Comment #26090

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 21, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)

Excellent — more over-reaching please!

I just love to hear the sound of religious extremists frying in the morning.

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=National&storyid=114091

Sen. Mark Pryor lashed out Wednesday at the Christian evangelicals who have joined the attack on Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Their tactics threaten “to make the followers of Jesus Christ just another special-interest group,” Pryor said in a conference call with Arkansas reporters. “It is presumptuous of them to think that they represent all Christians in America, even to say they represent all evangelical Christians,” added Pryor, 42, a first-term Democrat who has considered himself an evangelical Christian for 25 years.

http://insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3717209,00.html

“I do think that what has happened here is there has been a hijacking of the U.S. Senate by what I call the religious right wing of the country,” Salazar said at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday.

He singled out Focus on the Family by name, objecting to full-page newspaper ads that the ministry’s political arm recently placed, targeting 20 senators in 15 states.

“I think what has happened is Focus on the Family has been hijacking Christianity and become an appendage of the Republican Party,” Salazar said in an interview. “I think it’s using Christianity and religion in a very unprincipled way.”

The Johnsonite Christian cult is much smaller than the Disclaimery Institute would like its members to believe.  Evidently the fog in Washington prevents them from noticing the Schiavo case fall-out.  I can hardly wait to hear the juicy soundbites that will erupt from Frist’s shindig this weekend …

Comment #26092

Posted by steve on April 21, 2005 03:17 PM (e) (s)

Michigan Citizens for Science, an organization whose board I sit on, has been involved with this case for several months behind the scenes, since being notified of what was being taught there by a parent whose child was in the class.

Why was a parent teaching in the class? Where was the teacher?

Comment #26097

Posted by PvM on April 21, 2005 03:30 PM (e) (s)

Ending the Evolutionary War

The “creation” controversy has splashed down in Gull Lake, Mich. Last spring, according to the Kalamazoo Gazette, a parent complained that two middle school biology teachers were giving the concept of “intelligent design” equal treatment in the classroom with the theory of evolution. The district has told them to stop, and both are now crying foul, appealing to the community for help.

Comment #26098

Posted by Ed Brayton on April 21, 2005 03:34 PM (e) (s)

Steve-

A parent wasn’t teaching the class. It wasn’t taught by a parent, we were notified of it by a parent.

Comment #26100

Posted by Pierre Stromberg on April 21, 2005 03:50 PM (e) (s)

You know what the local school board should do?  They should mandate teaching “the problems with scientific creationism”.  That’d be fun.

P

Comment #26104

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 21, 2005 04:08 PM (e) (s)

Interesting piece of political hackery you found there, Pim.  Private schools?  By far the majority of private schools in America avoid ID.  They have much higher standards — their local dioceses and their ultimate supervisor in Rome demands that crap not be put into the heads of kids in biology class.

Why should we relax high academic standards in biology?  What biology expertise has the Mackinac Center?  What does Mr. Coulson think he gains by lowering the standards in any school?

Comment #26106

Posted by PvM on April 21, 2005 04:10 PM (e) (s)

Seems Pennock spent a day educating the teachers at Gull Lake about biology and science… Good move.

69. “Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science” In-service workshop for Gull Lake district school K-12 biology teachers. (8/30/04)

Comment #26107

Posted by Roadtripper on April 21, 2005 04:12 PM (e) (s)

Pierre Stromberg wrote:

You know what the local school board should do?  They should mandate teaching “the problems with scientific creationism”.  That’d be fun.

Too much fun! “Young Earth Creation science” has so many problems, I think, that it would take up an entire class period for a whole school year, at a minimum, to cover them thoroughly.  But how long would it take to cover the “basics”?

Comment #26110

Posted by Ed Brayton on April 21, 2005 04:28 PM (e) (s)

Pim-

Yes, that was the in-service day I referred to in my post. We even had a geologist on our board go through the Grand Canyon stuff they were using and show why it’s nonsense. We hoped this could be resolved behind the scenes, but the teachers obviously can’t be reasoned with.

Comment #26111

Posted by steve on April 21, 2005 04:33 PM (e) (s)

Pierre Stromberg wrote:

  You know what the local school board should do?  They should mandate teaching “the problems with scientific creationism”.  That’d be fun.

Some of my best physics profs have used quackery as a tool. In an early test, years ago, we were given a quick explanation of the fringe belief that gravity does not exist—that apparent gravity was really just induced dipole-dipole effects. We had to think up three experiments which would distinguish the two scenarios.

If I were a biology professor, I would probably use basic D*mbski and Behe errors similarly, on freshman exams.

Comment #26112

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 21, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2523&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage

Richard Shill Neuhaus of the Disclaimery Institute writes

Some school boards have very modestly suggested that students should know that evolution is not the only theory about the origin and development of life. What they want students to know is an indisputable fact. There are other theories supported by very reputable scientists, including theories of evolution other than the established version to which students are now bullied into giving their assent.

(emphasis added)

Does anyone have any idea who these “reputable scientists” are that Richard is talking about?  Or is Tricky Dick Neuhaus simply reciting more of the lies which are designed to please the Disclaimery Institute’s dubious donors?

Comment #26114

Posted by steve on April 21, 2005 04:40 PM (e) (s)

Neuhaus reminds me of the spokesman in this comic: http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050418.gif…

Comment #26115

Posted by Adam Marczyk on April 21, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)

Also ironic is that the TMLC makes a point of arguing that ID is not creationism, yet the teachers in this case used a mixture of ID and traditional young earth creationist material. This will be fun to watch the ID crowd deal with, as they are loathe to have their ideas associated in any way with “creation science”, despite the fact that all of their arguments originated in creationist material.

I think it’s only the leaders of the ID movement who try to maintain this distinction. The rank-and-file creationists don’t seem to have gotten the message that the two are supposed to be separate.

As an example, my senior year of college, I went to a presentation given by a campus Christian group. The fliers advertised a talk about “intelligent design”, but every single thing they said that evening came straight from the classic YEC playbook - Noah’s flood, no transitional fossils, the second law of thermodynamics, you name it.

Comment #26116

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 21, 2005 05:03 PM (e) (s)

@pvM

the article you linked to ends with:

“Wouldn’t we all be better off giving school choice a chance instead?”

the answer is unequivocally, NO!

while perhaps an extreme example, I could easily envision the formation of a “redneck U” as a private university.  The 45% of americans who then believed that redneck U would be the best place for their kids would send them there, and the resulting misinformation taught there would become more ingrained than ever.  Just because that is not typically the case with private schools at present does not mean that it wouldn’t be if we decide that public vouchers for school choice is the way to go.

there are reasons for national science standards that have nothing to do with politics.  shall we just abandon them just to alleviate discomfort at public debate surrounding the issues?

How on earth could that possibly end up being a good thing for the progression of science as a discipline?

cheers

Comment #26117

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on April 21, 2005 05:05 PM (e) (s)

If they were including traditional “Creation Science” material, then they have qualified themselves for ample legal precedents. In the immortal words of Geogre Tenet, “It’s a slam dunk.”

Comment #26120

Posted by Flint on April 21, 2005 05:22 PM (e) (s)

We hoped this could be resolved behind the scenes, but the teachers obviously can’t be reasoned with.

I wonder what you expected. Maybe these teachers, after seeing the Grand Canyon presentation, will jump out and shout “I see the light! My faith was wrong, scripture must be wrong, but True Geology has led me to reason!”

Somehow, I doubt it. These people are teaching Truth, not facts. Souls are at stake, not minds.

Comment #26122

Posted by Joe McFaul on April 21, 2005 05:38 PM (e) (s)

Isn’t Peloza v Capistrano School District (sadly, my own school district) directly on point here?

Let me know if I can provide any legal assistance.

Comment #26123

Posted by Dan Hocson on April 21, 2005 05:45 PM (e) (s)

I’m still trying to figure out why the teachers in question were on the committee to investigate the matter. Why on earth would you put the people suspected of misconduct on the panel to review it and pass judgement?

Comment #26124

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 21, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)

sounds like the 9/11 commission.

Comment #26125

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 21, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)

Adam

I think it’s only the leaders of the ID movement who try to maintain this distinction. The rank-and-file creationists don’t seem to have gotten the message that the two are supposed to be separate.

Emphasis on the word “try”.

In principle, once someone is willing to pretend that that “mysterious alien beings somehow created all the life forms on earth” is science, then it’s just a teeny tiny baby step to pretend that “mysterious alien beings have somehow altered physical reality so that things appear older than they actually are” is also science.

There is no principled distinction between these two “theories”, at least as far as science is concerned.  I wonder if any of the Master Rhetoricians at the Disclaimery Institute would care to argue otherwise?

Comment #26126

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 21, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)

The Thomas More Law Center, the same legal group defending the school board in Dover, PA, is threatening to file a lawsuit against the Gull Lake Public Schools for telling two junior high science teachers that they could no longer teach creationism in their classrooms.

<yawn>

Let them.  Let them file all the lawsuits they can keep conning the fundies into paying for.  There are already at least half a dozen Federal court cases that not only make it illegal to teach creation “science”, but also make teachers themselves PERSONALLY LIABLE if they do it anyway.

Let the fundies file all the losing lawsuits they want to.  Not only do I enjoy seeing them continually lose in court, but it helps us by diverting their resources from areas where they might actually be effective.

Comment #26127

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 21, 2005 06:07 PM (e) (s)

Isn’t Peloza v Capistrano School District (sadly, my own school district) directly on point here?

Along with Edwards v Aguillard, Maclean v Arkansas, Webster v New Lenox School District, and Segraves v California.

Comment #26158

Posted by Kenneth Fair on April 21, 2005 07:25 PM (e) (s)

Peloza and Webster are really the cases on point here, since both involved claims by teachers that their rights were violated when they weren’t allowed to teach creationism.  It’s a loser of an argument.  State actors have limited personal rights when they’re acting on the state’s behalf, and necessarily so, because their actions are ascribed to the state.  If the state can’t do something, then neither can its representatives while acting in that capacity.

Comment #26159

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 21, 2005 07:53 PM (e) (s)

Perhaps the teachers can argue along the lines of those pathetic so-called Christian pharmacists: “Now that you’ve hired me, you have to pay me except I need to tell you now that you can’t force me to do some aspects of this job (like teach evolution without teaching creationism, too) because Ayatollah Johnson said it interferes with the practice of my religion.  Oh, and you can’t make me say anything nice about homos either.”

Comment #26164

Posted by Air Bear on April 21, 2005 09:15 PM (e) (s)

GWW quoted Richard Neuhaus:

There are other theories supported by very reputable scientists, including theories of evolution other than the established version to which students are now bullied into giving their assent.

Maybe he’s referring to our own estimable Dr. Davison’s PEH? 

If so, how would you like them apples?

Comment #26165

Posted by Tanooki Joe on April 21, 2005 09:26 PM (e) (s)

Sigh. It’s sad that such a suit is finally coming to West Mighigan. Though, frankly, creationists are so plentiful here I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner.

Comment #26167

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 21, 2005 09:32 PM (e) (s)

Air Bear: that was hilarious.

Comment #26172

Posted by Buridan on April 21, 2005 10:17 PM (e) (s)

Unfortunately, these lawsuits can cost school districts a lot of money, win or lose. It seems to me that’s where this tactic has its bite. The Religious Right have the resources to sustain such legal attacks and school districts may just capitulate for financial reasons. There’s nothing good about this.

Comment #26174

Posted by nitpicker on April 21, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)

In your first paragraph, “We worked to resolve the situation without the bounds of the law …” should probably be “within the bounds of the law … .”

Comment #26175

Posted by Engineer-Poet on April 21, 2005 11:06 PM (e) (s)

Buridan, I’m not a lawyer (see nom de plume) but even I know that frivolous filers can see judgements for expenses levied against them.  If the district has the fortitude to countersue, the fundies could find themselves bankrupt….

… and with the new bankruptcy law that is a lot less attractive than it is now.

Comment #26179

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 21, 2005 11:19 PM (e) (s)

yeah, but on appeal it could easily be overturned.  it’s not that easy to prove.  check the court case cited earlier in the thread.

I seriously think you guys are pipe-dreaming if you think this will end up being an issue of concern for the fundies.

Comment #26180

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 21, 2005 11:22 PM (e) (s)

this is the case cited earlier where the frivolity (?) of the case was overturned on appeal:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html…

just an example.

Comment #26183

Posted by scott pilutik on April 22, 2005 12:06 AM (e) (s)

The Thomas More Ctr is adopting a legal tactic that facially seems idiotic, but is quite clever and has been used to great effect by Fundamentalists before them.

Realize that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to win. They know there’s no legal argument here, but winning is not the point. The idea is simply to grab headlines and mobilize the base. The court is merely a pawn in a complex game with long-range goals - a game that cannot be won in one dispute. The judiciary, sans slick media representation, makes a handy vilifying target when the case is over and lost. Indeed, losses are an integral part of the strategy. Only with a string of losses can you best appeal to the Fundamentalist Christian id - persecution.

Persecuted? How can an 85% majority be persecuted? Well, reason isn’t a player in this game but ‘faith’ (alongside paranoid delusion) sure is. Nothing riles up the base more than persecuted Christians, and reasonable or not, it keeps the money coming in. And there’s nothing more Christ-like than being persecuted.

Notice how the phrase ‘hostility to Christianity/religion’ has seen an upsurge in Establishment Clause cases of late, often mentioned by Scalia himself. The only time we hear about ‘hostility to Christianity’, however, is when some plaintiff finally gets fed up with having it crammed down his throat by the state. Christians can’t see that because for them, their imposition is simply the truth. If we started littering various state capitals with 3 ton statues of buddha, however, you can bet your ass they’d wake up and recognize the imposition in a hurry.

To get back to the point, which is that losses are an integral part of this new litigatory architecture, you might ask - well, they surely don’t mean to lose forever, so what is the point of losing all the time? Besides headlines and support derived from those headlines, these losses eventually morph into plenary political power. And the real wins can then take place at the legislative level.

You can see a perhaps microcosmic example of this in action right now with regard to the current filibuster putsch on capital hill, which wouldn’t have been possible without the 11th Circuit’s rejection of the ill-advised Save-Terri-Schiavo bill.

Those judges, who were nearly all Republican and who colored well inside the judicial lines in that case, are being vilified as ‘activist’ when nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, what DeLay & Co. *needed* in that case *was* an activist judge. This argument may be too subtle for the majority of America, and indeed the cable news networks. But it may work.

And then, it may not. Republicans in Congress supporting the social conservative agenda may not have fully digested and internalized the polls on Schiavo, but it suggested that the Fundamentalists may have overplayed their hand, in which case much of the support for these projects which spring from the same lobby-induced pressures (like the attacks on evolution in school), may sink along with.

Perhaps their wave crested and rolled back for good (for now) with Schiavo and support for related projects and agenda will similarly drift back out to sea. (mind you, I’m not suggesting that they’ll stop plugging up the courts with bullshit - only that the waning political support will force politicians to abandon their support)

~ s

Comment #26187

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 22, 2005 12:23 AM (e) (s)

scott:

I think you nailed the creationist’s court strategy ‘right’ on the head.  However, I’m not so sure their wave has crested, based on the statements against the judiciary still being made on the right.

It’s one reason i have continued to mention that regardless of how many wins in court we get against ID, that isn’t going to make them go away.

you still have to deal with that 45% unchanging figure who believe in creationism.  losses in court only encourage most of them.  Hell, the more you encourage battles in court, the more you risk the right actually changing the judiciary system as well as the educational system.

The problem remains:  what to do about that 45% figure?

-it isn’t being fixed by education at the university level

-it isn’t being fixed by court rulings

-it isn’t being fixed by rigged public debates

what does that leave?

Comment #26194

Posted by jonas on April 22, 2005 04:12 AM (e) (s)

Scott,

one important aspect to consider in the context of the fundies’ “prosecuted Christians” shtick: To the constituency the far right and the TMLC are appealing to, moderate evangelicals, mainstream churches, liberal or humanist Christians and free-thinkers inspired by JC’s life and teachings are misguided heretics at best and probably pawns of the devil. As this rather large group makes up the majority of those considering themselves to be followers of the Christ, fundamentalists not only feel Christianity to be suppressed, they also redefine Christianity in a way actually making it a minority position.
The only hope is them losing the tacit approval of more moderate groups in the bible belt and their resulting unproportional hold over the political process in the U.S..

Comment #26195

Posted by Lousy Nick on April 22, 2005 04:16 AM (e) (s)

In South Africa, evolution wasn’t taught in biology class when I was at school, and it’s still not being taught now. I think the plan is to introduce it into the high school curriculum from next year. Strangely, though, we never had any creationist or ID material or anything else taught to us either (though one of my science teachers repeatedly included questions in our exams about how science had led us to a better understanding of God). Biology was just a stream of facts about how living organisms operate - it was mostly functional physiology, really.

Most of the people I’ve encountered over the course of my life definitely do not believe in evolution. And the proportion of people who believe in a rather literal interpretation of the Bible or the Koran (i.e. creationists)in this country is probably around America’s levels, if not higher. I’d easily say that probably 80% of the population is going to have a serious problem with evolution being part of the curriculum.

And I doubt that we have enough biology teachers around who have an adequate grasp of the subject, or even believe it. When evolution enters schols, I predict an endless series of events like the one described in this thread, where teachers just don’t want to teach it and replace it with their own religious views. We’ll have endless debates about whether or not ID qualifies as science, and why we can teach learners that “people evolved from apes” but we can’t teach them that God formed the universe in six days and created Eve from Adam’s rib (after all, nobody was around back then to see it).

It’s not going to be pretty.

Our only hope is that the massive plurality of SA’s political system will prevent those who oppose evolution from banding together into a unified political force, so that a few legal victories over creationists (as has happened in the US) will be enough to ensure that the opposition dies down before it really gets into the swing of things. But I suspect it’ll be a long drawn-out affair, as seems to be happening in America.

Comment #26197

Posted by Michael I on April 22, 2005 05:06 AM (e) (s)

A note on the political aspect of the issue:

Probably the majority of the 45% or so who support creationism in polls aren’t particularly ideological about it, and don’t consider it particularly important, but simply have some vague idea that it’s the “Christian” position.  When Creationism becomes a high profile political issue, the Creationists tend to lose.

Incidentally, the move to end filibusters on judicial nominations was planned long before the Terri Schiavo case hit the headlines.  Frist may be unappreciative of the timing of the case, as the public reaction seems to be hurting the plan to end filibusters.

Comment #26198

Posted by Michael I on April 22, 2005 05:10 AM (e) (s)

In case anyone is wondering, the “Frist” referred to in my post just above is the Republican majority leader in the U.S. Senate.

Comment #26202

Posted by FastEddie on April 22, 2005 07:04 AM (e) (s)

For feck’s sake, why is it necessary to teach evolution and the nature of science to public school SCIENCE teachers?  Should they not already know this stuff?  What kind of clowns are the school district hiring?  This is one consequence of underpaying teachers: schools have to scrape the dregs to find “qualified” teachers.

Comment #26204

Posted by Flint on April 22, 2005 08:26 AM (e) (s)

The filibusters about judges are entirely predictable and understandable. These judges are appointed for life, and impeaching them is a practical impossibility. And judges decide cases on ideological grounds whenever ideology is important in a case. They can’t help it: There are only two possible decisions, and in ideological cases either one is an ideological decision.

One of the most critical characteristics of a democratic type government is the ability to make constant incremental adjustments. Don’t like these politicians? Elect new ones (or make the threat of doing so strong enough to change what the incumbents are doing). Don’t like a law? Pass a different one. Major national policies change with each change of administration.

The grave danger is making irreversible decisions. This is why adding constitutional amendments is so very difficult — and why democracy fails everywhere it didn’t take root naturally. We enforce an election, the winner declares himself president-for-life and exterminates his opponents, and there are no further elections. Most of the world looks at Western politics in baffled confusion. The President has real power. He controls the military. WHY would he even HOLD another election, that he might lose? Having held it, WHY would he abide by any result that went against him? Is he nuts?

The fundamentalist religious strategy is to gradually reduce our scope of incremental adjustments. Get born-again judges appointed for life. Get pro-church-over-state precedents set. Get religious doctrine into public classrooms as young as possible, and where they have the maximum effect, which is science class because science is so well respected. The graduates of these programs will (according to the long term strategy) be Believers who will vote in ever more conservative (read: fundamentalist) politicians, school boards, and judges, who will in turn make ever “righter” decisions in a feedback loop. Eventually, we’ll have a President who will declare himself Lord High Minister For Life, put to death those of incompatible beliefs, the majority will worship him, and God will have nonstop orgasms of satisfaction. And oh yes, crime will stop, homosexuality will vanish, the Ten Commandments will be posted everywhere and followed (or else, and everyone will be Saved. The millennia of persecution will finally come to an end.

Comment #26219

Posted by anon on April 22, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s)

Fast Eddie wrote:

For feck’s sake, why is it necessary to teach evolution and the nature of science to public school SCIENCE teachers?  Should they not already know this stuff?  What kind of clowns are the school district hiring?  This is one consequence of underpaying teachers: schools have to scrape the dregs to find “qualified” teachers.

WHY is it necessary?  Ever worked as an un-tenured teacher for a fundie principal/school board?
 
Don’t you suppose these teachers need to be reminded to hold true to their standards? 

Don’t you suppose that any bit of support that can be provided to these embattled teachers is needed? 

The “righteous” teachers, who proclaim, “well, here’s evolution, but not everyone believes in it,” need this type of outreach as well, to give them a jolt of real science & its nature.

Seems like MORE of these activities are needed, not less, to show support for these science teachers who are, after all, the ones out there on the front lines of this battle.

A word of warning - your part of the above quote could be construed to mean that only “the dregs” go into teaching.  Beware of going down that path of generalization.

Comment #26220

Posted by Chip Poirot on April 22, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s)

Great White Wonder:

You ask about what other theories (besides Darwinism) that reputable scientists support. Simply put, as best as I can judge, there are none. This is all a red herring by the ID folks and frankly, I have to regard it as conscious dishonesty (though sheer incompetence is possible as well).

Of course, there is their own pet theory of ID and I suppose one could claim that there are some “reputable” scientists who support it-though one could dispute their interpretation of “reputable”.

From what I have seen their reference seems to be either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of some of the questioning of more rigid Darwinian models. I personally don’t claim to remotely have a good grasp on this.

But I think they refer to the evo-devo controversy, and also to Lynn Margulis. As best as I can judge, neither of these are really “anti-Darwinian” in a broad sense. But I suppose they do add mechanisms (at least potentially) that go beyond genetic variation/mutation and natural selection. Of course, when Dobzhansky, Fisher, Haldane and Mayr started writing, one could very well have argue that their writing was “anti-Darwinian” and it did lead to a major overhaul of evolutionary theory.

My sense is that evo-devo and some of Margulis’ stuff could lead to a further overhaul of modern evolutionary theory.

However, I still think this theory would be consistent with the modern synthesis, it would still be anti-teleological, and it certainly would still preclude “intelligent design”, it would still be naturalistic.

It’s just a repetition of the same old tactic: pick at a few differences of opinion, try to present Darwinism as “in crisis” and “disarray”. Harp on the “alternatives”. Argue for “pluralism” and pretty soon you have a case for teaching ID.

That’s my sense anyway.

Comment #26224

Posted by Matt on April 22, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s)

I’m new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I’m from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

This also poses the issue of is it damaging to science in America, and will it cause long-term harm to the US economy?

Comment #26227

Posted by Quentin Crain on April 22, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

Whoa!! What do y’all make of this:

Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin was not privy to in the 1850’s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells – the fundamental unit of life- possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information so as to regulate biological systems. This suggests that the theory of intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=307

What the hell does that mean?!? That is a summary of ID (or whatever) I have not heard before, or read a critique of here.

Comment #26230

Posted by RBH on April 22, 2005 11:13 AM (e) (s)

Quentin asksed

Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin was not privy to in the 1850’s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells – the fundamental unit of life- possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information so as to regulate biological systems. This suggests that the theory of intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

That’s essentially Michael Behe and William Dembski’s argument from “irreducible complexity”.  Behe, a biochemist, argues that stuff like the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade cannot have evolved by increments, and Dembski provides a gloss of (invalid) so-called information theoretic arguments about chance aggregation of the necessary components to back Behe up.

RBH

Comment #26231

Posted by steve on April 22, 2005 11:16 AM (e) (s)

Posted by Matt on April 22, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s)

I’m new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I’m from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

That’s a good question. Lots of possible answers. It could be that we have more wackos in general. There’s a good degree of overlap between people who advocate creationism and other loony things, like Geocentrism, flouride conspiracies, HIV denial, etc. It could be that the strains of christianity we have are more ahistorical and ignorant than elsewhere. It could due to our poor levels of science education—creationists tend to be the sort who can’t tell you what a molecule is, or what causes the seasons. Maybe it’s because we’re a nation of slick salesmen, and we have entrepreneurial groups like the DI which sell christianity as science.

My guess is that it’s ignorance. Most creationists are not the Dembskis or the Heddles or the Behes. Those are people who have enough knowledge to know they’re talking crap, they’ve had it explained to them, but they refuse to accept it. Most creationists are not egotistical cranks like Charlie Wagner, dreaming that they’ve upset the foundations of science, surpassing all the professors at CalTech and MIT. Most creationists are people who’ve had high school biology, if even that, didn’t pay attention, don’t care, see the occasional scientist portrayed as a supporter of “Intelligent Design Theory”, love jesus, distrust authority, scorn “Lib’ruls” and just plain don’t know any better.

Comment #26233

Posted by Ric Frost on April 22, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

Posted by Matt on April 22, 2005 10:43 AM

I’m new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I’m from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

1. Our science education (like the rest of our public “education”) stinks. If a school system can’t teach a kid to read in 12 years, do you really expect them to teach biology in one (optional) class?

2. We now have several generations of adults with the attention-span of a two-year-old. Creationists are good at some things, like coming up with easily-remembered, bumper sticker slogans. Real science requires explaination and no one wants to hear an explaination.

3. Teens today do not read anything more challenging than, well, Teen. Except for the 25% or so that are functionally illiterate and read nothing.

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea.

Comment #26235

Posted by Quentin Crain on April 22, 2005 12:24 PM (e) (s)

Thanks RBH!

What that sounds like to me is this: Cells act like little computers. And since computers do not appear in the wild, but had to be created by an intelligence, cells likewise had to be created by an intelligence. I am a computer guy so when I read “… possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information …” I think of little computers. Is this what they are attempting to get me to believe (cells are little computers => computers are “designed” => therefore, cells are “designed”)? Jeez! They must think me slow!

Comment #26237

Posted by Steve Reuland on April 22, 2005 12:34 PM (e) (s)

Quentin Crain wrote:

Whoa!! What do y’all make of this:

Just the usual garbage.  Notice the line about what Darwin was privy to in the 1850s.  The modern synthesis was forumlated in the 1930s, with a great many advancements since then, so what Darwin did or didn’t know about is irrelevant.  The discovery of DNA and advances in molecular biology have served to strengthen evolution, not somehow refute it.  And none of this lends any support to ID, which is far too vague and meaningless to offer any explanatory power.

Comment #26239

Posted by Buridan on April 22, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)

Engineer-Poet wrote:

“Buridan, I’m not a lawyer (see nom de plume) but even I know that frivolous filers can see judgements for expenses levied against them.”

Engineer-Poet, I’m not a lawyer either (see my website) but even I know that frivolous lawsuits are extremely costly for businesses, consumers and the general public and there’s no reason to assume it would be any different for school districts. Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year (some estimate the cost in the billions) to defend against frivolous lawsuits and there’s absolutely no guarantee that such lawsuits would be thrown out of court for being frivolous. Again, the threat of a lawsuit is where the chilling effect lies. It’s just another potential prong in the Religious Right’s arsenal to shut down public education.

Comment #26240

Posted by Steve Reuland on April 22, 2005 12:50 PM (e) (s)

Quentin Crain wrote:

What that sounds like to me is this: Cells act like little computers. And since computers do not appear in the wild, but had to be created by an intelligence, cells likewise had to be created by an intelligence. I am a computer guy so when I read “… possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information …” I think of little computers. Is this what they are attempting to get me to believe (cells are little computers => computers are “designed” => therefore, cells are “designed”)? Jeez! They must think me slow!

That’s about it.  The argument runs as follows:  When we see computers, we know they’re designed.  Cells are like computers.  Therefore, cells are designed.

Obviously, it just doesn’t follow.  Having one property in common with something (though cells really aren’t much like computers) doesn’t mean that it will have another property in common.  Otherwise, we’d have to conclude that cells were made by humans, since all computers that we know of are made by humans.

A lot of IDists try to twist things around by saying that cells aren’t like computers (or machines, or whatever), they are computers (machines, etc.)  The problem is that this now renders the original premise false.  If you’re including cells in the category of “computers”, then you can no longer say that all computers are known to be designed.  Maybe all computers except cells, but not all of them.  Otherwise, it’s just circular reasoning.

But you’re right, these arguments are lame to the point where we shouldn’t have to point out the logical flaws, but for some reason we do anyway.  And they don’t listen.

Comment #26248

Posted by bill on April 22, 2005 01:17 PM (e) (s)

And all this time I thought cells were like Mount Rushmore.  Or are they like mousetraps?

Oh, now I remember!  Cells are like WalMarts.  And don’t talk to me about Evolution.  When’s the last time you saw a WalMart give birth to a Dillards?

Comment #26255

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on April 22, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)

Quentin Crain wrote:

Whoa!! What do y’all make of this:
[quote]
  Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin was not privy to in the 1850’s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells – the fundamental unit of life- possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information so as to regulate biological systems. This suggests that the theory of intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=307…

What the hell does that mean?!? That is a summary of ID (or whatever) I have not heard before, or read a critique of here.
[/quote]
In addition to the failure of computers to replicate, mentioned already by several others, I think the preceding paragraph from the linked propoganda piece is very interesting:

Continued Thompson, “This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science.”

Consider that in relation to the stated mission of the Thomas More Law Center taken from their home web page:

MISSION:
Defending the Religious Freedom of Christians
Restoring the Time HOnored Family Values
Protecting hte Sanctity of Human Life

If this case does not involve religion, why does it involve the Thomas More Law Center? A science vs. science dispute is not about the sanctitiy of human life or family values either.

Comment #26258

Posted by Gary Hurd on April 22, 2005 01:36 PM (e) (s)

Joe McFaul is a lawyer, and I hope he has time to comment further.

Comment #26270

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 22, 2005 02:46 PM (e) (s)

anon wrote:

“Seems like MORE of these activities are needed, not less, to show support for these science teachers who are, after all, the ones out there on the front lines of this battle.”

Many of us agree with this reasoning. I guess I’m going to start sounding like a broken record, but i see comments like this every day here on PT.  Hence, it’s why I thought it time to actually do something about it.

even if you can’t contribute time to something like this, I certainly would appreciate comments on the rough-draft idea i posted here:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/evolution-ngo…

even if the comment is to move it somewhere else.  If you don’t feel like posting a comment there, feel free to email me at the address I use here for PT.

as far as underestimating what that 45% means… regardless of whether that 45% of americans translates directly into a political grassroots powerbase or not, the point remains:  ALL of that 45% represents people who do not believe in the fundamental concepts of evolution.

if you don’t think that has to do with education, what do you think it has to do with?

Comment #26276

Posted by Just Bob on April 22, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)

I’ve often wondered why school districts don’t have the guts to query prospective hirees on a few relevant points. Are boards and administrators too intimidated to ask applicant geography teachers if they think the Earth is flat. Would an outraged parents’ committee demand to be heard if they declined to hire a flat-Earther?

How about checking to see if a history teacher denies the Holocaust?

Could we deny employment to a physics teacher who refuses to teach relativity?

If all those seem reasonable, then why on earth can’t we check to see if a prospective biology teacher accepts the unifying principle of modern biology?

I know damn well that doesn’t happen, even in my magnet school district, with a science-centered magnet school! We have had—and still do—a series of creationist teachers. Pandas and People even made an appearance!

Comment #26277

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 22, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)

Notice how the phrase ‘hostility to Christianity/religion’ has seen an upsurge in Establishment Clause cases of late, often mentioned by Scalia himself. The only time we hear about ‘hostility to Christianity’, however, is when some plaintiff finally gets fed up with having it crammed down his throat by the state. Christians can’t see that because for them, their imposition is simply the truth. If we started littering various state capitals with 3 ton statues of buddha, however, you can bet your ass they’d wake up and recognize the imposition in a hurry.

Well, then let’s be clear in every statement:  The Thomas More Center is hostile to most American Christians and our beliefs.  They’re hostile to the official position of the Catholic Church on evolution, they’re hostile to the Mormons.  They’re hostile to the Episcopalians, Methodists, Disciples of Christ and Presbyterians. 

Let’s make it clear that the Thomas More Center is hostile to a lot more Christians and a lot more Christian doctrine than any fact of science is.

Comment #26278

Posted by Just Bob on April 22, 2005 03:14 PM (e) (s)

I’ve often wondered why school districts don’t have the guts to query prospective hirees on a few relevant points. Are boards and administrators too intimidated to ask applicant geography teachers if they think the Earth is flat. Would an outraged parents’ committee demand to be heard if they declined to hire a flat-Earther?

How about checking to see if a history teacher denies the Holocaust?

Could we deny employment to a physics teacher who refuses to teach relativity?

If all those seem reasonable, then why on earth can’t we check to see if a prospective biology teacher accepts the unifying principle of modern biology?

I know damn well that doesn’t happen, even in my magnet school district, with a science-centered magnet school! We have had—and still do—a series of creationist teachers. Pandas and People even made an appearance!

Comment #26280

Posted by Uber on April 22, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

clear that the Thomas More Center is hostile to a lot more Christians and a lot more Christian doctrine than any fact of science is.

No it’s not. It’s just another of the myriad of ‘Christian doctrines’. It is hostile to science. Otherwise it’s just another face in the crowd doctrinally speaking.

Comment #26281

Posted by Uber on April 22, 2005 03:28 PM (e) (s)

clear that the Thomas More Center is hostile to a lot more Christians and a lot more Christian doctrine than any fact of science is.

No it’s not. It’s just another of the myriad of ‘Christian doctrines’. It is hostile to science. Otherwise it’s just another face in the crowd doctrinally speaking

Comment #26294

Posted by Frank J on April 22, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)

In Comment 26227 Quentin Crain wrote:

What the hell does that mean?!?

Except for calling ID a theory, the statement is actually correct. The first sentence does suggest (to unsuspecting people, and wrongly) that ID offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells (note that it didn’t say the origin of species). But because most people will not read it that way it is a masterpiece of misrepresentation.

The most charitable thing that can be said about the first sentence is that it can give some extra comfort to those who believe in a designer that said designer can do very complex things. But evolution never threatened them in the first place. That first sentence does not, however, constitute evidence of design, evidence against evolution, evidence for an alternate theory, or evidence for a fictitious alternate account of life’s history that most unsuspecting people will infer from it.

The advances noted in that statement have in fact, strengthened the theory of evolution, all the while providing more opportunities to falsify it. The failure of anti-evolutionists to address the new or old potential falsifiers, let alone propose a testable alternative, means that the hopes of their finding a better explanation are virtually nil. That anti-evolutionists are steadily retreating from even suggesting “what happened and when,” and increasingly resorting to statements that just misrepresent evolution and exploit common misconceptions, further illustrates the scientific bankruptcy of their approach.

Comment #26299

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 22, 2005 04:56 PM (e) (s)

Uber, creationism is theologically suspect to more Christians than those to whom it is a near-article of faith.  Yes, the Thomas More bunch, by suggesting that most Christians are apostate, is hostile to most Christians.

To most Christians, a lot of these issues come down to simple honesty.  It’s impossible to maintain an argument for creationism including ID for more than about ten minutes without telling an enormous, whopping falsehood.  Creationism pulls otherwise good Christians away from truth telling, or “the path of righteousness,” as evangelicals often call it.

Such evil is not “just another face in the crowd” of Christian doctrine.  It subverts Christian doctrine at the root.  I resent that subversion, and I have no difficulty pointing out that the views of the Thomas More center are, to Christians, evil.  I would qualify that by saying “most Christians,” but I can’t find any Christian sect which endorses the telling falsehoods, or the other creationist crime of denying the good of God’s creation.

Comment #26306

Posted by Math Teacher Extraordinaire on April 22, 2005 05:18 PM (e) (s)

I teach Math at a Catholic school, and I think it’s embarassing that any public school teacher would even dream or teaching ID in a Science class.  Not even our Science teachers have to teach ID.  Science teaches evolution, and Theology teaches ID, and the students are allowed to make up their own minds.  That’s how it should be.  If you want to teach ID/creationism, leave it in Church with that other nonsense.  Evolution is fact, period.  If you want to dispute that, you might as well dispute the roundness of the globe.  Evolution isn’t questioned anymore, just its mechanisms.  Is it natural selection or something else?  But anyone with any respect for the Sciences knows this.  I would be extremely embarassed to work for that school’s Science department.  You should lose your job for doing something like that.  I mean, you have to question the qualifications of someone who would teach something so ridiculous in this day and age.

Comment #26311

Posted by Dan S. on April 22, 2005 06:09 PM (e) (s)

“For feck’s sake, why is it necessary to teach evolution and the nature of science to public school SCIENCE teachers?  Should they not already know this stuff?  What kind of clowns are the school district hiring?”

That’s my question.  Are they actually certified and all?

I really don’t understand where creationist biology teachers come from.  Maybe they *were* intelligently designed.

And yes, this is what you get when you underpay teachers.

I think we should explain to the public that this is like math teachers teaching their kids that 3+3 might actually be 9, or that ” You is” is appropriate in Standard English - something that can affect their career chances.

Comment #26313

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 22, 2005 06:12 PM (e) (s)

I’m new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I’m from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

Americans are, in general, a pitifully uneducated lot.  Poll after poll reveals just how utterly idiotic most of us really are.  Many of us cannot say how long it takes the earth to revolve once around the sun (many don’t even know THAT the earth revolves around the sun).  Many can’t even find the US on a world map.

This also poses the issue of is it damaging to science in America, and will it cause long-term harm to the US economy?

Yes, to both.

Comment #26316

Posted by Russell on April 22, 2005 06:24 PM (e) (s)

Well, then let’s be clear in every statement:  The Thomas More Center is hostile to most American Christians and our beliefs.  They’re hostile to the official position of the Catholic Church on evolution, they’re hostile to the Mormons.  They’re hostile to the Episcopalians, Methodists, Disciples of Christ and Presbyterians.

I wonder if there are any theology buffs* out there who know anything about this splinter group of the episcopal church. This guy is the member of the Ohio state board of education that started the whole Intelligent Design putsch that’s made our state such a battleground on this issue.

*(I can’t help but think of The Daily Show’s Senior God Correspondent Steven Colbert, and his “This week in God” segment)

Comment #26320

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 22, 2005 07:03 PM (e) (s)

I wonder if there are any theology buffs* out there who know anything about this splinter group of the episcopal church.

Ahmanson funded the split.

See:  http://www.theocracywatch.org/ahmanson.htm…

Excerpt:  “In the summer of 2000, a group of frustrated Episcopalians from the board of the American Anglican Council gathered at a sun-soaked Bahamanian resort to blow off some steam and hatch a plot. They were fed up with the Episcopal Church and what they perceived as a liberal hierarchy that had led it astray from centuries of so-called orthodox Christian teaching. The only option, they believed, was to lead a schism.

But this would take money. After the meeting, Anglican Council vice president Bruce Chapman sent a private memo to the group’s board detailing a plan to involve Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a Southern California millionaire, and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson, in the plan. “Fundraising is a critical topic,” Chapman wrote. “But that topic itself is going to be affected directly by whether we have a clear, compelling forward strategy. I know that the Ahmansons are only going to be available to us if we have such a strategy and I think it would be wise to involve them directly in settling on it as the options clarify.” It was a logical pitch: As a key financier of the Christian right with a penchant for anti-gay campaigns, Ahmanson clearly shared the Anglican Council’s interest in subverting the left-leaning church. Moreover, Ahmanson and his wife were close friends and prayer partners of David Anderson, the Anglican Council’s chief executive, while Chapman and his political team were already enjoying hefty annual grants from Ahmanson to Chapman’s think tank, the Discovery Institute.

Soon, the money came rolling in to the Anglican Council, with more than $1 million in donations from Ahmanson in 2000 and 2001. “

Comment #26323

Posted by Dan S. on April 22, 2005 07:14 PM (e) (s)

“What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US?”

Don’t be so sure - it may be spreading.
Sometimes I think a lot of it is just that the cards happened to fall a certain way in terms of early 20th C. political and religious arrangements, and we’re all still dealing with the (evolving, ha.) repercussions.

Lots of Americans don’t know the earth revolves around the sun?  Are you sure, Lenny?

Comment #26325

Posted by Russell on April 22, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)

Whoa! Thanks Rev. That is something of an eye-opener. So I guess when Francis Beckwith takes Sunday off from defending liberal democracy to hobnob with Howard and Roberta at the episcopal church, it’s not the episcopal church the rest of us think of when we hear that term. It’s Howard’s special episcopal church.

Comment #26329

Posted by Stan Gosnell on April 22, 2005 08:10 PM (e) (s)

Lots of Americans don’t know the earth revolves around the sun?  Are you sure, Lenny?

I think Lenny is right.  And of those who do know that the earth orbits the sun, many know it only in their heads, while in their hearts they know Genesis is right.  Once you acknowledge that the earth orbits the sun, and that neither is the center of the universe, then the infallibility of the Bible becomes obviously wrong, and many can’t allow themselves to believe that.

Comment #26335

Posted by steve on April 22, 2005 09:48 PM (e) (s)

…only 84 percent of men and 68 percent of women knew that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.

from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3797/is_200203/a…

Comment #26336

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 22, 2005 10:01 PM (e) (s)

from that article:

“here is one bright note. As dumb as American adults are when it comes to science, their peers in Western Europe and Japan are dumber.”

and they call that a BRIGHT note.

Comment #26352

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on April 23, 2005 01:00 AM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell said:

Interesting piece of political hackery you found there, Pim.  Private schools?  By far the majority of private schools in America avoid ID.  They have much higher standards — their local dioceses and their ultimate supervisor in Rome demands that crap not be put into the heads of kids in biology class.

Why should we relax high academic standards in biology?  What biology expertise has the Mackinac Center?  What does Mr. Coulson think he gains by lowering the standards in any school?

It is a bit of a problem.  Parents all want their children taught the things they would like to have them taught.  The obvious solution to the problem of “choice”, taken in isolation, is home-schooling.  But many parents have neither the time, the desire, nor the acumen for that.  So for many, schools are a necessity.

Now, whether we should fund such schools is another matter.  In Connecticut, for instance, the wise folks that wrote the state constitution considered education to be a fundamental right, and wrote that right into the constitution there.  Sounds good to me (although some people may disagree, mostly unreasonable people, I’d say).  Let’s assume for now that education is a “good thing” even if not constitutionally mandated, and thus the government should be pursuing such.  So there, you have to give your kid an education.  Should it be a “public one”?  There’s another question.  Some people are of the opinion that we should provide a “public education” at state expense to all (and you might even find extremists that would say we should demand such).

But then, you have to concern yourself with what the government is empowered to do (and prohibited from doing).  The First Amendment religious clauses arguably put certain subjects beyond the reach of “public education”.  So we have a conflict:  Not everything that we’d want taught to students can be taught to them.  No real problem; let’s teach them the maximum that can be taught under the proscriptions of the First Amendment (and any other constitutional limitations).  Here we start to see some conflict:  Let’s say that other subject matters start to intrude on religious beliefs (and as a consequence, act in a positive or negative way on certain religious beliefs).  You could argue the “no offence, no foul” position, and say that we should teach to the least denominator of … who? … I guess you’d have to say the most sensitive student in the class.  If some religion, for whatever cockamamie reason, things that vitamins are tools of the deebil, maybe we should skirt that issue.  Or you could say, perhaps we ought tojust restrict ourselve to secular stuff, and to hell with anyone that has religious objections to facts.  The latter position makes sense in my view.  The third option here is to teach to the beliefs (however wacky) of the majority, and say that the majority is SOL and should just suck up (or convert).  Sad to say, in some instances, the third option seems to have some popular support in some places….

You could take a compromise position, and say that you’ll teach the secular best knowledge, and if someone really feels upset about that, theyt should go home-school or pay for private education.

Should the state, in the interest of “fairness”, or just in giving the kids the education we all think worthwhile, pay for the private education?  There’s arguments either way.  Each side with an axe to grind comes down on their own side.  I’m a bit ambivalent; I think that people, on a general level, ought to be able to pursue their own religious views and proclivities.  But, consistent with the Frist Amendment, the government ought not to pay for someone’s religious education.  My worry (and I suspect it was true of the Founders as well) is that the majority will always use this to pay for their views being taught (or at least grab the greatest chunk of the change), and that the minority will be left fighting for scraps.  Vouchers may be a good idea, but they help not the least if there’s no schools for Latter Day Saints Of The Second Revelation Of The Atheistic Minions Of Satan.  Maybe you say “screw them, there aren’t any”, but that’s harldy an answer to an LDS in Mississippi.  So, you could say, well send them to public schools for the general education, and teach then the rest on your holy Thursday nights.  Well and fine, but the effort to privatze schools is leadign to an effect, either intentional or incidental (I guess the former), to defund and destroy public schools.  So now, where’s the neutrality?

I say, let’s teach what we can permissibly teach in public schools.  And then let everyone deal with the religious stuff on Saturday (or Sunday) if they think they must….

Cheers,

Comment #26365

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 23, 2005 07:16 AM (e) (s)

Lots of Americans don’t know the earth revolves around the sun?  Are you sure, Lenny?

Quite sure.  See:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3797/is_200203/a…

Comment #26366

Posted by KCrist on April 23, 2005 07:17 AM (e) (s)

To Matt:

Concerning your question about “why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US?”

Here in America it is a God-given right to be ignorant. The Declaration of Independence states clearly that all Americans are entitled to the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right endowed by their creator. The flip side is that for many Americans, ignorance is bliss, as the old saying goes, so the pursuit of happiness is best achieved by being ignorant. It sort of fits the old Irish saying that the only truly happy person is the villiage idiot. Denying facts and knowledge, especially scientific, can be seen as a prerequisite to achieving our God-given right and apparently pleasing God at the same time.

I trust this answers a lot of things about Americans.

Comment #26375

Posted by Frank J on April 23, 2005 07:48 AM (e) (s)

Rev Dr" Lenny Flank wrote:

Americans are, in general, a pitifully uneducated lot.  Poll after poll reveals just how utterly idiotic most of us really are.  Many of us cannot say how long it takes the earth to revolve once around the sun (many don’t even know THAT the earth revolves around the sun).  Many can’t even find the US on a world map.

Worse, yet, a growing number seem proud of their ignorance, as in such knowledge is just for “geeks.”

Comment #26377

Posted by Frank J on April 23, 2005 07:56 AM (e) (s)

Math Teacher Extraordinaire wrote:

Science teaches evolution, and Theology teaches ID, and the students are allowed to make up their own minds.

Does Theology teach ID “in the general sense,” e.g. as I vaguely recall from Catholic school in the ’60s, that the “wonder” of nature is a sign of an intelligent designer? Or have they adopted the strategy of pretending that the argument for design somehow invalidates evolution? Note that, unless the instructor is honestly clueless, the latter requires bearing false witness.

Comment #26391

Posted by Matthew on April 23, 2005 10:31 AM (e) (s)

Here is a good page that breaks down America’s beliefs in evolution:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm…

Note that 5% of scientists are creationist, but this is not limited to biologists, but all scientists, so many who believe in creationism had no more education in biology than any other college student, just the basic university requirement.

also note that 40% of scientist believe in some sort of “theistic evolution” which means they believe in evolution, with the help of god “guiding the way”.  This would seem to indicate that they believe in ID, wouldn’t it?  Though in reality I would think this 40% doesn’t believe in a literal scientific process of god “guiding” things but just some sort of obscure “god made it happen like he wanted it” theological position that’s unrelated to literal ID, no?  Which brings me to my question:

Comment #26392

Posted by Matthew on April 23, 2005 10:38 AM (e) (s)

Is there even a official position of what ID  among its advocates?  Because, as a very casual observer, I remember seeing an ID lecture on CSPAN a few months ago (who it was, I can not remember), and when questioned he admitted that the fossil record suggests progression.  Now, call me crazy, but that seems to be an admission of evolution, doesn’t it?  I’m not sure who exactly the guy was, but I’m pretty sure he was one of the main ID guys because his name sounded familiar.  Now it seems with this one person, ID wouldn’t even contradict evolution; both could be true.  So it would be a seperate field not dependent on evolution being falsified.  So are ID advocates even in agreement on what it is their are proposing?  The person in question kept talking about this bacterial flagellum, if that helps.

Comment #26394

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 23, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)

Is there even a official position of what ID  among its advocates?

No.  And that is completely deliberate.

There are two reasons for this:

(1) the IDers have virtually no public support for their theocratic agenda, and therefore are forced to “welcome” as many “supporters” as they can, even if all those supporters hate each other.  Hence, the ID Big Tent.  All sorts of nut-cases welcome, from YECs to OECs to Raelians to Christian Reconstructionists to Moonies.  Alas, the problem with a coalition of people who hate each other is that … well . .  they HATE each other.  Hence, even the slightest appearence of kowtowing to one faction will ignote the others to civil war.  So … the IDers avoid fractious internal dissent by simply not saying anything.  Is the earth old or young?  Umm, they won’t say — whichever way they answer, SOMEONE in their Big Tent will be pissed off.  So they say NOTHING.

Alas, as the IDers are beginning to discover, trying to pleease everyone, simply means that you make NOBODY happy.  It will bite them in the ass.

(2) the second reason has to do with the particular legal ploy choisen by the Wedge-ites.  The courts have alrready ruled creation ‘science’ to be illegal, just religious apologetics in the guise of science.  ID is, of course, precisely the same thing. Indeed, ALL of the “arguments” presented by IDers are nothing more than warmed-over dreck first put out decades ago by the YECers —— the fundies were yammering about the  “Cambrian Explosion” years before Meyers wrote his “peer-reviewed ID paper”; creationists were blithering “what good is half an eye” decades before Behe bullshitted us with “irreducible complexity”; YECs were ignorantly tossing out “information theory” for years before The Isaac Newton Of Information Theory started blizzarding everyone with his mathematical drivel. 

All of which leaves the IDers in a  bit of a pickle —- legally, they MUST separate and differentiate themselves from the creation ‘scientists’ since creation “science” has already shot its load in court, and lost.  In reality, though, the difference between ID and creation ‘science’ is merely rhetorical.  Hence, the IDers MUST be VERY CAREFUL not to say anything that identifies themselves with the YECers.  Alas, at the same time, they MUST give enough crumbs to the YECers to keep them in the Big Tent and keep their checks coming.  Hence, the IDers are forced, out of necessity, to be vague and noncommital in EVERYTHING they say.  They can’t tell us how old they think the earth is, since creation ‘science’ has already been identified, in Federal court decisions, with “the relatively recent inception of the earth and life”.  They can’t tell us whether or not humans evolved from apelike primates, since creation ‘science’ is already legally identified with “separate ancestry of apes and humans”.&