the word "theory" as it is used in science is so widely misunderstood among full-grown adults (as has just been demonstrated here), how useful is it to attempt to fill little heads with facts about biology even if these same facts now comprise the very theoretical ground on which the science of biology now stands?

I think that my experience is rather different. I work with the emotionally disabled kids, to help them get through school. And while I am in the rooms that have the higher proportion of the more severe 'special ed' kids, I still see learning going on all the time. And especially in science class, it is amazing how motivated the kids get for it, it is the one class that actually holds their attention.

But I totally agree about the harm of All Children Left Behind and teaching to the test.

 

[Dancing David]

But aren't the transitional eyes relatively rare, as the shift from no eyes to good eyes was so swift? We are speaking of the rise of a new sense after all...

Hiya and welcome to the forum!

Hmm, are you aware of the different ways that different critters sense light?

There are examples of just cells that are capable of sensing light IE 'eye spots" and a range of different ways to sense and perceive electro magnetic radiation in the visual spectrum.

I didn't mean that there are transitional fossils of eye development, I meant that there are plenty of primitive and intermediate forms around to start to piece together how it might work.

What evidence do you have that there was a rapid shift from no eyes to good eyes?

 

[Questioninggeller]

But aren't the transitional eyes relatively rare, as the shift from no eyes to good eyes was so swift? We are speaking of the rise of a new sense after all...

See Dawkins' BBC documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2043771442443928848

What evidence do you have that there was a rapid shift from no eyes to good eyes?

I am also interested in this as well.

 

[Dymanic]

And especially in science class, it is amazing how motivated the kids get for it, it is the one class that actually holds their attention.

Ever seen (or read) "October Sky"? True story about a group of coal miner's kids for whom the ancient schoolboy's lament -- "why do I need to learn this junk?" -- became moot when their passion for building rockets swiftly transformed them into eager students of chemistry, physics, and math (especially trig). All of them ended up going to college (hardly the norm for kids from their company-owned town) and one of them eventually became a NASA engineer.

As a motivator, there's no substitute for passion, but the "rocket boys" didn't get theirs from school, and they had to get most of the information they needed outside of the school curriculum as well. Children are born experimenters and born questioners, but by about the time they reach high school the question they ask most often is "what are we supposed to do?" I can't say for sure what causes that, but NCLB doesn't look like a step toward solving it.

What I was really getting at is that facts are useless if you can't interpret them rationally. Science facts are useless if you don't have some basic grounding in the philosophy of science. California is currently making efforts to incorporate critical thinking skills into its state standards. I like that idea a lot better than NCLB, but I'm not sure the timing's right. It seems like an uphill struggle under any circumstances. Teaching kids to fill in the right bubbles on a test isn't the same as teaching them to think critically about the answers (or the questions, or the implications, etc). It would be ironic if the effort failed because it wasn't NCLB-friendly.

Want to squash creationism? Forget science. Most of the kids won't know what to do with it, NCLB won't fund it, and the kids who are really turned on by science won't need you anyway. If you want to squash creationism, teach critical thinking. (It's the heart of science anyway).

Here are some fundies who agree:

THE WOLF IN CRITICAL THINKING

 

[articulett]

I agree, Dynamic... thanks for the link... and I'm downloading the film...

fundies are scary... It's so much like "doublespeak" in 1984. They call critical thinking and science propaganda (or faith) while calling their propaganda "truth". And then they get the masses to self righteously stand behind them by using the scary A-word (atheist).

 

[Beth]

I don't want to live in a society where it is considered the 'right' of a parent to indoctrinate their child and teach their child blatant falsehoods. Rather, I want to live in a society where the right of the child is paramount, and where children receive a schooling in critical thinking and science, and not faith and propaganda.

You're certainly entitled to disagree. I wasn't trying to convert you, just clarify my position. As I stated earlier, it is a value judgement. We are all entitled to our various values systems.

A value judgment of what though? Science is not a value judgment. Science should be taught as science.

You were describing the society you want to live in. That's a value judgement.

I came to this position after a lot of thought and consideration about various conflicting interests and what I think the probable effects of various approaches would be on our society. In the end, someone has to decide what is best for children in our society. In my opinion, unless they overstep the bounds of the law (which can be changed to reflect the changing values of our society) it's the parents who should be making that call for their individual children. It's reasonable to require that children learn about the basics of the theory of evolution but it's not reasonable to require that they believe it.

'Belief' wouldn't come into it however if the children were well educated enough in evolution to come to a rational decision. Or more accurately, faith wouldn't come into it. Anyone who has been properly taught the theory of evolution has been given the facts, the reasons why to believe in evolution.

Yes, well if our educational system were perfect, we haven't any problems at all to discuss or try to resolve. Also, given that there are professional biologists who are young earth creationists (they are rare, but they do exist), clearly a solid education is not sufficient to convert everyone who studies evolution.

To further clarify my position: I think the route to achieving the best possible education for every child is through individualized education. I think empowering parents and allowing them more choices will move us towards that goal. Even if some parents make some choices that I don't agree with, I think the overall benefit of vouchers in allowing more freedom and choices in providing education to the children of our society is sufficient to justify supporting vouchers.

The parents who are making the choices you don't agree with are the same ones whose children will make decisions that you and your children disagree with, and so on and so on. The problem is that in each generation the same lies and the same strawman versions of evolution are repeated as dogma, strengthening those views.

Yes, well I don't see that as being as much of a problem as you clearly do. So what if some people in our society choose not to beleive in evolution? Are the problems engendered by allowing them to continue really worse than the problems engendered by forcing them to stop? I don't think so.

We need to stop the problem, and we cannot do it unless we accept that allowing parents to teach their children harmful ideas is wrong.

What ideas are you referring to as harmful? Creationism? I don't see it as particularly harmful, certainly not as harmful as the idea that it's wrong for parents to teach their religious beliefs to their children.

 

[my_wan]

I have gone back and read up on what I could about your perspective.

My response to this, kind of lost among the discussion on the importance of evidence (and I agree it is quite important) is that children are not capable of understanding all of the evidence in depth. At some point, and in nearly every subject, the child is simply expected to trust in what his teachers are telling him. This doesn't mean that evidence can not or should not be brought up, or that I would object to their doing so, it's simply why I phrased the original post as I did.

If feels to me like you are giving lip service to concerns about evidence yet you remain willing to throw it all away for the sake of "trauma" and individual "beliefs". This claim is on par with a woman I recently heard complaining that someone must have "taught" her 8 year old daughter how to pretend to be sick to stay home from school. This "not capable of understanding" is absurd from my perspective. More on this below.

Having taught how to make half-life computations in a college classroom setting, I must disagree. It's not remedial math. But even if you are correct, what we were discussing was curriculum requirements. State requirements have to make choices about what is included and what is not. Currently, evidence for evolution is not included in the curiculum guidelines for my state. I'm okay with that, but if the experts who develop such curriculum were to include it, I'd be okay with that as well.

Having read about the half life of carbon14 and other elements in the 7th grade I figured out how to do the basic calculations on my own. If you are having trouble teaching it to college level students it is only because public school curriculum requirements pander to the same things we are debating with you about here. Even without calculations a 1st grader can understand that if half the jellybeans disappear every hour we can figure out how long the jellybeans have been disappearing by counting what is left. Before high school there is no reason every student shouldn't be able to do the calculations. It doesn't take calculus and is no more difficult than figuring out how tall Bob is in those stupid word problems. Our debate is not about what the required curriculum is but what should be considered in defining it. You are after all suggesting vouchers to avoid evolution. Likewise I am not ok with "evidence for evolution" not being "included in the curiculum guidelines for my state". I would rather the evidence be taught than the theory itself.

My original point, which seems to have gotten lost, was if a school teaches the required curriculum, that's all that is reasonable for the rest of us to expect.

Perhaps, but you also spoke out in favor of avoiding the potential for conflicting with beliefs in fear of traumatizing the student and respecting the religious sensitivities of students. You have even suggested using vouchers to allow some students to avoid certain curriculum that would otherwise be required. The point wasn't lost it was just minor compared to your supporting positions.

If you can't make a detailed evaluation of the answers (and you're quite right about that part), then you have to trust the source you are getting the answers from. This is fine and appropriate. This is also why I said that teaching evolution means teaching " what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise". Please don't read more into that simple statement than I intended.

No it's not "fine and appropriate" and no you don't have to trust the source! I took more corporal punishment that I can count for suggesting things like that "parmecium" was actually a "paramecium" and that spread nadder brought to class was actually a Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platyrhino). IT IS NOT FINE AND YOU CAN TIE ME TO A POLE AND BEAT ME WITH A BULLWHIP AND I WILL NOT CONCEDE THAT POINT!!! It is not the source or even the evidence that we are asking anyone to trust. We are only asking that the evidence be presented so that the evidence, not "what scientist believe", is the basis of the mistrust. I took almost as much corporal punishment for merely presenting evidence as I did for disagreeing with what was being claimed. I can't count the number of time a school library book has been closed in my face without so much as a glance either. Where was the concern for my trauma?

You are forgiven, but I'm not suggesting that "we" pander our way around the truth. I'm suggesting that those parents who are concerned about the effect of evolution on their child's faith be allowed (via vouchers) to select a school that would do so. Then they have no cause to try and impose such pandering on the rest of us.

Do you really think the religious lobbying organizations would remotely consider this? They want to save the souls of students to save the whole nation from moral bankruptcy. They will not stand for being sequestered because it defeats their very purpose. They do not care in the least how "traumatic" their policies might be for me or others, not even their own kids. Any trauma would be "doing the heathens a favor". If a subclass was created for them with no power to influence the mainstream the long term effects would be sects that resorted to terrorism for the good of all. Yes that is pandering!!! Pandering to those that will not reciprocate in any way shape or form!

If it offends you that they should be allowed to do so, well, you're allowed to be offended and try to change things to be more to your liking. Just as they are offended that their children are taught things in school that directly contradict their faith and they try to change things to be more to their liking.

I'm offended that any information be denied anyone for or against mine or anyone elses POV. Yes I actively do what I can in more ways than one. If it is even suggested that parents can't teach their kids their POV it is ever bit as distasteful as denying any kids other points of view. Teaching about existing evidence does not deny opposing views. Denying evidence does.

Yes, we ask children to have faith in nearly everything we teach them. Evolution is not being singled out for that reason.

Yes I get that "faith" in what is being taught is your take on that! My willingness to take punishment sometimes daily was fundamentally my rejection of this very attitude. Yes evolution is a side issue compared this this overall attitude. Teachers would often think I was slow and/or retarded until they found out I was scoring in the top 96% on state testing. In high school algebra when I landed in the office for simply asking the teacher how she got from one step to another I finally give up for awhile. I would sit on the front row and design real airplanes and other stuff or sleep. If something was said I would ask a question and go to sleep while it was being answered. If I was to be a troubler maker I finally decided to give them a reason. Only later did I realize that the teacher learned by rote and wasn't even aware there were reasons in the steps. Perhaps if her teachers had asked for something besides "trust" she wouldn't have labeled several people in that same class trouble makers for wanting to know why certain steps worked. I actually took some more corporal punishment in this class for explaining some steps to others that was labeled a troublemaker.

In 7th grade (12-13 years old) I did have one math teacher that was the sole exception of my public school experience. He tossed our math books and taught from high school algebra books. He actively rejected the idea of us taking anything on his authority. I received an academic award from that class.

This is a good answer to an individual child. It doesn't, however, support including such details in curriculum requirements.

I'm just floored!!!!!

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. I never said that what teachers are to be trusted without question. I never said that children shouldn't question the evidence and be given answers. You are making some major leaps to conclusions that aren't appropriate here.

I hear you words yet fail to understand how your words translate to this. It feels to me like you are playing word games to avoid hurting my feelings the same way it appears your suggested policy is meant to spare "trauma" to some students. Please don't do that to me, I don't want to get banned. I'd rather get called stupid, wrong, lier, jerk, or anything else. Let's assume I am wrong and let's take the weakest possible interpretation of what you did say. 'Trust of the information is implicit in the act of teaching.' If this is so then it is the teachers fault! If it so much as appears that way to students then it shows the intellectual poverty of the teachers in question.

It's not a better alternative. It is an acceptable alternative that some parents prefer. We don't require that students believe in evolution, only that they have an understand of the basic theory.

Yet your definition of understanding the basic theory is "what scientist believe". Lying is not an acceptable alternative. Can't concede that either. Knowledge of the basic evidence should be included in the curriculum period. It should also be part of the uniform testing regardless of where and how they are schooled. If some students don't want or believe that this evidence is enough to support the theory of evolution it is nobodies business but their own.

What you call blatant falsehoods, they call the truth. I think they are wrong, and I don't much like the idea, but like it or not, it is acceptable in our society. Homeschoolers can teach what they like. Private schools can teach what they like. The question is whether it's reasonable to support such educational efforts though vouchers. I've given the matter a great deal of thought and my answer is yes. If the school (I don't support vouchers for homeschoolers) teaches the required curriculum that is all I think is reasonable for us to require of them.
Not what I said. Not what I believe.

Yes but home and private schools still have to provide an education commensurate with state test. I don't care what their "truth" is and would object to institutionalized efforts to deny them those beliefs. However denying them information that may or may not conflict with their beliefs is a lie! Institutionalizing lies for whatever reason is a travesty of justice. Yes these issues we are debating go way beyond evolution and/or the belief in god etc. Evolution just happens to be the main battleground on which these larger issues are being fought.

 

[Hawk one]

What ideas are you referring to as harmful? Creationism? I don't see it as particularly harmful, certainly not as harmful as the idea that it's wrong for parents to teach their religious beliefs to their children.

Yeah, because we don't really need biologists, do we?

Seriously, if you just had any idea whatsoever what the theory of evolution has done for practical science - and the last time you took penicillin would be one end result of this - you wouldn't have said such a horribly ignorant comment.

And didn't you talk about the children getting traumatised by being taught evolution? Well, perhaps if the parents didn't teach them fairy tales as truth to begin with, then the facts wouldn't traumatise them. Did you ever think of it like that? Of course you didn't. I suggest you do.

Because in my world, if fairy tales and facts makes a person conflicted, the fairy tales go first. That's the rational choice.

 

[Meadmaker]

Seriously, if you just had any idea whatsoever what the theory of evolution has done for practical science - and the last time you took penicillin would be one end result of this - you wouldn't have said such a horribly ignorant comment.

I could be wrong, but it seems likely you are overstating the case here. I always thought penicillin was discovered by noticing some odd things about contamination in a petri dish. I'm unaware of anything to do with evolution playing a role in its discovery. I, of course, would be open to other data.

 

[Hawk one]

I am rather referring to how they are constantly trying to keep up with the new and upcoming bacteria strains, the knowledge of how it happens is a key element to understand how to make the new antibiotics kill the new strain.

 

[hilliag]

To get back to the original question ...

I can see debating creationists, but under limited circumstances. Perhaps the best example came in the Dover trial. I just read Edward Humes's "Monkey Girl," and the one regret that Judge Jones had in his handling of the case was that he disallowed cameras. He said that the presentations by the scientists was so compelling and informative that everyone should see them.
Perhaps that's what the debates need -- a judge who can call the creationists on their b.s. who can make it stick.

 

[Mobyseven]

You were describing the society you want to live in. That's a value judgement.

Ah, righto. Well, here is my value judgment then: I want to live in a society that teaches science and critical thinking. I do not want to live in a society that does not teach science and critical thinking.

What a crazy value judgment, eh?

Yes, well if our educational system were perfect, we haven't any problems at all to discuss or try to resolve. Also, given that there are professional biologists who are young earth creationists (they are rare, but they do exist), clearly a solid education is not sufficient to convert everyone who studies evolution.

I am well aware that there are biologists who are young earth creationists, in fact I know a few. There are also geologists who are young earth creationists. The question is, what came first - the science or the religion?

Facts are, in many cases, a vaccine for fantasies. Knowing the evidence and the science before you are informed of the alternate magical thinking will most often allow you to properly evaluate both options and come to a rational and reasonable conclusion. Should the fantasy precede the facts, however, the facts have far less of a chance of being properly evaluated - cognitive bias will come into play, and those who have been previously indoctrinated will find it harder to accept the evidence for evolution, and as such the theory of evolution. Of course there are probably exceptions (people who have had a decent scientific education who are exposed to religion later in life and become creationists) but such people are - tellingly - in the minority.

Yes, well I don't see that as being as much of a problem as you clearly do. So what if some people in our society choose not to beleive in evolution? Are the problems engendered by allowing them to continue really worse than the problems engendered by forcing them to stop? I don't think so.

Rhetoric is all well and good, but it means very little. You don't think that the problems are worse? That's fine - but why do you think that one is worse than the other.

I have already put forward many of my reasons, primarily that continued promotion of uncritical thinking, strawman arguments and 'religious science' can only lead to a state of scientific stagnation, at best. On top of that, I would like to voice the opinion that in the age we live in, scientific literacy is far more important than it may ever have been in the past - we are making advances in science and technology now that come near to (or even surpass) some of the things science-fiction writers of previous ages dreamed about.

Understanding basic computing is now a prerequesite for most people in western civilisation - not necessarily for entertainment, but certainly for administrative purposes. There are people who do not understand basic computing, certainly, but they are being left behind in our world where computers come in so many shapes and sizes that it is hard to go a day without seeing one! Similarly, there are always advances being made in biology labs, and ones that will have effects just as important as the advances made in computing. However, rather than accept that they are being left behind there are people who criticize such advances in biology - stem cell research, evolution, and so on.

Can you imagine a world with no biologists? That is a world populated by creationists, and it is not a world that anyone who appreciates modern medicine would want to go back to.

What ideas are you referring to as harmful? Creationism? I don't see it as particularly harmful, certainly not as harmful as the idea that it's wrong for parents to teach their religious beliefs to their children.

Once again, why? I'm not asking for baseless rhetoric, I'm asking for reasons, for critical evaluation, for an argument of some description.

I find it very strange that you think religious indoctrination of children with beliefs that are demonstrably wrong and potentially dangerous is less harmful than teaching children science and critical thinking. Moreover, that you would suggest that creationism is harmless is, to me, laughable - is something harmless simply because it leaves no physical mark on the body of the child? Creationism is far worse than that - it instils in the child a dogmatic belief system that includes eternal torment as punishment for questioning that belief system, and it sets in place the framework that children will use for the majority of their lives (if not all their lives) to evaluate new ideas. The framework it instils is not, "Does this make sense? What is my source for this? Is there evidence for this? Are there alternate hypothesis that have better explanatory power?" or other such tools that are essential for critical thinking, but instead a simple framework of, "Does this new information support or contradict my previously held beliefs?" Supporting information is most likely accepted as true, while contradicting information is discarded as false.

And you call Creationism harmless?

 

[articulett]

I'm watching t.v. and I just heard that Michael Behe will be on Stephen Colbert tonight... I'm sure it will be on One Good Move for download later...

 

[articulett]

I can see debating creationists, but under limited circumstances. Perhaps the best example came in the Dover trial. I just read Edward Humes's "Monkey Girl," and the one regret that Judge Jones had in his handling of the case was that he disallowed cameras. He said that the presentations by the scientists was so compelling and informative that everyone should see them.
Perhaps that's what the debates need -- a judge who can call the creationists on their b.s. who can make it stick.

I agree. The transcripts are great. It does humanity a horrible disservice to produce generations of scientifically ignorant children who cannot think critically. We do not need more ignorant, self righteous, superstious, fear-mongering, zealots in the world... they are frightening. Public education was an acknowledgment that it benefits everybody to have an informed populace, and Beth's religious apologetics strike me as a recipe for Jesus Camp type abuses and the travesty going on with many homeschooled kids right now. I just heard of a 14 year autistic kid who was maimed while undergoing an exorcism. It's sick and wrong not to inform kids about knowledge that all humans should have access too. It's important to know that there are lots of religions with lots of different claims but there is evidence for only one truth... and science aims to understand that truth. Religion makes up the truth and looks for the evidence to support it. Kids need to get an inkling about that... a child doesn't know about what is wrong or abusive or nutty unless he/she has something to compare it to.

Beth's attitude reminds me of people who didn't want black people to learn to read or Muslim women. It pretends to respect a culture or the parents... but it ignores the injustice done to the victims of such ignorance. Is it right for parents to make their kids fearful that they might be punished forever for not believing the right unbelievable story? Public education at least gives such kids a chance... and a chance to be around other kids who weren't indoctrinated as they were. Speak to people who were raised in cults or with strong religions--former Scientologists, Amish, Muslims, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Branch Davidians... ask them what they think of such indoctrination!

I can only imagine that Beth believes creationism or is defending having subjected her children to it or something. Nobody who understands evolution--really understands it... could feel comfortable teaching kids that it was not true. Saying such makes kids into science bigots. They trust liars and ignoramuses and don't know how to trust facts and evidence and science.

 

[hilliag]

I just heard of a 14 year autistic kid who was maimed while undergoing an exorcism.

Gee, small world. Sick one, too. We just had a case of that here in Phoenix in which a 3-year-old's grandfather was giving her an exorcism -- the reports say by squeezing and choking her -- and he died after being twice tasered by the police. The salient graf from the first-day report:
"Police reportedly found Ronald Marquez, of Phoenix, shirtless and choking his granddaughter as her 19-year-old mother, naked and bloody, looked on. The bloodied girl was gasping and screaming as her mother chanted and held a religious picture of some kind, police said."