Via PZ Myers comes a description from Science online about how Intelligent Design suffered pretty thoroughly last Tuesday:
Intelligent design (ID) received a drubbing yesterday, with pro-evolution candidates taking control of the Kansas State Board of Education and strengthening their representation on the Ohio State Board of Education. Many scientists also cheered the defeat of Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), one of the most politically influential supporters of the ID movement.
One of those "many scientists" was me. I know better than to think ID will go away; as before it will, ironically, evolve. It used to be creationism, then it was ID. Next it will simply be "teach the controversy", or more likely "teach the weaknesses of evolution" both of which translate into "lie about the facts".
I’m reading Not In Our Classrooms right now, which is an excellent intro to the sneaky, misleading tactics (and outright lies) of the ID movement and their attempts to brainwash our children– I should add that the book is not that strident, that’s just my own opinion leaking though a bit. 
In fact, NIOC is a great description of the history of the antiscience, antievolution forces in this country. Reading it now, after having savored Santorum’s concession speech, is especially motivating. We can win, and we will.
P.S. Chris Mooney of The Intersection has a brief analysis of what he hopes from the new Congress. From his lips…
November 10th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Certainly good news, but as you so rightly say it will merely evolve and become even more nuanced. If it meant what it said on the tin, I’d be all in favour of ‘teaching the controversy’ about anything in science – the last thing we want is people growing up thinking anything a scientist says is true, scientific controversies need to be taught and understood. But I don’t see any scientific controversy in the basic theory of evolution (at least not since nuclear fusion solved the problem of powering the Sun long enough for evolution to occur), merely in the details.
I believe there’s a special session on ID scheduled for the AAS meeting in Seattle. It should be interesting.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Scientists have never not taught the controversy. The claim we need to teach it falsely implies we don’t. That is the ploy.
Supporters don’t argue for ID because it doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. Even though in the wishful thinking of those who would love for science to support the Bible they fantasize scientific evidence supports ID, in the back of the minds of those who actually understand the scientific process, they know ID cannot withstand true scientific inquiry. So you turn your fantasy into denial. You deny there is no supporting evidence for ID. You tell yourself it is the anti-Bible bias of the mainstream scientific community and you change the argument from ID vs evolution to the straw man of “teach the controversy”.
Here are your talking points folks:
We always teach the controversy, when there is one! Genetic science confirms evolution theory and disproves the basis of ID, that of irreducible complexity. Genetic science filled in all the ‘gaps’ long ago. We just haven’t gotten the word out to everyone yet.
November 10th, 2006 at 3:10 am
A late congratulations on the results of your elections! Over here in Europe we’re breathing again…
Anyway, I think with the ID issue these guys are trying to appeal to the old fairness principle. Most people do not understand that ID is not science, so when told that there are two sides to the story they agree that everybody should be able to say their bit…
This is why we should have a subject in schools called “science”. People need to be taught from an early age about what science is, how the scientific process works and how it impacts on their life. If everybody would get “science” compulsory up to the age of 16 or so we might make a difference.
The fight will never be over. I don’t see religion ever leaving this planet…
November 10th, 2006 at 3:29 am
In some creationist circles ID has been disowned because it is also bad theology.
I have to point out in the overtly creationist circles I have moved in the past, they have the viewpoint that evolution was anti-science because it appeared to violate the laws of biogenesis, laws of probability, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and did not pass the test that Darwin set re-transitional fossils. With regard to the Big Bang, the expression given is “You do not get a Websters Unabridged Dictionary from an explosion in a print Shop”.
I have on tape a presentation given, where the speaker, a food microbiologist, took us through the various creatures that were on the road to becoming man and at the end showed that they were either entirely apes or entirely human with no intermediary. He then used Dr Zukerman’s quote “If man has evolved from the apes, then he has done so with out leaving a trace in the fossile record”. It all seemed scientific to us at the time
So we have both sides, each saying that the other side is anti-science. I assume this is down to whether you can factor in the “supernatural” element. One side, (creationist), allows it and the other side, (evolutionist) does not.
I think the UK has it right, that creationism is mentioned at school, however it is done in Humanities or RE and biology teachers get to teach evolutionary theory
November 10th, 2006 at 4:09 am
Sticks said:
“I think the UK has it right, that creationism is mentioned at school, however it is done in Humanities or RE and biology teachers get to teach evolutionary theory.”
True, but unfortunately in the UK some people have jumped on the ID bandwagon. See:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/
We in the UK have to be careful that dimwits like these stay out of our science classes.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:46 am
Sticks:
I don’t think your examples are particularly well stated- but I can imagine instances in which modern science doesn’t have a clue- in which case it might be supposed that a supernatural explanation is better than the current scientific understanding- because at least it is an explanation.
The trouble is- supernatural explanations just don’t advance us anywhere. If I say that God causes this atom to bounce off this atom then I may have an explanation- but I can’t use that explanation to find out anything deeper or develop any new hypotheses.
I guess I don’t have much problem if someone wants to think that God, or ghosts or gremlins is the reason behind something- but it gets dangerous when those people A) use this as a way to prevent others from doing further research into a topic (gravity, stem-cells etc.) and B) use the God explanation even after scientists have already solved the problem (e.g. evolution).
IDers are most definitely anti-science, because ID flies in the face of what we already know. In order to accept ID you have to discount so much hard evidence that you essentially have to believe that every biologist on the planet is a liar who is directly falsifying their data. It really isn’t any different from accusing NASA of faking the moon landings.
There also comes a point where we have to admit to ourselves that some beliefs are just so unlikely that it just isn’t worth spending our tax dollars in researching them. It’s possible that UFO’s have visited our planet- but since there’s no evidence at all that this has happened- then why should reputable scientists waste any further time on this?
The UK is completely wrong to have religious education in schools. Take a look at yesterday’s BA blog post entitled ‘Plowing through the electromagnetic spectrum’. Can you seriously argue that 10 years of religious education is worth 10 minutes of looking at a picture of entire galaxies being whipped around by a giant black-hole?
School time is much too precious to be wasted on teaching kids things we know not to be true- especially when the truth we’ve discovered is fantastically more interesting.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:57 am
BTW Sticks,
We haven’t evolved from apes, because humans ARE apes. As I mentioned the other day- there’s also a good case to be made that humans should also be classified as members of the chimp family.
I can’t help thinking that we’d clear up a lot of the misconceptions surrounding evolution if we just referred to each-other as hairless apes and be done with this whole human terminology.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:23 am
A great movement for science, no dobut.
Of course, there will always be a group that argues the anti-science side of things (obviosuly not referring to themselves by that term).
In times like this, with good science in the balance, education about the real facts is more important than ever.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Christian Burnham, I did not mean to deploy the “God of the Gaps” agument, as the discredited IDers use that one, sorry if that is what I implied.
As to the UK education policy, we are able to have both the religious stuff, so children are taught what various cultures think, and the scientific marvels that Phil brings us. They are not mutually exclusive. In an interview with the Science minister before he resigned he said
“I don’t have any problem with people teaching creationism as long as no-one pretends that it is anything to do with science, nor is it part of any science curriculum. If it is taught on such a basis it should quite simply be stopped.”
Which is why we never had the problems experienced in the US
November 10th, 2006 at 7:43 am
I always thought that a comparative theology course would be a fair place to discuss ID. I even think it would be a valid use of high schoolers’ time, if it was done correctly. Americans, as a rule, are reasonably familiar with Christianity but pretty ignorant of other religions. We could certainly stand to know more about how other cultures operate, and learn to respect the things they’re getting right that we (as a culture) aren’t so good at.
It seemed pretty telling to me that the ID proponents never (to my knowledge) suggested this. I took it to mean that they aren’t actually interested in a fair exchange of ideas, and they don’t really want any controversy taught. They believe that mainstream science is pushing a lie at their expense, and they want to push what they believe at science’s expense instead.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Science is good for religion because of the wonderful credibility and enlightenment science brings. There is no good reason to attempt to sway science from its course. Neither artist nor Creator can be esteemed when their works are misrepresented.
If a well established theory from science irritates religion, science is not at fault; it is far more likely their religion is in error. The child of faith should not be tossed in the bath of unreasonableness, nor required to walk blinded by erroneous interpretations.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:54 am
walk blinded by erroneous interpretations
That’s one of the things that’s always irked me about religion, faith, messages from God, etc.
Truth should not require interpretation. By its very nature, the act of interpretation downgrades whatever is being interpreted from “truth” to something less… a conjecture, perhaps.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:32 am
No blog entry for the “hurricane” on Saturn?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061109/sc_nm/space_saturn_dc_1
November 10th, 2006 at 9:37 am
One of the arguments always forwarded by IDers is that a totally random recombination of elements could not possibly result in life in a finite period of time, ie, within the 13.7 billion years of this universe, so there must be some Guiding Principle involved.
If we took 92 cubes, representing the usual 92 elements with which we have to work, and by tossing them in the air expected them to all stack up in a nice, straight column, it would take a very long time for that to occur.
If we only had to toss four cubes in the air to form such a stack, it would likely form in a relatively short order. IDers ignore the fact that, 1)most of the chemicals elements are not chemically reactive in a way that allows them to stick together in a way that is both stable and capable of converting one form of energy to another(ie, sunlight into electro-chemical). 2)most elements are of fairly low concentration, therefore they cannot be present in concentrations adequate to continue growing into longer chains, which is essential to build the complexity required for evolution.
They forget there are only, mainly, four elements that fit the required paramaters for chemical complexity and those four ARE present, in our local environment.
Carbon, Hydrogen,Oxygen and Nitrogen have the proper qualities to combine, get knocked apart by incident radiation, recombine and accumulate into more complex chains and they are constrained to recombine in particular ways, all having to do with their valences, etc. It’s a really elegant system. Rather like a four bit language, ie, 0,1,2,3., that can be strung together in VERY long chains that are both stable, capable of translating energy from one form to another and able to mutate into other chains.
I really like this Game of Life,,,wonder where it will lead?
GAry 7
November 10th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Well, there’s two issues at stake there – the issue of religious indoctrination, which is unfortunately still practiced to some extent and is at least technically required by law (I think), and the issue of religious education, in the sense of comparative theology. I’m absolutely opposed to the former, and cautiously in favour of the latter.
Whatever you think of the various religions of the world, you can’t escape the fact that they’re there and you have to deal with them and their adherents. I think a basic level of familiarity with the core beliefs of most of the major world religions is well worth having. But it has to be taught as “some people believe this”, rather than “this is true”. They were making tentative progress in that direction when I was at school, and I believe that further progress has been made since.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:46 am
I would agree that compartive religions in the appropriate class is the way to go, and that is what happened in my own schooling experience. This would help us all to better understand each other.
Leave “indoctrination” for the parent and churches / mosques / synagogues / temple
November 10th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Personally, I’d prefer to do away with indoctrination completely. Raise children without brainwashing them into any religion (or into atheism), and then let them make the choice themselves when they’re old enough. Of course, this is a lot easier said than done.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Many people argue over who is better: Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera or Shakira. (I’m a Shakirist.)
Let’s spend 10 years teaching kids comparitive Britnology to help them better understand the world they live in.
I’m not saying that we should force children to like Britney Spears, but it’s important for them to understand what other people think about this important and vibrant subject.
We should also teach them:
Soapology
Trekology,
iPodology
Baseballology
The school-day is long and children should be brought up to fully understand the culture in which they live in.
Children might still leave school not knowing much about the universe and boring old physics, but they will be better prepared for meeting the exciting challenges of the 21st century.
While we’re at it- let’s also teach them the mutually contradictory and evidently false mythologies of all major religions (with emphasis on Christianity of course). They can learn that even though evolution is a scientific fact- it is not fully accepted by any religion. They can also learn that contrary to all available evidence, many people in this country believe that a sky-god created the universe in 6 days, a few thousand years ago.
Let’s not leave it up to the tens of thousands of churches in this country to teach religion to our kids.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
my main memory about RE lessons(in the UK) is that some kid said something rather rude about a picture of a man in a long beard doing meditation.
The teacher(IIRC) made him(and 3others) hold up a table for the rest of the lesson.
I really think that people are taking the teaching of religion in schools too seriously, they are just lessons like the others not hard core indoctrination sessions.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
I attended R.E. in both English and Irish schools.
In an English school I remember being told that atheists cannot lead a moral life because they have no fear of God.
In an Irish school I remember being taught creationist arguments for why evolution cannot be right.
Make no mistake- religious education is indoctrination-lite, no matter how pure the original intentions are.
Even if there were no indoctrination- it is simply a colossal waste of time.
If you want to teach the history of Christianity then do it in a history lesson.
If you want to teach the Bible as literature, then do it in an English class.
If you want to teach the Bible as mythology then lump it in with a study of Greek, Roman and Norse myths.
Otherwise, leave religion out of schools.
November 10th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
I don’t care how correct evolution is or how wrong ID is.
The fact is that most of the discussion about it amounts to insulting and looking down on religious people. This belittling of a group of people is a common liberal tactic, though, so I’m not really surprised.
It should be noted that most of the world still follows some kind of faith. Atheism is and will be a minority for a long time to come.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
This belittling of a group of people is a common liberal tactic, though, so I’m not really surprised.
It should be noted that most of the world still follows some kind of faith. Atheism is and will be a minority for a long time to come.
There’s not many people who would call me “liberal” by any measure, and I look down on religious people. Not as life units, but simply as people with muddled thinking. I’ll come back to this point, because it’s peripheral to the primary logical fallacy in your statement.
That fallacy being that just because most of the world follows some kind of faith, some credibility for religion is gained. Most of the world thought that the world was flat at one time. Most of the world believed in dragons, and there was a time when most of the world thought slavery and indentured service was a proper thing. An appeal to the populus is poor thinking at its most insidious. And it’s just plain wrong. Throughout history lots of people have had wacky ideas that simply did not stand up to scrutiny. Religion doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either, but so many people are so brainwashed into believing that they will be punished in some way for thinking for themselves that religion doesn’t get the scrutiny it so rightly deserves. If a religious person finds it insulting to be asked to back up their position in a logical manner, then the problem is wholly the religious person’s. The rest of the world should not be forced to throw away logic and reason because of someone else’s faith in magical supermen.
If we forget about Christian Hell or other places of punishment, it’s fair to say that atheists and non-Christians are regularly punished in the USA through discrimination. How far would a presidential candidate get who stood up and said “I’m an atheist” or better yet “I’m a follower of Mohammed” ? I’ll tell you how far: about as far as the next sniper bullet could reach. Next time you have to swear an oath, ask to make a solemn affirmation instead of an oath on a holy book and watch what happens… see the disrespect on people’s faces for yourself.
Which brings me back to the first paragraph. When religious people can stand up and make reasoned, logical arguments, then perhaps people wouldn’t belittle them, make fun of them, look down on them or otherwise disrespect their ideas. I disagree, for example, that there should be a minimum wage. But I can understand when someone makes a reasoned argument why there should be – even if I disagree with the position. However, when someone says “I disagree with evolution because an invisible pink unicorn tells me – when I interpret an english translation of a greek translation of an aramaic text that was a written interpretation of oral tribal stories by multiple anonymous authors two millennia ago – that the invisible pink unicorn creates all and if you don’t believe it the invisible pink unicorn will punish you eternally and besides, there’s no PROOF of evolution, only 150 years of documented evidence that isn’t perfect but is logically consistent except for the part where it says the invisible pink unicorn isn’t involved”, well, I want to see evidence, I want to see proof of veracity, and I want to see logic. It is not enough to say “you just have to believe” and until religious people understand that, they will necessarily be belittled.
It’s also worth noting that many religious people not only look down upon the non-religious, but also look down upon people whose particular flavour of religion isn’t the same as their own. In fact, some religious people actively seek to harm others whose ideas do not fall in line with their own. I’m sorry, but you simply don’t see the Taliban of Atheists running around shooting people and beating women in the streets. The fact is, a great many religious people give everyone else a LOT to belittle. As noted above, however, just because a bunch of people do it, doesn’t make it right.
It should also be noted that in the civilized world, the number of people that follow some kind of faith is declining.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Merovingian
If people want to believe obvious untruths then that is their right.
Just leave it out of the school system!
It doesn’t matter how small a percentage of people understand evolution or the big bang. Those people are still correct- and the Bible (and every other religious text I can think of) is still wrong.
Scientific truth is not a popularity contest. It is not decided by religious belief or by political belief. It is decided by the evidence.
I have no respect for faith. Why should I?
I have no respect for religious people devoutly following outdated pre-scientific texts. They may be very nice people in other regards- but their piety doesn’t impress me.
There is nothing inherently ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ about choosing the theories which are consistent with all available evidence.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Oh and Merovingian,
If you ‘don’t care’ how correct evolution or ID is… then you have no business lecturing others who have made the intellectual effort to look at the evidence.
You have the right to be ignorant- but please don’t vote or teach children any time soon.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
This belittling of a group of people is a common liberal tactic, though, so I’m not really surprised.
Dissmissing anyone they don’t agree with as liberals is a common tactic of the religious right.
Other non-arguments you may want to try is to accuse them of just riding a bandwagon, and hating america.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
I will be surprised if Merovingian bothers to respond to any of the numerous replies.
It’s generally a waste of time to engage these people in debate. They’re usually only interested in causing trouble.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Christian: I’m sorry you had a bad experience in RE at school but I would say that a) the punishment out sounyou mentioned sounded like an actionable human rights offence b) unless it was N.Ireland you can’t lump Ireland in with the UK.
RE at my school was an obvious dumping ground for the useless teachers, had a non-existant sylabus, and was 60% free periods because there was no-one to teach us.
What stuck was: In context teaching of parables such as the good samaritan and the prodigal son (ie. they are pretty meaningless out of context), the five pillars of Islam, context based morality, and the roots of logic based philosopy.
As taught that stuff was pretty lame; but if it had been taught by an enthusiastic teacher who knew his/her stuff, it would have been great.
At school in RE I was taught nothing but tolerence and the value of other viewpoints. Indoctrination was for home and sunday.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
One question: If evolution is correct, then why aren’t monkey’s turning into humans?
November 10th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
The thing I fail to understand in all of this is why all faith followers are lump to gether as anti-scientist. In every group of people; religious, scientist, sports fans etc. there are a small group of individuals that are fanatical. Not everyone who belives in God belives in ID.
I love squids post though:
“Most of the world thought that the world was flat at one time. Most of the world believed in dragons, and there was a time when most of the world thought slavery and indentured service was a proper thing.”
The thing he left out was that the general consensus of these beliefs were not changed until humans had the technology and understanding to test these theories. Just because we don’t have the ability to test and prove life after death, or that God exists or extraterrestial life exists or Brittany Spears’ breasts are fake does not mean that they are false claims. 40 years ago no-one believed we would have computers that would fit on a desk, let alone in our pockets, 80 years ago few believed man would fly to the moon, 200 years ago most medical treatment that is common today would have been seen as magic. Just because we can not touch it or see it does not mean it does not exist.
Science relies on evidence to prove existence, but everything that has been proven by science started out as theory or supposition, with no hard evidence. Given time we may or may not prove the claims.
I am a religious beliver, but I also belive in evolution, I belive in science. I was a medical practitioner and now work in IT. I do not support ID, but I do take offense to being called an anti-scientist because I belive in God. Current science can not prove God exists, but it also can not prove He does not. That is an old argument but it is also a fact.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
mike: Try Google- or try reading a book on evolution.
james: Religion has nothing to do with the roots of morality. There are many secular works that illustrate the Golden Rule etc. much better than the Bible or the Koran.
If the purpose of R.E. is to instill a sense of morality- then this can obviously be achieved without resorting to pre-scientific texts preaching about a sky-god.
Of course, that presupposes that R.E. is not about indoctrination- which it clearly is.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Kedaver:
There’s no evidence for God. All data we have points towards a naturalistic universe and most definitely rules out the possibility of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim Gods.
You say you ‘believe’ in evolution. It is literally incredible that a God would have written a bible through intermediaries and not have mentioned the simplest facts about the universe and our species- such as the big bang, the formation of elements, evolution, and elementary genetics.
Proof of a God would be discovering the missing last page of the Bible which contains a list of physical constants, such as gravity and hbar to 20 decimal places.
I’d even settle for the Pope receiving a divine proof of the Riemann hypothesis- well it would definitely make me think.
I can accept you at your word that you’re not ‘anti-science’. But I’m not going to pretend that theological beliefs are consistent with science, which they’re not.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
RE in my day was never about indoctrination but on how the world works
In the 1990’s they had in Scottish schools something called “Personal and Social Development” to make people into model subjects. (We are not citizens in the UK, we are subjects of the British Crown) That could be argued was a form of indoctrination as the state was trying to teach the little darlings not to be thugs and be good to each other.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Sticks,
Religious education is completely unnecessary for teaching kids morality. The only reason people clamor for R.E. in schools is for the purposes of indoctrination.
Bible study is a completely useless method for teaching kids how the world works.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:29 am
I guess I’m fortunate it took me a while to figure out “RE” was religious education. (It isn’t offered). For those religious conservatives who say schools went down hill when they “took God out of the classroom”, my mother informs me that in the 60s there was never any prayer in schools in Michigan, but during a brief move to Texas there was–so prayer in schools was never universal and its removal is neither a causal or correlating agent to the quality of schools or youth. Recently popular science had a new invention up for a patent, the first item not designed by a human engineer, instead this antenna was devised with an evolution type of engineering program. It looked funky but works better than anything yet devised. A bit off topic but I’ll put it up anyway.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:37 am
Kedaver Says:
…The thing I fail to understand in all of this is why all faith followers are lump to gether as anti-scientist.
This just isn’t true. The only ‘faith followers’ which are being included here are the ones which are anti-science. No one I’m aware of lumps all believers into an anti-science stereotype.
However, there is a conflict between the literal Bible and scientific evidence so anyone believing in the Bible as literal, is by default anti-science. That isn’t all believers.
November 11th, 2006 at 4:55 am
Mike:
Because ,just as it’s easier to take the “slideway to hell” than to climb the “stairway to heaven”, so too it is easier for a thinking human to devolve into a thoughtless, hairy ape(no insult to our ape cousins intended). Life is a complex system that ignores general entropy, using energy to run uphill, generating more complex systems as it goes. Sorry if you decided to take the downhill slide,,,your choice,,,
GAry 7
November 11th, 2006 at 7:03 am
One question: If evolution is correct, then why aren’t monkey’s turning into humans?
Maybe existing chimpanzees are turning into proto homonids. By definition they wouldn’t be human, and the process will take millions of years, but it could be happening right now. More likely is that apes collectively – including humans – are evolving into something else that will not appear for millions of years.
Your question illustrates two of the primary fallacies of the anti-evolution people: that macroevolution takes place on human lifetime time scales, and that monkeys turn into humans. Nothing in the theory of evolution says that you have a tree-swinging lemur as a direct predecessor, nor will any chimpanzee give birth to your next son-in-law.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Hello all, first time here, looks like a fun place!
I just want to give some background before I offer a doom and gloom type prophecy for you all amidsts the general celebrations. I live in NJ, and I have Direct TV, which either beams down a signal from a sattelite OR God beams his voice and will into my set. Either way I get only NY news, and thus the whole Rick Santorum thing may be a bit off as I haven’t really followed the PA elelctions.
Never-the-less I NEVER miss the opportunity to stick my foot in my mouth or mis-spell something, so here goes.
I doubt Santorum was defeated for his ID idealogy, but more for the fact that he was allied with Bush. And I will go a little farther and say that the Bush alliance is more about Iraq than ID or science education.
In other words, ID is not done, nor has it taken any real lumps in National politics. The school board elections should be celebrated by science, the Santorum things should be seen as a chance to catch our breath, nothing more.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:27 am
It’s getting awfully confused again.
There may be problems with religious education as a separate class in school (but this depends very much on the teacher). However, a basic understanding of the major religions is desirable to make sense of (current) world politics. I believe the best place for that is geography and history.
Similarly, it is clearly a fallacy to think that so many people can’t be wrong, but those people are still politically relevant. So RE in some form should remain.
Finally, Evolving Squid: “Truth should not require interpretation” is not a very meaningful statement. How about quantum mechanics? In its domain of validity it is true, yet its interpretation is somewhat problematic. It is also not clear or necessary that any deeper theory should resolve this.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I was talking to my wife and her experience in english private school was was very much of the ‘indoctrination’ variety, so maybe there is something different about scotland or maybe I was just very lucky. I also remember “Personal and Social Developmentâ€, that had soooo much influence on us.
Some people on this thread regard RE as education ABOUT different religions; and some people regard it as indoctrination tactics.
Rest assured we want to advocate the USEFUL one.
November 11th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
As PK says, education about different religions can be done in history and geography class.
The problem is clearly when it gets mixed into education about morality. R.E. then becomes a backdoor tactic for sneaking the bible into class.
November 12th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Mike’s question about monkeys turning into humans reveals ignorance of evolutionary theory. The answer is that they are not because humans went down one branch of evolution and the apes and chimps went down another path. Think of a tree and branches.
Although one has to point out that we are infering a tree from spot points and trying to join the dots. In our own human history we have had creatures on the road to becoming man, only for later research to show that they were either human or knuckle walking ape. Which reminds me of that earlier quote from Dr Zukerman who spent his life working on the Austrolapithecines.
RE should never have been about indoctrination but about what drives people today.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Ironically it was Santorum who played perhaps the biggest part in getting Judge Jones into the position he was when he dealt ID a mortal blow.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Teach all kids philosophy instead of RE – first lesson(s) {or terms or years!} – analytical thinking, basic logic esp. spotting logical fallacies, analysing and deconstructing arguements.
second lesson(s) – epistemology – how can we be said to “know” anything -phenomenalism, scepticism (in the philosophical sense), empirical realism etc ..
third lesson(s) – Ontology – nature of reality & theories of what ‘reality’ actually is.
Fourth lesson(s) – Philosophies of science – scientific methodologies and reasoning, Karl Popper’s “falsification”, Kuhn’s a paradigm change theories etc .. &/or Ideas of Human nature : Hobbes “evil” versus Roussaeu’s “good” versus a more complex potential for eitherview.
Fifth lesson – Ethics – what they are and some examples of major ethical systems starting with the abstract secular (utiliarian, absolute value) and then comparing and contrasting some the major philosophies dealing with ethics : Buddhism, the Abrahamic faiths (ie. Judaism, Christainity, Islam), pagan, indigenous and polytheistic cultures.
Teach all that and you’ve covered in a pretty balanced & ceratinly useful way everything worth teaching about Religious Education.
Such a course should make no or as few as possible indoctrination type statements on any particular philosophies or beliefs and illustrate different ways of thinking esp. on religion -advocating nobelief system and puttingall religions intheir historic and social context. No firm conclusions as to whether any of these are necessarily correct beyond their internal frameworks.
Kids should come out being able to spot flawed thinking and discuss cogently logical ideas & tell which ones are obviously illogical or at least unsupported by reasonable evidence.
That’s what I’d recommend and love to see put in place everywhere ..
November 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Damn, Phil, you are such a partisan hack!
November 13th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Sticks said:
>I have to point out in the overtly creationist circles I have moved in the past, they have the viewpoint that evolution was anti-science because it appeared to violate the laws of biogenesis, laws of probability, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and did not pass the test that Darwin set re-transitional fossils. With regard to the Big Bang, the expression given is “You do not get a Websters Unabridged Dictionary from an explosion in a print Shopâ€.
>So we have both sides, each saying that the other side is anti-science. I assume this is down to whether you can factor in the “supernatural†element. One side, (creationist), allows it and the other side, (evolutionist) does not.
The problem is that one side is presenting a bunch of “proofs” that are locigally and scientifically flawed. Example, that Big Bang counterargument you listed. That is a ludicrous analogy for the Big Bang, one that Creationists love because of the vibrancy but fail to grasp the inapplicability.
>I have on tape a presentation given, where the speaker, a food microbiologist, took us through the various creatures that were on the road to becoming man and at the end showed that they were either entirely apes or entirely human with no intermediary.
Again, this is a flawed understanding of biological phylogeny. Classification systems are inherently designed to make categories and draw solid lines when the topic is ultimately a continuous spectrum.
Beren said:
>I always thought that a comparative theology course would be a fair place to discuss ID. I even think it would be a valid use of high schoolers’ time, if it was done correctly. Americans, as a rule, are reasonably familiar with Christianity but pretty ignorant of other religions. We could certainly stand to know more about how other cultures operate, and learn to respect the things they’re getting right that we (as a culture) aren’t so good at.
There are problems. One critical one is that it is difficult to get adherents of one religion to treat that religion on equal footing with all others. When you can’t get them to accept it as Mythology, you can’t put it on equal terms with Greco-Roman or Norse mythologies. You can try to put on comparative terms with Islam, Hinduism, Chinese ancestor worship, etc, but ultimately you have to defeat the presentation by the adherents of one sect emphasizing that sect. Which leads to problem two: how do you spend all week teaching that each religion is equivalent with every other and none have a special place or preferential justification, then one day a week teach them that this religion is the only true one and all others are false? That puts an unbearable strain on adults, much less children who haven’t formed their worldviews. That is why religious people are leery of teaching true comparative religion.
Merovingian said:
>The fact is that most of the discussion about it amounts to insulting and looking down on religious people.
Kedaver said:
> The thing I fail to understand in all of this is why all faith followers are lump to gether as anti-scientist. In every group of people; religious, scientist, sports fans etc. there are a small group of individuals that are fanatical. Not everyone who belives in God belives in ID.
skeptigirl said:
> This just isn’t true. The only ‘faith followers’ which are being included here are the ones which are anti-science. No one I’m aware of lumps all believers into an anti-science stereotype.
That’s not exactly true. There certainly is an element of disparagment of faith as a justification for belief. Especially where faith is in conflict with the conclusions from science. The issue that is at hand is the validity of faith as a means of knowing. As a path to information, it is diametrically opposed to the scientific mindset. Science is all about evidence, justification by testing, logical connections and verification. Faith is inherently about accepting without proof, without evidence – accepting because you want it to be true, you feel is should be true, you prefer the meaning it provides for it to be true. Some people think that in areas where science cannot address – issues that step beyond physical testing and evidence gathering – faith should be allowed as a valid belief basis. This is a philosophical point of contention. For those who hold that faith is inherently flawed when compared against evidence-based belief, then relying on it is relying on a known flawed tool. The counter argument may be “better a flawed tool than no tool”. That ultimately is a matter for preference. But in the physical arena, evidence-based belief is hands down the best means for reaching meaningful and conclusive decisions. That is why all faith believers are being lumped together – they are all advocates of a “belief system” that is demonstrably flawed and non-error correcting, usually at the expense of a “belief system” that is self-correcting and produces tangible results.
Kedaver, you are correct, I wish more believers realized the distinction between belief in God and believing in ID. The two are not equivalent.
james said:
>What stuck was: In context teaching of parables such as the good samaritan and the prodigal son (ie. they are pretty meaningless out of context), the five pillars of Islam, context based morality, and the roots of logic based philosopy.
There are some interesting moral lessons in religious texts, such as the parables you mention. Certainly the context is important to the meaning. There are also plenty of “moral lessons” that need some serious critical thought applied to them and what they actually teach. But ultimately, the moral lessons being taught are there in support of the mythology and heierarchical doctrines presented by the books.
mike said:
>One question: If evolution is correct, then why aren’t monkey’s turning into humans?
You are assuming that (1) evolution is directional and (2) there is only one path of development. Monkey’s aren’t turning into humans because we already fill that niche, and pretty effectively.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Irishman,
A very reasoned and meticulous response! I don’t say the following to counter anything that you have said, but to expand on it.
There are several primary difficulties with acceptance or encouragement of a faith system in areas that fall outside of science, and most of these have repercussions that affect faith itself, as well as human interaction.
1. Encouraging, even in a small sense, the idea that the answers might be “unknowable” encourages the idea not to look for them – in other words, failing to seek a natural, rather than supernatural, explanation. Case in point is the “angel” in BA’s later post. A lot of effort (including mine) was put into investigating the possibility that it was only a moth or bird, a highly likely theory. Skeptics may view these efforts as a demonstration of critical thought and analyzing your surroundings. Believers may view these efforts as desperate denial. In this cute little case, not much will become of it all. In past cases, similar “manifestations” have been catalysts for bloodshed on a grand scale. Critical thought is a safety valve for actions that may be detrimental to survival.
2. As you say yourself, faith is a method of justifying something we want to believe, do, or happen. And in fact, without evidence or facts or science, that’s really *all* it is. By allowing “faith” as an answer, you discourage the introspective examination of motives. “Do I hate homosexuals because they are an abomination against [deity], or because they creep me out due to the fact that I have been raised to embrace (heh!) brutish behavior in the support of dominant masculinity and to avoid being ostracized by my peers? Good gravy, am I that pathetic?”
3. The definition of “faith” is individual, yet this is rarely recognized. You mentioned the validity of faith as a means of knowing, yet to me this is a contradictory statement (and it’s clear you know this viewpoint very well). But how many others will stop to ponder this distinction? Humans are lazy and insecure, and thinking for ourselves is often an activity that is practically shunned – this can be seen easily in everything from political campaigns to fashion. We want someone to tell us the correct answer. And most especially, we want it told to us in terms that are unambiguous. Even more sinister, we want it to allow us to do the things we like, to support our base emotions.
4. Leaders throughout history know very well that there is no greater power than faith, and use this to their advantage at every opportunity. You cannot drive your people to slaughter over a foreign trade proposal – you *can* drive them to slaughter the infidels. Which is why Behe and Dembski, the leading proponents of Intelligent Design, are paid through the Discovery Institute, a distinctly conservative think-tank. Because if religion can be increased within this country, then that’s lots more sheep for faith-based initiatives.
By encouraging the idea that “faith” may provide in circumstances where science cannot (and I personally have yet to find any such circumstance), you open up the concept that selfishness is okay, answers can be simple, and leaders are follwing a divine plan. You can, in theory, draw a line that should not be crossed, but humans, as a whole, aren’t too good at making that distinction.
And in order to make that distinction, you have to introduce critical thought, and we know where that leads
September 20th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I like to watch Supernatural and also Lost, becous the sexy cast lol. BTW found this site on google, searched for some TV Show Plot.