Comments on: Things You Can’t Say in School

By: Luke

Luke — Sun, 24 May 2009 07:59:14 +0000

John–

Well, by “we will all happily”, you mean “all of us who are good scientists will eventually.” As some wag–who might have been a famous physicist in the early 20th century–noted, “Science progresses, funeral by funeral.”

By: John

John — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:02:02 +0000

Robert, do the reading. I really liked “The Ancestors’ Tale” by Richard Dawkins. He starts with the present, and traces human origins back to the earliest primates, the primates from the earliest mammals, etc. ultimately ending up with the ancient microbes, pointing out the converging lines of evolution (when going backward!) along with the fossil evidence, evidence from DNA, and patterns of morphology. I found it breathtaking, actually, to realize the connectedness we all share with all the creatures on the planet, going so deep into the past.

You ascribe the wrong attitude of a scientist towards theories. Theories aren’t something you decide to believe in or not. Theories either work or they don’t, and when they don’t they are either modified or abandoned in the face of a new point of view. Take relativistic quantum field theory. It seems to account for a huge array of known particle phenomena, and has made many predictions which later were demonstrated to be true. (In fact one important property for a scientific theory to have is prediction about the world.) However, RQFT does have its weaknesses, and a new and better way to organize the calculations of particles and their properties may emerge in the future. At that point we will all happily abandon it, I assure you. Faith has nothing to do with it.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:55:18 +0000

The problem is, that just because you label something “scientific” doesn’t mean that it is true. I would agree on evolution in a micro sense, but there is not enough proof on a macro level. Evolutionist are just as dogmatic as people of faith, if not more so. There are many documented cases of discoveries being fraudulent or someone finding fragments of bones and building a complete skeleton from them. My point is that science should be taught in schools, just don’t give favoritism to creation OR evolution. Evolution is not truth. What is a theory? – “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” What is phenomena? “something that is impressive or extraordinary.” Sounds like you need faith to believe in it, huh? Therefore, until it is proven, without a doubt. Don’t teach it. You can teach biology. You can teach geology. You can teach about dinosaurs. Etc, but don’t teach evolution, and don’t slam someone elses belief. Maybe you need to read outside your own circle?

By: John

John — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:52:20 +0000

Robert, you have a lot of reading to do, sorry. Few scientific frameworks have had the unqualified success that evolution has had in explaining how life arose. It is supported by so many and varied observations (certainly not just “bone fragments”) that it really is the only way one can discuss the origins of species on our planet.

As an introduction for a non-specialist (and I assume you are not a biologist), you might try one one of the many popular books on the subject, such as those by Stephen Jay Gould , Richard Dawkins (”The Blind Watchmaker”, “The Ancestors’ Tale”) , or Sean B. Carroll (not my co-blogger).

As for scientific theories being “any more real than superstitious religion”, I would offer the following. A scientist who has a theory is perfectly willing to abandon that theory if evidence arises which contradicts it. Those who believe in superstition and/or religion are not willing to abandon those beliefs no matter what.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:16:08 +0000

Evolution is a theory – fact. Theories aren’t any more real than superstitious religion. Why not just teach facts in school, which would exclude evolution. You can teach facts. There were dinosaurs – fact. There has been no evidence of macro-evolution. Micro-evolution? Yes. But if you look at all the “evidence” pointing to evolution, such as “Lucy”, it’s just bone fragments that some decided what the rest of it looked like. That is superstitious here say.

By: coolstar

coolstar — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:23:26 +0000

The battle between “creation science” and REAL science IS definitely s a battle “….. between a rational versus an irrational approach to understanding our natural world.” This court case is ENTIRELY about separating Church and State, which is the proper job of an American court. Scientists are themselves quite capable of fighting the first battle. Courts do have to rule on whether scientific evidence is permissible (polygraphs, dna testing (in which the statistics are almost always presented in misleading ways) etc. etc. ) and in that narrow sense they do make judgments about science. Good jurists keep those rulings as narrow as possible.

By: phd

phd — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:37:45 +0000

Belittling someone is not generally the way to change their mind, but that doesn’t change the fact that creationism *is* nonsense.

By: Not A. Creationist

Not A. Creationist — Mon, 11 May 2009 11:42:51 +0000

Ironically, I believe this court decision is 100% a product of how this age old battle has been fought. All too often people that are so adamant about getting “religion out of schools”, they sort of twisted and turned the establishment clause and argued it well past the point, of what I believe, that the founding fathers had intended when they wrote it.

Now, it is what it is, and the cultural battle that has been waging for many, many years is continuing onward and upward.

Regarding the commenter Whaaaaa?
When you said, “The judge contradicts himself when he finds that stating that creationalism is “superstitious nonsense” has no secular purpose. It clearly serves the secular purpose of promoting scientific reasoning. ”

It may server the purpose of promoting scientific reasoning, it’s going about it the completely wrong way. There are far better methods to promote reasoning than denigrating philosophical stances in a captive audience.

By: Arun

Arun — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:26:27 +0000

If someone must or must not have specific beliefs in order to attend a science class in school, and is subject to disparagement in the classroom from the teacher because of those beliefs, then we’re in big trouble. I think Gavin P. is perfect in his approach.

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Sun, 10 May 2009 17:16:18 +0000

Brief summary of my facts and opinions.

(1) Fact 1: I was an Adjunct Professor of Astronomy, after 20 years in Aerospace/Space program, and a number of provocative papers at the fringe of Quantum Cosmology. Between 5% and 10% of my college students didn’t believe that people have been to the Moon. To say that they were skeptical of Big Bang Cosmology (except “Let there be Light” is an understatement.

(2) Fact 2: I taught Chemistry, Biology, Anatomy & Physiology in a high school charter school, with a heavy emphasis on Evolution by Natural Selection. Roughly 30% of my students appeared to be some isotope of Creationist. Roughly 5% were self-identified in Intelligent Design. I made it clear that I didn’t care what they believed. I wasn’t telling them what to think. I was showing them how to think. I accepted Creationist answers which cited evidence, rather than dogma. I was sl;ightly uncomfortable with helping an Intelligent Design student towards U.C. Berkleley Med School, but he was bright, hard working, and so I pass that problem on to the UC system.

(3) As current President of the Humanists Association of Cal State L.A., I have steered the student group consensus towards a middle-of-the-road position. I lean towards Agnosticism, rather than hard-core anti-Religion Atheism. It is not the religious who are ant-science. Ask any Jesuit Astronomer. Ask Newton. However, Intelligent Design has been proven in court to be religion fraudulently presented as Science. Intelligent Design is in fact an enemy of Science as an enterprise.

(4) I believe that Socrates was right. He chose to be a martyr for truth and knowledge and academic freedom. Hence I support Mr. Corbett’s nuanced position, as he articulates it. I refuse to denigrate lawyers and judges (all of whom are now lawyers, unlike at the time of Darwin or even Scopes). But the distinction should be drawn between the paradigm of Mathematics (axiomatic truth), Science (empirical truth), Law (politolegal truth), Art (aesthetic truth), and Religion (revealed truth). The words “truth”, “proof”, “evidence”, and “theory” do not mean the same thing from one of these 5 to any other.