There has been some complaining from the Gov. Palin camp about how she was treated by the media. She has claimed that the media is both sexist and that she was snubbed because she wasn't part of the "in-crowd" and didn't know the intellectual "code".
I find a great deal of irony in this. She spent a lot of her campaign fanning the flames of "us vs them"*. She dissed half the country as not being "the real America". She reminded me of nothing so much as the cute guy in HS who laughed at the brainy kids.
As for sexism, I found that Sen. McCain's campaign's strategy of choosing Gov. Palin to woo disgruntled supporters of Sen Clinton to be both sexist and insulting. We are not interchangeable.
*the rest of her campaign was spent implying that Obama was a terrorist so add dishonesty to my list of reasons.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Non-sexist reasons for Not Wanting Gov. Palin to Be VP
Dude. You don't even have to get personal for a lot of people to not want her to be VP. It's the same reason I didn't want Obama to be president: "I think they're wrong on a lot of issues that are very important to me."
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Neither of the Republicans matched my values, which is why I didn't like either of them as executive material. It's pretty easily understood. What I'd like to hear is a regular GOP'er that didn't like her, and why.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
She's not fond of wolves. Wolves are cool.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I figured that, for me, that reason would go without saying.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If you think creationism should be taught in science class in schools, you lose about 500 points of IQ in my estimation, and are unqualified for any office higher then "poop scooper"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I figured that, for me, that reason would go without saying.
I figure that if you have that reason, there's no reason to explore the personal ones.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If I were to imagine how I'd like the ideal vice presidential candidate to act (expressing wisdom, civility, understanding of the issues, a spirit of bipartisanship, etc.), Gov. Palin generally acted in the opposite way of what I'd imagine. That's why I didn't want her to be VP.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I figured that, for me, that reason would go without saying.
I figure that if you have that reason, there's no reason to explore the personal ones.
There are people whose wisdom and judgement I would want in office even if I disagreed with them. This is particularly true in a VP as they're true function is not so much shaping policy as it is to make good decisions in a crisis.
There are people with whom I agree much more on specific policy than I do Pres. Obama but I think they would make terrible presidents. Congressman Kucinich for example.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
She's a woman.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
David Letterman compared her to a show dog with a "silky coat" and "firm hindquarters" last week. The allegations of sexism are not groundless.
But in the spirit of the thread title:
1. The nepotism and then resistance into checking it out. Sounds like an abuse of power to me, and that always bothers me. I hate it when Clinton did it, and I don't like it when Palin does it.
2. Playing fast and loose with the expense accounts. I consider public office and working for the government as a public trust, and milking the expense account is a betrayal of that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with Xaposert.
quote:I found that Sen. McCain's campaign's strategy of choosing Gov. Palin to woo disgruntled supporters of Sen Clinton to be both sexist and insulting. We are not interchangeable.
Can you explain this? Specifically, I'd like to understand why you think that was the primary reason Palin was chosen, and I'd like to understand why you think that was sexist and insulting.
quote:If you think creationism should be taught in science class in schools, you lose about 500 points of IQ in my estimation, and are unqualified for any office higher then "poop scooper"
Hm... I don't think that you should necessarily be out of the running for jobs that don't have anything to do with education. I've never been convinced that believing in creationism necessarily deducts mental capacity in areas that have nothing to do with hard science (for example, managing people).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There are people whose wisdom and judgement I would want in office even if I disagreed with them.
Fair enough.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I've never been convinced that believing in creationism necessarily deducts mental capacity in areas that have nothing to do with hard science (for example, managing people).
maybe, but managing lets say a paper company, and managing the United States of America are two very different things, not just in size.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Specifically, I'd like to understand why you think that was the primary reason Palin was chosen...
I don't know why she thinks this -- but one of the reasons I think this is that McCain's campaign staff have publicly said as much.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Hm... I don't think that you should necessarily be out of the running for jobs that don't have anything to do with education. I've never been convinced that believing in creationism necessarily deducts mental capacity in areas that have nothing to do with hard science (for example, managing people). "
Any place where decision making is going to come into play, it certainly should give massive negative points. And that includes managing people, since in order to manage people effectively, from time to time you must make decisions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I agree with Xaposert.
quote:I found that Sen. McCain's campaign's strategy of choosing Gov. Palin to woo disgruntled supporters of Sen Clinton to be both sexist and insulting. We are not interchangeable.
Can you explain this? Specifically, I'd like to understand why you think that was the primary reason Palin was chosen, and I'd like to understand why you think that was sexist and insulting.
I don't think it was a primary reason. I think it was a strategy (or should that be tactic?). I think it is insulting in the same way that assuming that Gen Colin Powell only endorsed Sen. Obama because he was black. It makes the assumption that significant numbers of women care more about a candidate's gender than anything else. Which may or may not be true, but it is still sexist and insulting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:one of the reasons I think this is that McCain's campaign staff have publicly said as much.
They said the primary reason Palin was chosen was to pick up the disillusioned Hillary votes?
No wonder the GOP lost.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Non-sexist reasons for Not Wanting Gov. Palin to Be VP
Dude. You don't even have to get personal for a lot of people to not want her to be VP. It's the same reason I didn't want Obama to be president: "I think they're wrong on a lot of issues that are very important to me."
True, but "personal" issues can be a valid factor in determining for whom one votes.
For example, I think both McCain and Palin are more-or-less equally wrong on a lot issues that are important to me. Ideologically, their differences are fairly minor, and certainly dwarfed by their distance from me. However, I am much less comfortable with the idea of Palin in a leadership position than McCain.
The folks who cry "sexism" stop their reasoning at around this point. They see that my opinion of McCain is higher than that of Palin, note that one essential difference between the two is their gender, and conclude that my greater dislike for Palin must be because she is a woman.
Of course, this is obviously a very simplistic reading of the situation that ignores the obvious fact that there exist differences between the two beyond their sex. Age and experience are the the most immediately obvious. However, critics could also validly attack Obama for the same grounds here, although I would argue that 4 years in the United States Senate is far more relevant experience than 3 years as governor of Alaska - but that's another debate. Let's just assume for the moment that the critics are right, and Palin's age and experience are off-limits as "non-sexist" critiques because the same is true across the aisle.
There remain further differences between Palin and McCain that apply to neither Obama nor Biden. For example, McCain is undeniably a knowledgeable man with a good grasp of the issues, and the ability to discuss the complexities involved with confidence and some measure of persuasiveness. However, in Palin's two biggest chances to convey the same (the Couric interview and the VP debate), she instead came off as a bumbling know-nothing who retreated to talking points, often irrelevant to the issue at hand, whenever confronted by a question she didn't want or know how to answer.
In other words, the difference between McCain and Palin had everything to do with "personal" traits - demonstrable intelligence, openness to opposing viewpoints, a basic honesty and decency (compare McCain's and Palin's respective responses to the more eagerly anti-Obama folks at their rallies). Though I would never have voted for McCain over Obama for ideological reasons, I was certainly happier with the idea of another Republican administration before Palin stepped onto the scene.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It makes the assumption that significant numbers of women care more about a candidate's gender than anything else. Which may or may not be true, but it is still sexist and insulting.
Do you think that Hillary Clinton's campaign may also have capitalized on this feeling?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It makes the assumption that significant numbers of women care more about a candidate's gender than anything else. Which may or may not be true, but it is still sexist and insulting.
If that's true, how is believing that it's true sexist?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: David Letterman compared her to a show dog with a "silky coat" and "firm hindquarters" last week. The allegations of sexism are not groundless.
So Letterman speaks for who? Last time I checked, Letterman speaks for himself. His network, sometimes, maybe. But in case you don't know anything about Letterman, he runs his entire show from top to bottom, and sells it to the network at a flat fee. Everything in it is his, he employs the writers and staff, and has total control of the content. This is afaik, and according to every piece of news I've ever read about Letterman.
So you have a joke about a former candidates intelligence and physical appearance. Are these traits for which only women are traditionally mocked? I suppose it's sexist that Jon Stewart (and every comedian in the western hemisphere) has been mocking Blogo's coiffure of jet black hair...
A joke about a woman is not automatically a joke about her sex. Can't you even come up with one of the more obvious and useful examples of the actually sexist things that have been said about Palin? I mean, seriously, Letterman's joke is partly mocking the fact that there was an idiotic controversy about a "sexist joke" that supposedly called Palin a pig, when SHE COMPARED HERSELF to a bulldog.
Kat. SHE COMPARED HERSELF TO A BULLDOG WITH LIPSTICK! DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS FODDER FOR A JOKE? Do you understand why it becomes diminishingly sexist to make fun of Palin when one uses the VERY TROPES that she has used to create her own image?
A BULLDOG WITH LIPSTICK. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, believing that it's true is not in itself sexist. Acting on that belief, i.e. fielding a woman candidate in order to take advantage of a sexist view is sexist.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
This is gonna end well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not going to answer Orincoro. Don't worry.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Thank you. This is probably a good reason for not starting a new thread right away, it's too easy to fall back to the last thread whether people want it or not. How about we resume this in a few days when everyone's calmer?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Orincoro:
Palin's usage was effective because she built upon expectations of what is expected of a pretty lady-- and demolished them. In short, her comparison fought against expectations-- instead of being demurre and shrinking, her imagery billed her as being tenacious and capable. The irony of what the audience expected of her-- seeing an attractive, smartly dressed female-- and what they received was powerful.
Letterman's joke was effective because it built on Palin's imagery, but reversed it. It belied her tenaciousness and her capability, and replaced it with physical attractiveness. It made her importance not her charatcer, but her appearance.
Whether he is sexist or not, I don't know-- I think that I'd have to have a bigger sample to evaluate. But his imagery was definitely sexist, and that kind of language and usage is often employed to undermine womens' capabilities.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Considering part of the job of vice president is to be there when the president kicks the bucket with john mccains case is likely and with Palin so completely unqualified to be President it would be disaster.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: It makes the assumption that significant numbers of women care more about a candidate's gender than anything else. Which may or may not be true, but it is still sexist and insulting.
Do you think that Hillary Clinton's campaign may also have capitalized on this feeling?
I do. I also think that then Sen. Obama had the advantage of his race among black people. Of course there aren't as many black voters as women voters. I think that he was careful to try not to play the race card (which makes sense both practically and ideologically) whereas both Gov. Palin and Sen. Clinton did play the woman card which I disagree with ideologically and didn't work as well as either of them hoped.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree with Xaposert as well.
I believe that the President's main three functions are to choose good people & then manage them well, to represent our country to the world, and to set the overall agenda/roadmap for the nation. Only the last ties in very tightly with policies or political ideologies.
While I do not agree with McCain on his overall vision for where the US ought to be going, I had confidence in his ability to perform the first two. That is, until he picked Palin as VP. She fails on all three functions for me, and his choosing her made me doubt his ability at the first function of the President. It ended any chance of McCain getting my vote.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree with Xaposert as well.
I believe that the President's main three functions are to choose good people & then manage them well, to represent our country to the world, and to set the overall agenda/roadmap for the nation. Only the last ties in very tightly with policies or political ideologies.
While I do not agree with McCain on his overall vision for where the US ought to be going, I had confidence in his ability to perform the first two. That is, until he picked Palin as VP. She fails on all three functions for me, and his choosing her made me doubt his ability at the first function of the President. It ended any chance of McCain getting my vote.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am not going to answer Orincoro. Don't worry.
Uhuh. Tell Tom to tell me that I'm not one of the cool kids. God you're lame.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Orinoco, must you? That is not at all productive.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Whether he is sexist or not, I don't know-- I think that I'd have to have a bigger sample to evaluate. But his imagery was definitely sexist, and that kind of language and usage is often employed to undermine womens' capabilities.
I more or less agree. I think the fact that this imagery had been built up by Palin, and that she had subsequently underperformed and was unable to live up to her own hype, and the fact that the imagery was in itself an acknowledgment, nay, a challenge of sexist imagery, makes a joke like this fair game. It's a sexist joke sure, but it didn't appear out of a vacuum, and I think it was pretty much deserved.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Orinoco, must you? That is not at all productive.
Well, she isn't going to respond... so no?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Everard, people are actually pretty good at compartmentalizing. Blind spots on what qualifies as science don't necessarily apply to other aspects of judgment and decision making. Lots of creationists are effective businesspeople and managers. There are even some who are good science teachers, because they are capable of distinguishing between what they believe and what they are meant to be teaching the class.
That being said, I'm not happy when creationists are in a position to set public policy, especially around education.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think there is a difference being a woman running for office and knowing it will give you some level of advantage among women, or a black running for office and knowing it will give you some level of advantage among blacks, and being a white man running for office and picking a woman or a minority as a running mate to appeal to female or minority voters. Clinton didn't undergo a sex change in order to appeal to female voters, Obama didn't misrepresent his race.
Given the situation in this election, where there was such a big push for Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate, and so many of her supporters saying that they would not be voting for Obama since he didn't pick her, McCain selecting a female running mate who does not seem in other ways even close to the most qualified candidate seems to be obvious pandering for those female votes.
Now, picking a running mate is pretty much all about pandering for votes, particularly if you can pick one who appeals to a particular block of voters. That's why people from the north pick southerners, older people pick younger people, people who are weak in a particular area pick people who have demonstrated experience in that area. But they usually do that by assembling a pool of qualified candidates and then selection the one who best compliments them from that pool. If one agrees that Palin would normally have no place in a pool of qualified candidates for the VP position, then selecting her looks like sexism. She got picked because she's a woman, to appeal to disgruntled female Democratic voters. If you don't agree that she isn't otherwise qualified for the job, then it doesn't look like sexism.
I don't think she's otherwise qualified for the job.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Why are we still talking about this?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Lots of creationists are effective businesspeople and managers."
That might be so. But if I'm trying to evaluate someone's ability to be a decision maker when they are applying for a job, and they trumpet their creationism, I'm giving that person massive negative points. Its an example of a really bad decision that, worse, shows a preference for irrationality over rationality, and faith over evidence.
Most people I've encountered who think creationism should be taught in science classes, make lots of other really bad decisions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Why are we still talking about this?
I am talking about it because I find it interesting. If you don't, then don't. No one is forcing you to even read the thread much less participate. Why should it bother you that other people do?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Picking Palin was to try and win support from two of McCain's weak spots; Women and Evangelicals (or Conservative Christians). To miss that second point is to show your lack of understand why Palin has, despite what you might think, a very large following.
The trouble is that Palin doesn't represent politics of Sen. Clinton supporters and the Conservative Christians don't trust McCain any more than they trust Obama. Palin gained him some Conservative Christian votes *because* of his pick of Palin where he would have lost even more votes in the General election than he did. For many it wasn't the McCain/Palin ticket, but the Palin/McCain ticket. I knew plenty of people who were simply not going to vote at all until Palin was picked.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:So you have a joke about a former candidates intelligence and physical appearance. Are these traits for which only women are traditionally mocked? I suppose it's sexist that Jon Stewart (and every comedian in the western hemisphere) has been mocking Blogo's coiffure of jet black hair...
But that isn't the point is it? When someone makes a joke about women, whether it's about her intelligence or physical appearance, that joke takes on a different meaning depending on the motivation of the person who told the joke and the end game involved. For instance, David Letterman isn't a sexist simply by telling a joke about Sarah Palin, but he is a sexist if he did so because he doesn't like women and told the joke because he believes that women do not have the capacity to be leaders. Of course, that also means that it doesn't matter that someone tells the same joke about men or that other comedians tell the same joke. Simply telling the same joke about men does not absolve someone from being a sexist nor would claiming that you have African American friends absolve you of maintaining prejudice, and in that sense, I think the debate is being framed incorrectly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with you, Occasional. That was another tactic. I think it was one that failed as it lost Sen. McCain a lot of the moderate vote.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:That might be so. But if I'm trying to evaluate someone's ability to be a decision maker when they are applying for a job, and they trumpet their creationism, I'm giving that person massive negative points. Its an example of a really bad decision that, worse, shows a preference for irrationality over rationality, and faith over evidence.
Most people I've encountered who think creationism should be taught in science classes, make lots of other really bad decisions.
Creationism SHOULD be taught in science class - not as truth, as a controversy related to evolution. It's also true that taking faith over evidence can often lead to better decision making, depending on the situation and what we mean by "evidence". Are you asserting that because I hold those views, you can assume I'm stupid? Do you think other people are justified in considering you stupid in general based solely on a particular political, social, or philosophical position you hold that they disagree with?
It should be added that a solid majority of Americans, across multiple polls, support teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. Are you willing to say that all these people can't be trusted for any office higher than "pooper scooper"? While the dog population in America is high, I seriously doubt the economy would function well if 60% of Americans were employed as pooper scoopers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
ElJay -- I see how what you describe is pandering, but I don't see how it's sexist. Would you mind explaining?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Gee, would I trust a majority of Americans with public office? Thats a toughie.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Humean, do you think something can be sexist without the knowing the motivations of the person behind it? Or are you saying that motivations just serve as a secondary indicator of whether something is sexist or not, beyond the words themselves?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't think that thinking creationism should be taught in science class makes them automatically unqualified. But it would make me seriously reconsider supporting them. Faith is belief in things evidence can't prove, and by that definition is almost the exact opposite of science, which is belief in a process that holds evidence and proof above all else.
I'm not saying that faith and reason can't coexist in an officeholder's mind, in fact I think many of our better presidents have done their job from a position of balanced faith and reason, between religion and science, between feelings and proof.
But believing that creationism should be taught in science class mixes the two in an inappropriate way, and to me, is an attempt to pass one off as the other. Creationism offers no scientific refutation of evolution, and lacking that, has no place in a science class. It might have a place in any number of other classes, be it an English class that teaches Genesis, a comparative religion class, a history class, etc. Or for that matter, it should be taught by clergymen and parents either instead of or in addition to what the schools teach.
To me it has nothing to do with whether or not the person is religious, it has to do with their thought process.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Creationism SHOULD be taught in science class - not as truth, as a controversy related to evolution. "
Sure, if some kid asks about creationism in a biology class, his teacher should give him an answer... a good one is "All the scientific evidence available points towards evolution as..." etc. etc.
But actually teaching creationism? No. If you think that is should be taught in a science classroom, as in "This is what it entails," then no.
"It's also true that taking faith over evidence can often lead to better decision making, depending on the situation and what we mean by "evidence"."
When? Depending on how this is phrased, I might agree with you, or not.
"Are you asserting that because I hold those views, you can assume I'm stupid?"
I'm asserting you'd have to do a lot of work to make up the negative points I'm assigning you in my little black book of intelligence.
"Do you think other people are justified in considering you stupid in general based solely on a particular political, social, or philosophical position you hold that they disagree with? "
There are certainly answers to questions that show the person giving the answer should be judged badly until other evidence shows the judgement was wrong.
"It should be added that a solid majority of Americans, across multiple polls, support teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools."
I've never said that I think most americans are smart.
"Are you willing to say that all these people can't be trusted for any office higher than "pooper scooper"?"
Pretty much. (office, differentiated from job. And "pooper scooper" as catch-all for "task that doesn't require decision making that will influence the lives of other people).
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:So you have a joke about a former candidates intelligence and physical appearance. Are these traits for which only women are traditionally mocked? I suppose it's sexist that Jon Stewart (and every comedian in the western hemisphere) has been mocking Blogo's coiffure of jet black hair...
But that isn't the point is it? When someone makes a joke about women, whether it's about her intelligence or physical appearance, that joke takes on a different meaning depending on the motivation of the person who told the joke and the end game involved. For instance, David Letterman isn't a sexist simply by telling a joke about Sarah Palin, but he is a sexist if he did so because he doesn't like women and told the joke because he believes that women do not have the capacity to be leaders. Of course, that also means that it doesn't matter that someone tells the same joke about men or that other comedians tell the same joke. Simply telling the same joke about men does not absolve someone from being a sexist nor would claiming that you have African American friends absolve you of maintaining prejudice, and in that sense, I think the debate is being framed incorrectly.
Letterman's joke lacked gender specificity. To convince me that it was sexist you would have to show me a pattern of such jokes being made about women but not about men before I would agree that its underlying tone was sexist.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Creationism SHOULD be taught in science class - not as truth, as a controversy related to evolution. It's also true that taking faith over evidence can often lead to better decision making, depending on the situation and what we mean by "evidence". Are you asserting that because I hold those views, you can assume I'm stupid?
Mmm. I think not. I understand your desire to see it done this way, but I'm afraid, from my experience in science classrooms, Creatonism shouldn't rate as a topic of study at all- not in a general science class, and not for primary or even most secondary education. It's fine to include it in a course, say on the philosophy or history of science, or in a religion course, or a history or politics and government course, but "teach the controversy" is not productive in a science classroom.
From my perspective as a teacher, you need to know what your aims are in your material. You have to have outcomes of learning in mind. Teaching this controversy, without the thought of a concrete outcome, is not appropriate in a science classroom.
I'll go further on this. The most fundamental problem with Creationism in the science classroom, in any regard, is that it fulfills no useful learning aims. It can be taught for information, but to teach it in a science classroom (even to just mention it or explain it), a teacher would need to take sides in order to contextualize the concept. The lesson would have no meaning if an aim of learning was not being fulfilled. While you can teach about the idea of Creationism informationally, that would really not be useful in the context of a class on the scientific method (unless you were using creationism as an example of a poor theory).
Because, really, the inclusion of Creationism in science teaching represents a caving in to outward pressure, that is not, in its applications to an actual science curriculum, any different from a group that wants to teach the controversy of flying saucers and reflexology, or better yet, actually teach the applicable theories of those subjects. Science curriculum does change all the time, but it changes to try and incorporate useful teaching and concepts into the material, and by any reasonable measure, Creationism, or even the "controversy of creationism" doesn't have a place in general science. It can be taught, but the context of a science classroom is just wrong.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Do you think other people are justified in considering you stupid in general based solely on a particular political, social, or philosophical position you hold that they disagree with? "
There are certainly answers to questions that show the person giving the answer should be judged badly until other evidence shows the judgement was wrong.
As far as daily life goes, if one does not travel, I don't think it much more ridiculous that someone think the earth is flat than that person think the earth is ~6000 years old. I (and most others) would think that the former is ignorant.
Btw - in this thread, are ID and creationism being conflated?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Good gravy. I agree with Orincoro.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I think there are appropriate venues in school to discuss this, but a science class is not one of them.
How about in Social Studies, or Philosophy?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:in this thread, are ID and creationism being conflated?
I am conflating the two. If you think that they shouldn't be (and I'm thinking of some good arguments as to why they shouldn't be), would you be willing to list your reasons?
I don't think that ID or creationism should be taught in science classes-- see Orincoro's excellently reasoned post.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Good gravy. I agree with Orincoro.
Don't be like that holmes. I'm a capable individual when I feel like it. Which is sometimes.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Btw - in this thread, are ID and creationism being conflated? "
I'm pretty certain that the people who came up with ID said that it was creationism with a new name and a new way of presenting itself.
Orincoro's post is indeed excellent.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Mmm. I think not. I understand your desire to see it done this way, but I'm afraid, from my experience in science classrooms, Creatonism shouldn't rate as a topic of study at all- not in a general science class, and not for primary or even most secondary education. It's fine to include it in a course, say on the philosophy or history of science, or in a religion course, or a history or politics and government course, but "teach the controversy" is not productive in a science classroom.
From my perspective as a teacher, you need to know what your aims are in your material. You have to have outcomes of learning in mind. Teaching this controversy, without the thought of a concrete outcome, is not appropriate in a science classroom.
Teaching the philosophy of science, including the value of the scientific method and its limits, should be a major aim of science classrooms, though. Most public school students will not grow up to do science, but most will need to know how to evaluate scientific claims and apply them to fields beyond science. The fact that this controversy exists and is fought about in the way it is should be evidence enough that students are not being taught well enough how to apply science in the context of things like religion and politics. For instance, someone who understands the philosophy underlying science should understand exactly why people claim that Intelligent Design isn't science.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that a hot button topic like creationism needs to be foisted on students to teach the value and limits of the scientific method though, Tres.
I forget-- what does the Xap username signify?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Teaching the philosophy of science, including the value of the scientific method and its limits, should be a major aim of science classrooms, though. "
Yes. And a good way to do that in high school is to NOT bring in emotionally charged, politically controversial but not scientifically controversial, religious topics.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: How about in Social Studies, or Philosophy?
Sure, but even then, you're just stripping away all the superficially sciency stuff about ID, and talking about basic philosophy. There's nothing unique about ID except that it is a philosophical standpoint rewritten into a "scientific" theory, that is not scientific, and actually not really even a theory. So even a science classroom would have no use for "ID" because the ideas already exist in a more useful form in other philosophical texts and materials. It's not a materia-non-grata, it's just not science.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: She's a woman.
My love don't give me presents... Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:in this thread, are ID and creationism being conflated?
I am conflating the two. If you think that they shouldn't be (and I'm thinking of some good arguments as to why they shouldn't be), would you be willing to list your reasons?
I don't think that ID or creationism should be taught in science classes-- see Orincoro's excellently reasoned post.
The immediately relevant one is my comment about the age of the earth in an earlier post is not relevant for IDers.
I also agree with Orincoro.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Yes. But in Social Studies you could discuss the cases in court, and how they were resolved.
It is mythological cosmology, so I think that Comparative Religions, as Philosophy course, could be another appropriate venue.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: How about in Social Studies, or Philosophy?
Sure, but even then, you're just stripping away all the superficially sciency stuff about ID, and talking about basic philosophy. There's nothing unique about ID except that it is a philosophical standpoint rewritten into a "scientific" theory, that is not scientific, and actually not really even a theory. So even a science classroom would have no use for "ID" because the ideas already exist in a more useful form in other philosophical texts and materials. It's not a materia-non-grata, it's just not science.
I think some of the ID arguments are reasonably clever (e.g. the 'mouse trap' argument). I think the responses to them from the evolution side are even better. I would have no problem with this debate being taught in a philosophy course.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Btw - in this thread, are ID and creationism being conflated? "
I'm pretty certain that the people who came up with ID said that it was creationism with a new name and a new way of presenting itself.
The arguments and claims differ, although they share the same raison d'etre. I was curious because I was posting something that only applied to Biblical-literalist type creationists.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: The fact that this controversy exists and is fought about in the way it is should be evidence enough that students are not being taught well enough how to apply science in the context of things like religion and politics. For instance, someone who understands the philosophy underlying science should understand exactly why people claim that Intelligent Design isn't science.
I get it. You get it. I think part of the problem comes from schools not employing the right teachers, teaching the right way, having the resources needed to do it, etc. Another part is our culture, and the churches who support this controversy. The media "teaches the controversy" because it exists, and the churches try, for some strange reason, to get it into science classrooms where it plainly doesn't belong, instead of relying on their own members to support them. I think it comes down to entrepreneurial snake-oil sales in the religion business- that and all the failures of actual teaching that could obviate the whole debate.
I don't know for a fact that ID in the classroom activism is fueled by certain Churches' ultimate need to grow and gain revenue and membership, but it's an almost inevitable result of success... so when you put the two things together, you can see a possible mitigating motivation for pushing ID-as-science; especially when it is so roundly rejected by every reasonable voice on the topic, from the Catholic church (reasonable in this case) to virtually every science professor in the country (as far as I know, no prominent teachers have come out in support of it).
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I knew plenty of people who were simply not going to vote at all until Palin was picked.
This absolutely terrifies me.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Humean, do you think something can be sexist without the knowing the motivations of the person behind it? Or are you saying that motivations just serve as a secondary indicator of whether something is sexist or not, beyond the words themselves?
Statements themselves can be sexist but whether or not a person is sexist does not necessarily depend on what they say, it depends on why they said it. For instance, there is a debate in the African American community about the word n*****, and part of that debate is whether it is fine for an African American to use the word when a white American would be severely criticized. In some sense, it seems like a hypocritical position to take, for the statement to be racist when it comes from a white person but not when it comes from an African American, but the difference is in motivation. The thinking is that this position is not hypocritical because African Americans are not prejudice and do not maintain the underlying motivation that a white American would when employing the word (the problem is not in this part of the debate, it is that African Americans can be motivated by racism but that's for another time), but in that, we can see how motivation plays a key factor in racism or sexism.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: I think some of the ID arguments are reasonably clever (e.g. the 'mouse trap' argument). I think the responses to them from the evolution side are even better. I would have no problem with this debate being taught in a philosophy course.
Or a debate class. It might be more applicable in a philosophy course to throw it in with a discussion of Greek schools of dialectic and argument- sophistry in this particular case.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Hm... I don't think that you should necessarily be out of the running for jobs that don't have anything to do with education. I've never been convinced that believing in creationism necessarily deducts mental capacity in areas that have nothing to do with hard science (for example, managing people). "
Any place where decision making is going to come into play, it certainly should give massive negative points. And that includes managing people, since in order to manage people effectively, from time to time you must make decisions.
I disagree, even though I agree with you that it shouldn't be taught in science class. I know a lot of people who believe in it but who are very successful people in business, and two that were among the best bosses I ever had.
I am against anyone who wants to force me to learn about their religious beliefs in a science class, but that doesn't mean I think they are stupid....just unqualified to make decisions regarding other people's education.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Btw - in this thread, are ID and creationism being conflated?
ID is Creationism.
There's a reason, for instance, that you can't find three ID advocates willing to say publically that the world is millions of years old. Because they are Creationists, and they don't believe that the world is millions of years old.
When the founder of ID wanted to write an ID textbook, what did he do? He took a Creationist textbook, (one that couldn't be used in public schools due to SC rulings keeping Creationism out of schools) and did a global find and replace of "Creationism" with "Intellignet Design". The before and after texts show this quite plainly.
This is all in the public record, and has been since Dover, a few years ago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Also it could have nothing to do with their mental faculties, and could be a simple case of their ideology overriding all other concerns.
Now that's a separate issue entirely from whether or not someone is inherently incapable of making smart decisions or not, even though it influences what those decisions might be. But ideology that differs from yours doesn't make someone automatically unqualified to make decisions, unless one thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid regardless of the topic.
In this case, someone could be a perfectly smart individual who makes excellent decisions but has chosen to push a religious ideology on others by having creationism or ID taught in a science classroom. At that point, whether or not they thing it's science or not might be irrelevant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: I think some of the ID arguments are reasonably clever (e.g. the 'mouse trap' argument). I think the responses to them from the evolution side are even better. I would have no problem with this debate being taught in a philosophy course.
Or a debate class. It might be more applicable in a philosophy course to throw it in with a discussion of Greek schools of dialectic and argument- sophistry in this particular case.
Or an English, drama, or film class if you are studying "Inherit the Wind". Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"In this case, someone could be a perfectly smart individual who makes excellent decisions but has chosen to push a religious ideology on others by having creationism or ID taught in a science classroom."
Sure, but they're going to have to work to convince me they're evil, and not just an idiot. And then once I'm convinced they're actually smart, but evil, I wouldn't trust them with office above pooper scooper.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Neither of the Republicans matched my values, which is why I didn't like either of them as executive material. It's pretty easily understood.
My reason exactly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wanting to push an ideology doesn't make someone evil. It depends on what the ideology is. And for that matter, wanting to push Christian beliefs doesn't make one evil, it depends on how one does it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think the second part of the sentence ("on others by having --- taught in a science class") informs Paul's opinion on the matter. He didn't denounce all pushing of an ideology.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: She's a woman.
That's also the punchline to my joke about why Hellen Keller was a bad driver.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think the second part of the sentence ("on others by having --- taught in a science class") informs Paul's opinion on the matter. He didn't denounce all pushing of an ideology.
Fair enough, I'll be more specific, I don't think wanting creationism or ID taught in a science classroom even if the specific intent is to push an ideology is evil.
I think it's incredibly misguided and potentially harmful, but not evil.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Maybe you just have higher standards for true evilness? Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Alright then I'll be more specific, I don't think wanting creationism or ID taught in a science classroom even if the specific intent is to push an ideology is evil. "
And I do. *shrug* It involves forcing other people to learn as factual something that is anti-factual, is a religious belief system and not science, using the state as a beatstick. Doing so, as a side effect, teaches that science is subservient to religious belief.
I'm not sure how to turn that into something "not evil." From my moral perspective, its impossible.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Honestly, my experience of politics and politicians in Alaska doesn't necessarily suggest to me that I'd be entirely happy with any Alaskan politician, of any party, rising to a high level of national office.
Short version: Alaskan politics 'dun make 'em crazy.
Longer version: There's a sort of "frontier mentality" that seems to prevade a lot of things in Alaska, and this is very much true of what I've seen of Alaskan politics: "I've cut out a space for myself here, I'm going to do things my way, and you better get the hell out of my way if you have a problem with that." I'd like to see a clear indication that those tendencies were not present in a politician before I put them in an office that would require them to build concensus (or, having failed to do so, push both parties even deeper into knee-jerk obstructionism.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Genuine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: She's a woman.
That's also the punchline to my joke about why Hellen Keller was a bad driver.
It's also why you will die alone.
Seriously, be careful with that joke, it's extremely dangerous!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry to double post but I think one key non-sexist reason for not wanting Gov. Palin to be VP is that this forum can barely handle her limited candidacy run. Four dare I say eight years would blow up this place.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
BTW Nova is re-airing their show on the Dover trial tonight:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: She's a woman.
That's also the punchline to my joke about why Hellen Keller was a bad driver.
It's also why you will die alone.
Seriously, be careful with that joke, it's extremely dangerous!
I once made that joke to a female college math professor in the middle of class. She made me meet in her office to talk about it. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And that taught you nothing.
Why am I surprised?
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
I'm certainly more careful now.
(Although I did make a joke earlier today in mixed company about manscaping, at least that's more self-deprecating and less offensive.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I made a joke about Stevie Wonder being blind yesterday.
On-stage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How'd it go over?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Stevie didn't appreciate it, but the rest of the crowd was cool.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
What was the joke?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote: I think some of the ID arguments are reasonably clever (e.g. the 'mouse trap' argument). I think the responses to them from the evolution side are even better. I would have no problem with this debate being taught in a philosophy course.
That could be a solution - except that not many public school systems have a required philosophy course. If they added a year of philosophy, that might resolve the issue.
quote:Yes. And a good way to do that in high school is to NOT bring in emotionally charged, politically controversial but not scientifically controversial, religious topics.
Schools bring in highly controversial political topics in English classes (frequently, at least given the books they assigned at my high school.) Schools bring in highly controversial political topics in History classes too. That's because (1) students are often more interested in concepts they can apply to real life topics, and (2) we are doing a disservice to students if we leave them uninformed on controversial issues they will be facing in life.
Part of the problem is that the topic comes up in science classes whether creationism is mentioned or not. Technically, in the same way that creationism doesn't belong in the science classroom, it is unscientific to teach students that evolution, as a historical theory, is true. Technically what they should be teaching if they want to strictly obey the boundaries of science is that evolution is the model under which scientists operate and that it is consistent with all the available data, but that science lacks the ability to verify it. If they stuck to that line, it would leave the issue out entirely. But my impression is that most science teachers skip over this technicality, and instead leave the students with the impression that when they learn about evolution, what they are learning is a proven factual account of what happened millions of years ago. If that is the lesson being taught, then that by itself is bringing the highly controversial topic into science classrooms by teaching one of the two controversial sides.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Schools bring in highly controversial political topics in History classes too.
Do schools teach that the Holocaust might not have happened? I don't mean teaching that some people believe that it didn't happen, but should they teach that there is a serious historical controversy about it?
quote:That's because (1) students are often more interested in concepts they can apply to real life topics, and (2) we are doing a disservice to students if we leave them uninformed on controversial issues they will be facing in life.
There is no scientific controversy about the theory of evolution at the level of high school and middle school students.
quote:Technically what they should be teaching if they want to strictly obey the boundaries of science is that evolution is the model under which scientists operate and that it is consistent with all the available data, but that science lacks the ability to verify it.
Singling out evolution, and evolution alone for this caveat is only slightly less dishonest than full-blown Creationism.
quote:But my impression is that most science teachers skip over this technicality, and instead leave the students with the impression that when they learn about evolution, what they are learning is a proven factual account of what happened millions of years ago.
Obviously, if you want someone to tell you "what I say is infalible", go to the Pope, not a science class, or anything taught by mere mortals.
But evolution appropriate for high school and middle school students is more than adequately supported by the available facts.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would show the Kenneth Miller Lecture first day and say "This is why I am not teaching the Controversy about Intelligent Design, there is nothing to learn or to gain, arguing about".
Or, as I am explaining the Scientific method make side comments as to how certain failed theories like ID are not scientific because they do not follow the method.
Largely the largest reason would be that there are plenty of science teachers probably that would be given a penny and take a pound who do subscribe to ID BS and would use the greenlight of "teach the controversy" as a mandate to teach ID over Evolution. Simply banning ID is easier.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
ID should be taught in science class the same way Lamark is - a theory that seems good on the surface, but doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Science isn't against guesses which happen to be wrong. It is against sticking with them when they're shown not to work.
At the same time, I'm happy if the Christian creation myth is taught in English, as long as other creation myths are taught along side it. I'm partial to the Norse myth myself, but there are lots of great ones to cover.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Tres, high school science teachers don't "teach the controversy" about the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the theory of spontaneous generation of microbial life, or the geocentric universe either. They might briefly mention them as outmoded and disproved old ideas before going into our modern understanding of each field, but they don't pretend that these theories deserve equal time in the classroom.
An important side point: the reason that the discarded theories I mentioned above are ever mentioned by science teachers at all is that each of them, despite being demonstrably incorrect, is still more scientific than Intelligent Design. Each of the old theories at least made falsifiable predictions, thus fulfilling the most basic requirement for a truly scientific theory. In fact, their very falsifiability is why they were eventually falsified. Scientists like Galileo and Pasteur put in years of effort to test the predictions these old theories made, found that their data didn't line up with those predictions, and thus the old theories were overturned.
This is flatly impossible with Intelligent Design, because it makes no falsifiable predictions and therefore is not a scientific theory, by definition. Claiming that it should be taught in a science class is roughly akin to demanding that French classes teach trigonometry.
Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, makes all manner of testable predictions. What makes it such a darn good theory is that, despite 150 years of some of the smartest folks on the planet bashing their heads against it, not a single one of those predictions has been proven incorrect. In fact, a number of ideas Darwin proposed that were considered to be the height of implausibility in his day, such as the maintenance of characters over many generations without loss due to blending, were only shown to be possible long after Darwin's death. Far from falsifying evolution by natural selection, the modern fields of genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and genomics have served to cement its place as the fundamental principle unifying the biological sciences.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ID should be taught in science class the same way Lamark is - a theory that seems good on the surface, but doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Science isn't against guesses which happen to be wrong. It is against sticking with them when they're shown not to work.
I think there's a big difference between ID and Lamarckian evolution, and it's the one I mentioned above. Lamarck was wrong, but his theory was fundamentally scientific in that it made predictions that could be tested. That Lamarck's theory was falsified once those predictions were tested does not make it any less "scientific," only incorrect.
ID and creationism make no such testable predictions, and therefore cannot be considered scientific, unless we dilute the word of all useful meaning. And since it is not scientific, it should not be taught in a science class, even as an example of a failed theory - because it wasn't a theory to begin with.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm gonna teach alchemy in my chemistry class.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Genuine: What was the joke?
One of the other artists was philosophizing about Stevie and the Jonas Bros. on the Grammys, and about how sad it was.
I came in and said, totally deadpan, that it was really lucky Stevie didn't have to see that.
The room half laughed and half groaned all in unison, and the other artist looked at me with her mouth wide open.
That's how I roll. I love the laughs that you trick people into -- that they immediately feel bad about laughing at.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: but that science lacks the ability to verify it
Meh, that's philosophy. Evolution as a theory is as good as it gets in science. You have to teach the material- if students can't get over the fact that there is a level of "knowability" to all the information they are ever taught, and if that really needs to be pounded away at them in a science classroom, then someone, somewhere, is screwing up.
So you can grasp down to the last straw and say, "but, but, but, science doesn't really, really, know the answers," then the teacher spends her time getting into useless semantic vagaries about the topic. Honestly, it's not necessary. If you teach science properly, the definition of "scientific theory" will be understood enough that acknowledging the limitations of every theory (much less introducing competing non-theories), will be counter-productive.
I know this from English teaching. A student will ask you the word for something, and you need to give him or her an answer graded against what that person needs to hear. I could call a picture of a cow: "bovine specimen," or "cloven hoofed animal," or call it by the latin name, or say "grass eater," or "farm dweller," but that would be unproductive unless the student had reached the point of understanding all of those other terms- and if they've reached that point, telling them about the cow is also not necessary. I can't be raking my own brain for obstruse terms that *might* ust pop up, unless that is really what the student needs- say if the student was a cowologist or something.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tres, high school science teachers don't "teach the controversy" about the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the theory of spontaneous generation of microbial life, or the geocentric universe either. They might briefly mention them as outmoded and disproved old ideas before going into our modern understanding of each field, but they don't pretend that these theories deserve equal time in the classroom.
We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
quote:This is flatly impossible with Intelligent Design, because it makes no falsifiable predictions and therefore is not a scientific theory, by definition. Claiming that it should be taught in a science class is roughly akin to demanding that French classes teach trigonometry.
We had to do cooking in Spanish class. We studied the history of Isaac Newton in math class. We studied Buddhism in English class. We discussed countless current political issues in history class. We had Driver's Ed in P.E. In science classes we regularly studied the historical backgrounds of important scientific figures, we had entire units devoted to math, we lost points for grammar mistakes on essays, and we at times discussed politically charged hot topics like abortion, AIDS, nuclear power use, etc. Even in college, I was assigned a major project in a geology class that mostly involved discussing the history and political implications of a particular toxic waste spill.
So, at least in the schools I've been in, there's never been anything sacred about the boundaries of any given discipline. The boundaries of subject areas are crossed all the time, when pragmatic.
quote:So you can grasp down to the last straw and say, "but, but, but, science doesn't really, really, know the answers," then the teacher spends her time getting into useless semantic vagaries about the topic. Honestly, it's not necessary. If you teach science properly, the definition of "scientific theory" will be understood enough that acknowledging the limitations of every theory (much less introducing competing non-theories), will be counter-productive.
Yes, you are correct - on balance, it is very impractical to get into that technicality. But the side effect to leaving it out is that in a few rare cases, where another sort of evidence conflicts with science and where a large percentage of parents intend to teach their children something different from what science appears to be saying, it leads to a conflict.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"We had to do cooking in Spanish class. We studied the history of Isaac Newton in math class. We studied Buddhism in English class. We discussed countless current political issues in history class. We had Driver's Ed in P.E. In science classes we regularly studied the historical backgrounds of important scientific figures, we had entire units devoted to math, we lost points for grammar mistakes on essays, and we at times discussed politically charged hot topics like abortion, AIDS, nuclear power use, etc"
All of which are part and parcel of the subject being taught. In language classes, you typically learn about the culture that produced the language. Food is part of that. In science, you learn about the ethical uses of scientific technology, how to use math, and how to write scientifically. In history, you learn about contemporary events that are shaping modern history. Etc.
But the thing is, creationism only ties into biology from the creationism end... not the biology end.
If a student asks about creationism, the question should be answered. But putting creationism into the curriculum is putting something not related to science in any way (except how its NOT related to science) into the science curriculum.
There are better ways to make the point about science being a field that requires falsifiability then through certain people's religious view points. like, for example, how lamarck was falsified, and how falsifiability is an important part of the process.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: But the side effect to leaving it out is that in a few rare cases, where another sort of evidence conflicts with science and where a large percentage of parents intend to teach their children something different from what science appears to be saying, it leads to a conflict.
This is not a side-effect of leaving it out. It is an effect of religious extremism. Again, teaching science correctly makes the issue clear to any reasonable person involved. I find people who promote ID as scientific to be unreasonable- they don't know, or don't care about actual science.
And it's evident in your post as well: "when another sort of evidence conflicts with science." The beauty of science not being monolithic (and I really don't care to hear your limp theories on it being monolithic) is that no sort of evidence really conflicts with science. Evidence is important in science, and when new evidence is discovered, you get to do new science. It's fun!
What you're talking about is people calling something "evidence" when it is not. That is stupid, and it is really not the responsibility of a science teacher dealing with 8th graders to be responsible for religious nut parents- a teacher who teaches the subject properly is doing all she can to cure people of such foolishness. Being extra sensitive to ignorant notions because "there is a conflict," is not a productive use of time or energy. Again, everything you are concerned about is covered by a well-taught science curriculum. Everything.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
I can see how this could be effectively used as a means to show how the scientific method works. You present the geocentric model of the universe as an old theory of how things work and them show how that model was rejected because it was not consistent with careful quantitative observations.
But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model. Its non-controversial. Even the Catholic church has now recanted their condemnation of Copernicus and Galileo. There simply are not millions of Biblical literalist out there arguing that the earth literally has four corners.
The only acceptable way to teach Creationism in a science class would be to present the theory and then explain why that theory is incompatible with the overwhelming majority of scientific observations. And while that might be a valid way to teach how the scientific method works, its not going to be an effective way to teach science in the current climate. The topic is simply too controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
In fact this is exactly the opposite of what Creationists want when they talk about teaching "Creation Science" in a science class. What they want is for teachers to teach that there is well accept scientific evidence which supports the creationist view over the evolutionary view. That simply isn't true.
[ February 11, 2009, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:And it's evident in your post as well: "when another sort of evidence conflicts with science." The beauty of science not being monolithic (and I really don't care to hear your limp theories on it being monolithic) is that no sort of evidence really conflicts with science. Evidence is important in science, and when new evidence is discovered, you get to do new science.
This is definitely not accurate. Evidence must be objective, repeatable, etc. in order to count for science. The Bible, for instance, is a sort of evidence that scientists are not supposed to consider.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Tres-
Yes.
Lots of people are idiots. Again, you won't find me on record as saying anything other then that.
People are allowed to be stupid. Its part of our charm. But I try to avoid voting for stupid people to have power over the lives of others.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Tres, high school science teachers don't "teach the controversy" about the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the theory of spontaneous generation of microbial life, or the geocentric universe either. They might briefly mention them as outmoded and disproved old ideas before going into our modern understanding of each field, but they don't pretend that these theories deserve equal time in the classroom.
We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
Were you expected to believe it was true? Or even led to believe that it was remotely possible? I didn't think so.
quote:
quote:This is flatly impossible with Intelligent Design, because it makes no falsifiable predictions and therefore is not a scientific theory, by definition. Claiming that it should be taught in a science class is roughly akin to demanding that French classes teach trigonometry.
We had to do cooking in Spanish class. We studied the history of Isaac Newton in math class. We studied Buddhism in English class. We discussed countless current political issues in history class. We had Driver's Ed in P.E. In science classes we regularly studied the historical backgrounds of important scientific figures, we had entire units devoted to math, we lost points for grammar mistakes on essays, and we at times discussed politically charged hot topics like abortion, AIDS, nuclear power use, etc. Even in college, I was assigned a major project in a geology class that mostly involved discussing the history and political implications of a particular toxic waste spill.
So, at least in the schools I've been in, there's never been anything sacred about the boundaries of any given discipline. The boundaries of subject areas are crossed all the time, when pragmatic.
As usual, you're either missing the point or deliberately misunderstanding it. Were you taught that cooking was a viable alternative to knowing Spanish when trying to converse with a Spanish-speaker? Were you taught that the existence or life history of Isaac Newton disproves Newtonian physics? Or that getting your grammar exactly right on an exam would compensate for factual errors? Or that the toxic waste spill disproves the volcanic origin of igneous rock?
The examples you gave are cases where bringing in an outside topic complemented the material being taught in some useful way. Cooking food using a Spanish recipe is a good way to practice the language. The life history of Newton or any other prominent scientist is important for understanding the process through which he derived his famous theory - indeed, it's an excellent way to illustrate the scientific method. Making sure that science students know their math and grammar is obviously relevant - most scientific disciplines, particularly physics and chemistry, require a solid foundation in math, and being a professional scientist requires a great deal of writing.
Unlike your examples, Creationism/ ID is not complementary to evolutionary theory (nor, for that matter, to science itself). You don't need to know the slightest bit about creationist ideology to understand evolution. So what purpose would teaching it serve, besides muddying the definition of "science" in the students' minds? And even if we do, which version should we teach? ID is no more scientific than Genesis, or the Norse mythology, or traditional Chinese creation myths. Should we teach all of those in science classes? If not, why not?
quote:Yes, you are correct - on balance, it is very impractical to get into that technicality. But the side effect to leaving it out is that in a few rare cases, where another sort of evidence conflicts with science and where a large percentage of parents intend to teach their children something different from what science appears to be saying, it leads to a conflict. [/QB]
There are a large number of parents who believe that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism, based on the reports published by a single researcher who was recently shown to be faking his data. Should we give equal time to that "theory" as well?
And you're probably hoping nobody noticed your attempt to claim faith as being valid scientific evidence without actually saying it ("another sort of evidence"), but it's not fooling anybody. For the last time: if you stretch the definition of science to include faith-based evidence, then science has lost all meaning. Data that cannot be independently verified or falsified is not scientific, and should be left to the realms of religion and philosophy where it belongs.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Umm... the bible is the sort of thing that is not useful as evidence of anything scientific. And even so, the Bible IS solid evidence of some pretty important things. Just not the existance of God, or a particularly convincing piece of evidence that there was ever a Jesus. Terrible analogy. You have graduated to terrible analogies.
And even then, scientists CAN and DO use the Bible as evidence of certain things, like, you know, the state of human civilization 2,000 years ago. I feel like you get less clued in the more we discuss these topics. It doesn't *feel* deliberate... but it is really odd.
Honestly, the direction of your argument is fairly good evidence of how consideration of the ID argument, in any great depth, in science classrooms is an awful idea. You're just floundering around trying to find an intellectually acceptable excuse for teaching the controversy, so that ID can "get in" on a technicality. There is real stuff to teach.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The Bible, for instance, is a sort of evidence that scientists are not supposed to consider. "
Written documents count as evidence. But they count as evidence as written documents, not as something other then written documents. The illiad is also evidence. So is the Aeneid. And the meditations. And Hamlet. And Moby Dick.
They key is in figuring out what the evidence supports.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tres-
Yes.
Would you object if the majority of Americans felt that believing in atheism is ignorant, and that therefore nobody who is an atheist is qualified for any office other than "poop scooper"? How do you think you would react to someone making such a claim?
quote:The examples you gave are cases where bringing in an outside topic complemented the material being taught in some useful way.
Which is exactly why I was arguing a discussion of creationism belongs in science classes - because it is useful for students in their lives and helps them think about and understand the boundaries of science.
quote:There are a large number of parents who believe that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism, based on the reports published by a single researcher who was recently shown to be faking his data. Should we give equal time to that "theory" as well?
In a class that discussed MMR vaccines extensively, yes, it would be a good idea to discuss that issue. I never said anything about equal time though.
quote:And you're probably hoping nobody noticed your attempt to claim faith as being valid scientific evidence without actually saying it ("another sort of evidence"), but it's not fooling anybody.
Actually, I said things like the Bible are definitely NOT valid scientific evidence. I agree with you 100% that "Data that cannot be independently verified or falsified is not scientific, and should be left to the realms of religion and philosophy where it belongs."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You're just floundering around trying to find an intellectually acceptable excuse for teaching the controversy, so that ID can "get in" on a technicality.
Why would I be motivated to get ID in on a technicality? I believe in evolution. I think the world is billions of years old. And I think ID is not supported by any science, and doesn't even fit the criteria for a scientific theory.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Would you object if the majority of Americans felt that believing in atheism is ignorant, and that therefore nobody who is an atheist is qualified for any office other than "poop scooper"?"
They do. So this isn't really a hypothetical Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But how do you respond to that? Do you think it is okay for the majority to feel that way?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:You're just floundering around trying to find an intellectually acceptable excuse for teaching the controversy, so that ID can "get in" on a technicality.
Why would I be motivated to get ID in on a technicality? I believe in evolution. I think the world is billions of years old. And I think ID is not supported by any science, and doesn't even fit the criteria for a scientific theory.
Then why teach it? And your answer must also explain why ID is worth teaching in a science class, but Roman mythology, Noah's ark, the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation, the Aztec Earth Mother, and the the Norse pantheon are not.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
What do you mean by "ok?"
They believe it. They act on it, and they vote on it.
But atheism isn't a policy position. I don't really care what people believe, as long as what they believe doesn't negatively impact their ability to make sound decisions. Thinking that creationism should be taught in science classrooms as a part of curriculum demonstrates a huge negative impact of beliefs on sound decision making.
If I were interviewing for a job, and was asked what my religion was, I'd sue. You can't ask that question. If I were asked whether I would teach that my religion is correct in a classroom, I wouldn't. Its an important policy question.
I look at creationism in classroom in the same way.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Then why teach it? And your answer must also explain why ID is worth teaching in a science class, but Roman mythology, Noah's ark, the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation, the Aztec Earth Mother, and the the Norse pantheon are not.
Because I think it is a controversy students will face and need to understand in the real world (such as when they need to vote.) Because I think it casts light on important issues in the philosophy of science. Because I think they'd find it interesting.
Generally speaking, I think the best way to encourage students to deal with issues rationally is through discussion and thinking about them, rather than not discussing and not encouraging thought about them.
I'm okay with Roman mythology, the Aztec Earth Mother, etc. being discussed too, but I'm not sure if those would be as useful in life or as interesting to students, since they don't live in an ancient Aztec or Roman culture.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Because I think it is a controversy students will face and need to understand in the real world (such as when they need to vote.) Because I think it casts light on important issues in the philosophy of science. Because I think they'd find it interesting.
Fine. What important issues in the philosophy of science are you talking about? Be specific for once.
quote:Generally speaking, I think the best way to encourage students to deal with issues rationally is through discussion and thinking about them, rather than not discussing and not encouraging thought about them.
Nobody is discouraging thought. We are simply saying that those topics should be taught elsewhere, as they are outside the purview of the class.
quote:I'm okay with Roman mythology, the Aztec Earth Mother, etc. being discussed too, but I'm not sure if those would be as useful in life or as interesting to students, since they don't live in an ancient Aztec or Roman culture.
So an individual's culture is relevant to science now? Should American students be taught one version of science, while Japanese students are taught another? Again, once you start doing this, what exactly constitutes science at all? The intrinsic strength of science as originally defined is that it maximizes objectivity, and thus should be equally relevant regardless of culture.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If I were interviewing for a job, and was asked what my religion was, I'd sue. You can't ask that question. If I were asked whether I would teach that my religion is correct in a classroom, I wouldn't. Its an important policy question.
I look at creationism in classroom in the same way.
But you didn't restrict the conclusions you are drawing to just jobs where creationism policy is relevant. You asserted that people who think creationism belong in a classroom can be assumed to be generally less intelligent (by "500 IQ points") than others. I'm just wondering if you have any problems when people assume you are stupid based on one particular issue that they disagree with you on - because I'd consider that an unfair conclusion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Go back and read all my posts in this thread, please.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Fine. What important issues in the philosophy of science are you talking about? Be specific for once.
I think it serves as a fine example of why a theory needs to be testable in order to be scientific.
quote:So an individual's culture is relevant to science now? Should American students be taught one version of science, while Japanese students are taught another? Again, once you start doing this, what exactly constitutes science at all? The intrinsic strength of science as originally defined is that it maximizes objectivity, and thus should be equally relevant regardless of culture.
An individual's culture is relevant to their education. Someone in one culture is going to be interested in learning and may need to learn different things than someone in another culture. If you live in a hunter/gatherer culture you probably need to learn to hunt and gather, and might not need to learn computer science quite as much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Then why teach it? And your answer must also explain why ID is worth teaching in a science class, but Roman mythology, Noah's ark, the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation, the Aztec Earth Mother, and the the Norse pantheon are not.
Because I think it is a controversy students will face and need to understand in the real world (such as when they need to vote.) Because I think it casts light on important issues in the philosophy of science. Because I think they'd find it interesting.
:facepalm:
Dude, this is exactly what ID supporters want you to be saying. It's called "foot in the door." How do you think Paris Hilton makes money?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Who knows. Maybe a hunter/gatherer might come up with a solution to the fractional knapsack problem.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Dude, this is exactly what ID supporters want you to be saying. It's called "foot in the door." How do you think Paris Hilton makes money?
I'm not worried about creationism having a "foot in the door" in science classrooms. In a science classroom, the view that is backed by the evidence is going to win.
What I'm worried about is this: Average Joe wasn't taught the facts of the issue. Instead, he turns on Fox News and sees two "scientists" with PhD. next to their names - one is claiming evolution is fact, the other is claiming intelligent design is fact. Fox News, being Fox News, presents both sides equally and leaves it to the viewer to choose who to agree with, as if truth were a matter of choice. Joe, not knowing much about science, doesn't know how to evaluate the evidence either side is giving. He's got no teacher to help him; instead the moderator is someone like Sean Hannity. Because he's Christian, intelligent design sounds like the true theory and so he concludes the scientific establishment must be anti-religion since it keeps pushing evolution. And after hearing about the same issue over and over, he becomes angry that science keeps pushing evolution over creationism, and begins to distrust science in general.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That's silly. If he's got a decent education, he's going to have the minimal mental toolset necessary to look into the issue and make an informed judgment.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'm not worried about creationism having a "foot in the door" in science classrooms. In a science classroom, the view that is backed by the evidence is going to win."
In science, yes. In a high school science classroom? Iffy at best.
You don't need to teach ID to defend against ID claims. You need to teach a method for dealing with claims, becuase there will always be NEW spurious claims.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Xap, You've completely ignored my post. Based on this comment
quote:I'm not worried about creationism having a "foot in the door" in science classrooms. In a science classroom, the view that is backed by the evidence is going to win.
I presume that what you are suggesting is the Creationism be taught in the science classroom as a outdated theory (like the geocentric model of the universe) that has been rejected because it is inconsistent with scientific observations. Is this what you are actually suggesting?
If it is, then I can see that this would be appropriate and rational within a science curriculum.
It would also be so controversial that it would be completely ineffective and actually interfere with the teaching of science. Conservative religious people would see this as the school teaching that science has disproved their religious beliefs and would be outraged. (As a side note, concluding that science has disproven religion is do not possible since most religious beliefs can not generate an hypothesis that can be falsified by the scientific method. Most people do not have a sufficient understand of science or logic to appreciate that distinction).
Rather than giving students the tools to rationally judge the debate, it would actually add fuel to the fire. It would actually encourage the kind of Fox News pseudo debate you are talking about.
Its far better to avoid the controversy all together and simply teach science.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I agree. Science class should just stick to what is actually science. ID and Creationism are not science.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I didn't ignore your post. I'm not suggesting creationism be taught in the way creationists usually want. I also don't think creationism should be taught as an outdated theory.
I think a discussion of creationism in science class should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it is true or false, and then explain why this makes it inappropriate as a scientific model. Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to go forward operating on the evolution model, leaving the creationist question to religion. Understanding that would require students to stretch their minds to improve their understanding what science means.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Xap, so you are basically advocating a couple of sentences explaining that ID isn't science and why.
I would agree with that. I think that many of the proponents of ID talk about teaching ID "alongside" evolution as an alternative theory.
[ February 11, 2009, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
It could be useful in a discussion about what is and what is not science, I defer.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
I can see how this could be effectively used as a means to show how the scientific method works. You present the geocentric model of the universe as an old theory of how things work and them show how that model was rejected because it was not consistent with careful quantitative observations.
But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model. Its non-controversial. Even the Catholic church has now recanted their condemnation of Copernicus and Galileo. There simply are not millions of Biblical literalist out there arguing that the earth literally has four corners.
The only acceptable way to teach Creationism in a science class would be to present the theory and then explain why that theory is incompatible with the overwhelming majority of scientific observations. And while that might be a valid way to teach how the scientific method works, its not going to be an effective way to teach science in the current climate. The topic is simply too controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
In fact this is exactly the opposite of what Creationists want when they talk about teaching "Creation Science" in a science class. What they want is for teachers to teach that there is well accept scientific evidence which supports the creationist view over the evolutionary view. That simply isn't true.
*snickers*
I actually know someone who believes the Earth is flat, I Am Not Making This Up.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There are enough students with religious parents that many will try to make a fuss about ID/Creationism on their own as it is, why make it worse?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *snickers*
I actually know someone who believes the Earth is flat, I Am Not Making This Up.
I made this point earlier in the thread: I don't think that this displays significantly more ignorance than believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, yet there are large groups who unashamedly hold the latter view.
[ February 11, 2009, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: natural_mystic ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I didn't ignore your post. I'm not suggesting creationism be taught in the way creationists usually want. I also don't think creationism should be taught as an outdated theory.
I think a discussion of creationism in science class should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it is true or false, and then explain why this makes it inappropriate as a scientific model. Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to go forward operating on the evolution model, leaving the creationist question to religion. Understanding that would require students to stretch their minds to improve their understanding what science means.
In that case I don't have any particularly strong objections. I think a good science teacher could make that into a meaningful science lesson. I do however wonder whether the average high school teacher could teach that to the average high school student without it either coming across as attack on religion or an attack on the scientific method. It would be better to not teach this at all than to teach it poorly.
All in all, I have serious doubts that the average 15-16 year old biology student has sufficiently developed critical thinking ability to grasp the concept. I think it would be totally appropriate in a college level class but continue to have doubts that it would be effective at the high school level.
I think that such a lesson is likely to be more effective, under any circumstances, if it were combined with a good unit on how the theory of evolution has been and continues to be useful in science. One of the key features of a good scientific theory is that it is useful for helping to advance our understanding of the way things works. A good scientific theory spawns all kinds of questions that lead to new discoveries and on that basis alone evolution has been a fantastic scientific theory.
From a scientific perspective, it is often more important that a theory be useful than that it be 100% true. For example, we know that Newtons laws of motion aren't absolutely correct, but they are none the less still extremely useful as an approximation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to go forward operating on the evolution model, leaving the creationist question to religion.
Negative teaching is not the answer. Seriously. Listen- you teach students the scientific method, and if you are good at your job, and teach about *actual* theories that have been disproved, and why they were disproved, you will generate students with the intellectual understanding of science necessary to dismiss ID without first being familiar with it.
You seem intent on asserting that ID is somehow unique, or worthy of note as a teaching case. You are suggesting that ID could be used as an idea of a bad, or non-theory. What people are telling you is that ID is not useful as a topic of discussion *because* it has current political implications. Aside from it being SO FAR from related to science as to be only related within the fields of politics and popular punditry and folk-belief, the two being commingled by non-scientists and ideologues who want to corrupt the teaching process, ID would be far too loaded a topic to use as an effective example of anything within the context of a science class.
Simply put: this is NOT NEEDED. Many here have pointed out that it is a subject best approached by a philosophy or history class. It is NOT USEFUL in teaching science, because science classes should ALREADY be providing students with the tools to understand science and reject ID as science on their own.
Now I know you want to believe that it is important in a science classroom because it has to do with science. So what? Do you not accept the assertion that a properly trained scientific thinker could not cope with a world in which some people have, for whatever reason, started trying to put ID in the classroom, and call it science? How did I become capable of understanding the fallacy of ID? It wasn't an issue (in that name) when I was in school, and it was frankly not discussed until I was well into secondary education, and then it was a religious school that taught me the scientific method- and I STILL got it. Science is robust.
And in the end, this is all what the ID people want. They want you to recognize some traction in their profoundly misguided attempts at religious propaganda and the violation of the first amendment, and start making ID an issue in which school children are conversant. Why? So we can have another generation of people who have to endure the same controversy because some people will *always* have stupid ideas, but now the schools are willing to play ball? Do you have any evidence that direct confrontation of the fallacy of "ID as science" would not exacerbate the conflict, rather than firmly resolve it? This is the angle ID is taking. This what they want from you now. But if schools keep teaching solid science, and students keep learning it, then we're fine. We're fine forever if that keeps happening, and slowly, science always gains ground, and folk-myth always slips and slides and grapples and uses politics and propaganda, and falsehood, and fear. Science has been winning for five centuries now. It will be fine.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I just want to toss in a personal anecdote.
At no time in my HS or College science curriculum did we ever study ID. I'm pretty sure it wasn't an issue until after I'd graduated. If it was, my professors were wise enough not to teach the "controversy."
And yet, because I simply received an adequate understanding of the fundamentals of scientific theory, I have been able to work out for myself, time and again, that every argument for creationism brought up by ID is garbage.
I didn't need to learn about ID in school to be able to later realize that ID is not good science. I don't see any reason why other students will need to be taught it, as long as they get a good scientific education.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
That is what I have against ID. Its not that it teaches Creationism and Religion. Its that it tries to teach that the scientific method, logic, and all that you learned before ID was such a controversy.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I wonder what it means to have no opinion on the question of evolution versus creation. I wonder if people realize that the question could be much more complicated, if they just don't care, or if it's something else. That is weird to me...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a point of comparison:
quote: Many adults in Canada believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 59 per cent of respondents think human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.
Conversely, 22 per cent of respondents believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while 19 per cent are not sure.
Edit to add: That dinosaur poll is amusing though
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My beliefs on how the earth was created are more complicated then a yes/no answer. I believe God did it. I also believe that the mechanism by which he did it is evolution- or he created everything to look exactly like it all came about through evolution- which in practical terms amounts to the same thing. But I also think it is entirely possible that an all powerful being could have created us all 5 minutes ago, but in such a way that none of us know that we are a mere 5 minutes old. But while being created 5 minutes ago is a great theory, for all practical and useful purposes, I am going to have to bet on evolution and what it predicts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. I don't understand why people think that one precludes the other.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My beliefs on how the earth was created are more complicated then a yes/no answer. I believe God did it. I also believe that the mechanism by which he did it is evolution- or he created everything to look exactly like it all came about through evolution- which in practical terms amounts to the same thing. But I also think it is entirely possible that an all powerful being could have created us all 5 minutes ago, but in such a way that none of us know that we are a mere 5 minutes old. But while being created 5 minutes ago is a great theory, for all practical and useful purposes, I am going to have to bet on evolution and what it predicts.
So your answer is: yes I believe the theory of evolution is correct. Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Naturalism precludes supernatural explanations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why? And define "supernatural". And why God is supposed to be supernatural.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Naturalism precludes supernatural explanations.
It doesn't try and answer 'why' questions (I don't think such questions even make sense in this framework). So a theist can say that god chose the mass of an electron, gravitational constant etc etc to have values that allow life to develop etc in accordance with his plan.
But I agree naturalism is not compatible with a god who intervenes on a daily basis.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Define "intervenes". Do you mean necessarily in ways that we would recognize as other than "natural"? Why?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I would regard a phenomena as supernatural if it is not in accordance with natural laws.
By intervention I mean that X would have happened if God did nothing, instead Y happens.
What sort of actions do you think god does on a daily basis?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Define "intervenes". Do you mean necessarily in ways that we would recognize as other than "natural"? Why?
Well, the significance of that intervention would be pretty much nil otherwise, wouldn't it?
I know this kind of question has been posited before here, but I don't recall seeing anyone directly answer it:
If God and all he does falls neatly within the realm of the natural world, what is the significance of his existence or actions? What exactly is the difference between existence and nonexistence of such a god?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I think if you allow supernatural explanations then the natural explanations become somewhat meaningless. A+B=C except when it doesn't. How do you decide when to apply the supernatural explanation? Who decides?
Supernatural is, I think, that which cannot be explained by natural process.
Define "God".
God, as normally defined, is supernatural because He had to be somewhere when He created spacetime which in naturalism is, by definition, all that there is.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What if God were God partly because He understood and functioned within natural laws much better than we did?
I think "supernatural" is like a big box marked "miscellaneous." We throw stuff in there when it doesn't fit in with what we have at the moment. We don't understand all the natural laws by any means; how can we say anything is outside them?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Perhaps a particular definition of God. God the creator has to 'be' before he creates being.
There is no question that naturalism is axiomatic. The saving grace (ha ha) is that it has been so phenomenally successful. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is all any of us really have.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
I think "supernatural" is like a big box marked "miscellaneous." We throw stuff in there when it doesn't fit in with what we have at the moment. We don't understand all the natural laws by any means; how can we say anything is outside them?
But is there anything in this box?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What if a part of the definition of God is "natural laws"?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
God can certainly be defined in such a way as to not fall afoul of naturalists. However, the cost of this is (typically) a divergence from what most people mean by 'god'.
What is your complete definition, and what role do you think god plays in our daily lives?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Then, by definition, part of God is not natural so naturalism is based on an untrue axiom and therefore wrong.
God help us.
(I am not trying to be flippant, just light-hearted.) Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I think a discussion of creationism in science class should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it is true or false,
I'm afraid that this too easily would in practice become "Science is not really sure about creationism one way or another" instead of the closer-to-reality "creationism is such utter trash that it doesn't even merit (or allow) refutation by science"
For the point to be clearer made, it should be the Invisible Pink Unicorn that should be discussed in science class. A discussion should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it's true or false, and then explain why this makes it inappropriate as a scientific model.
Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate regarding the Invisible Pink Unicorn is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to leave the IPU question to religion. Understanding that would require students to stretch their minds to improve their understanding of what science means.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Aris- Flying Spaghetti Monster, not invisible pink unicorn!
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Yeah, how could it be invisible and pink?
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
Nothing. God watches.
Creationism and ID shouldn't be taught in science classes. Straight up no. Follow the scientific method.
Question: Where do we come from? Hypothesis: God made us Test 1: build a giant God-o-phone and call him.
It doesn't work. Sorry. Compare it to any other Theory/Law we have. They were built on repeatable tests, or a consistant set of data that could hold up to scrutiny. Is Evolutionary Theory correct? maybe, maybe not. Bodies don't really hold up so well after death, and so we have no perfect fossil record to track changes. But what we do have shows us a pattern that reinforces our theory.
I don't think any less of creationists or IDers, but they need to understand that, scientifically, their hypothesis can't be tested. It belongs up in the field of scientific philosophy, along with about half of theoretical physics.
I will think less of you if you are a young or flat earther though.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
"Test 1: build a giant God-o-phone and call him.
It doesn't work. Sorry."
See, there's your problem. They think praying is a God-o-phone, and they think it works. It's as good as proven to them.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, if I believe we were created five minutes ago, does that make me a young earther? or maybe a very young earther?
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
Elmer's
Ok, but why doesn't God tell me when I ask? Am I praying wrong? There are over six billion people on earth; how big is their sample size in comparison? How many accurate repititions can we get? Does God give exact information? Or does he speak in vagueries? Or does he speak in symbols? Then, does he give everyone the same symbols? And if God isn't talking to me, then who else is he not talking to? Who in that group is lying? How do we account for them?
Prayer, unfortunately, is not scientifically robust
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Hey, you've gotta ask them. My point is that that isn't a good argument for why ID and creationism shouldn't be taught.
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
I am missing your point then...
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Kate - you got me thinking and I googled the term 'emergent god'. Most of the results were pretty wacky but I thought you might find this interesting:
quote:In that case I don't have any particularly strong objections. I think a good science teacher could make that into a meaningful science lesson. I do however wonder whether the average high school teacher could teach that to the average high school student without it either coming across as attack on religion or an attack on the scientific method. It would be better to not teach this at all than to teach it poorly.
I agree with you on that. But high school teachers are asked to teacher other tricky and highly controversial topics - sex ed comes to mind.
Bad teachers are a problem that's hard to get around, but I'd think a good science instructor could find ways to present it in a way that is fairly straightforward and understandable for high school students. Textbooks should also be able to find a way to explain it that emphasizes both that creationism is a valid debate for religion and also why scientists can't use it as a framework for their models.
quote:It is NOT USEFUL in teaching science, because science classes should ALREADY be providing students with the tools to understand science and reject ID as science on their own.
As has been mentioned earlier, only 40% of Americans report that they believe in evolution. I'd think this indicates that Americans are not being provided the tools to understand the science of evolution properly.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: As has been mentioned earlier, only 40% of Americans report that they believe in evolution. I'd think this indicates that Americans are not being provided the tools to understand the science of evolution properly.
I agree with this statement. However, it does not logically follow that the best way to correct this is to teach intelligent design. The more obvious solution would be to improve the teaching of evolutionary theory itself.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
I think "supernatural" is like a big box marked "miscellaneous." We throw stuff in there when it doesn't fit in with what we have at the moment. We don't understand all the natural laws by any means; how can we say anything is outside them?
But is there anything in this box?
Well, yes, everything we define as supernatural and therefore don't want to deal with.
We're certainly farther along in understanding how our universe ticks than we were 150 years ago, but when we claim something doesn't fit inside the natural laws we are claiming that we know of and understand all the natural laws, which is not true.
God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion.
That god does fit in quite well with naturalism, whatever its definition, and science as well. I am a strong believer in science and the good it continues to do, and am often mystified at how God is so frequently taken out of the equation.
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
<i>That god does fit in quite well with naturalism, whatever its definition, and science as well. I am a strong believer in science and the good it continues to do, and am often mystified at how God is so frequently taken out of the equation. </i>
God is self removing from science.
The answer to almost any question can be "God did it"
What the scientist wants to know is how. God does the magic tricks, Scientists see them and try to figure out how they were done.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My beliefs on how the earth was created are more complicated then a yes/no answer. I believe God did it. I also believe that the mechanism by which he did it is evolution- or he created everything to look exactly like it all came about through evolution- which in practical terms amounts to the same thing. But I also think it is entirely possible that an all powerful being could have created us all 5 minutes ago, but in such a way that none of us know that we are a mere 5 minutes old. But while being created 5 minutes ago is a great theory, for all practical and useful purposes, I am going to have to bet on evolution and what it predicts.
SHVESTER!
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: They think praying is a God-o-phone
BZZZZ! Sorry, that's incorrect. Thanks for playing!
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure what to make of a God who only works within the bounds of nature. When you say that God is organizing and directing people to be patterned after him as a child is patterned after his parents, do you mean that God is literally telling the DNA "and now make protein to form muscles?"
I guess I'm not sure where the extra step of adding God into the picture is necessary or functional. If nature just does nature's thing, it's difficult for me to understand how God is actually doing anything.
Can we say that photosynthesis or digestion or meiosis is wise and compassionate? If not, then how can we say that God is wise and compassionate by simply acting as the motive force for those things?
I guess what is tripping me up most is where God fits in to the natural process? Is God energy or gravity or chemical reactions or molecular bonds? If everything in nature is ultimately run on "God Power", I guess that's fine, but I don't see where it leaves room for wisdom or love or compassion.
Chemical reactions ALWAYS work the same way - there's no choice involved, and if there's no choice, I don't see how there can be said to be a wise or loving or compassionate acid-base reaction.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:quote: Originally posted by The Rabbit: But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model. Um . . . actually, false.
You missed the key word "effectively" as in "the numbers are so small that they have no appreciable effect on society and public policy". While I am aware that there are still a few nut cases out there arguing that the earth literal has four corners, their numbers are so small that the chance of having more than one of them in a school district, or on a school board or in an elected office are small enough to ignore with out consequence. Those who still hold to the geocentric model of the universe are so small in number and so marginalized in society that pretty much everybody else thinks of them as nut cases hence they have no effective impact in a science classroom. The same is more certainly not true for creationists and IDers.
Are you disputing this or did you have some other point?
[ February 12, 2009, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I agree with this statement. However, it does not logically follow that the best way to correct this is to teach intelligent design. The more obvious solution would be to improve the teaching of evolutionary theory itself.
I suppose I'm proposing a less obvious solution, then. I'd say that the effect of teaching a controversy in schools is generally that students will later on be better able to judge which side of the controversy is correct.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbit, I used to work in a school where the vast majority believed in the geocentric model. So yes, I am disputing your point -- at least in certain specific locales.
Nutty ideas tend not to be evenly dispersed throughout the population. They agglutinate. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rabbit, I used to work in a school where the vast majority believed in the geocentric model.
Really? How is that possible?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure what to make of a God who only works within the bounds of nature. When you say that God is organizing and directing people to be patterned after him as a child is patterned after his parents, do you mean that God is literally telling the DNA "and now make protein to form muscles?"
I guess I'm not sure where the extra step of adding God into the picture is necessary or functional. If nature just does nature's thing, it's difficult for me to understand how God is actually doing anything.
Can we say that photosynthesis or digestion or meiosis is wise and compassionate? If not, then how can we say that God is wise and compassionate by simply acting as the motive force for those things?
I guess what is tripping me up most is where God fits in to the natural process? Is God energy or gravity or chemical reactions or molecular bonds? If everything in nature is ultimately run on "God Power", I guess that's fine, but I don't see where it leaves room for wisdom or love or compassion.
Chemical reactions ALWAYS work the same way - there's no choice involved, and if there's no choice, I don't see how there can be said to be a wise or loving or compassionate acid-base reaction.
It's called the Watchmaker God theory, and it posits that god made the world this way, and lets his creation run as he wants it to.....as he designed it to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Rabbit, I used to work in a school where the vast majority believed in the geocentric model.
Really? How is that possible?
*sigh* Read the wikipage I linked above.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I suppose I'm proposing a less obvious solution, then. I'd say that the effect of teaching a controversy in schools is generally that students will later on be better able to judge which side of the controversy is correct.
But I don't think that's going to work. I think the students will thinking "We learned about Creationism alongside evolution. They must both be equally valid, so I'll pick the one I want to believe. After all, scientists must not really know that evolution is right, there's geuniune controversy".
You want to teach kids "The scientific consensus is total; the earth is a few billion years old. But there's a valid political and religious controversy over that fact"? What does this teach kids, except that scientific facts are trumped by religious whining?
And that's not the worst outcome. You tell Creationist teachers to teach Creationism in any form in their class, they will teach Creationism as fact. Creationist teachers simply are a fact of life, and yes, people will teach Creationism anyway, even if the rules explicitly forbid it, but having the rules that say "No Creationism in science class" is still better than a rule saying "teach Creationism alongside evolution".
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: Originally posted by advice for robots: God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure what to make of a God who only works within the bounds of nature. When you say that God is organizing and directing people to be patterned after him as a child is patterned after his parents, do you mean that God is literally telling the DNA "and now make protein to form muscles?"
I guess I'm not sure where the extra step of adding God into the picture is necessary or functional. If nature just does nature's thing, it's difficult for me to understand how God is actually doing anything.
Can we say that photosynthesis or digestion or meiosis is wise and compassionate? If not, then how can we say that God is wise and compassionate by simply acting as the motive force for those things?
I guess what is tripping me up most is where God fits in to the natural process? Is God energy or gravity or chemical reactions or molecular bonds? If everything in nature is ultimately run on "God Power", I guess that's fine, but I don't see where it leaves room for wisdom or love or compassion.
Chemical reactions ALWAYS work the same way - there's no choice involved, and if there's no choice, I don't see how there can be said to be a wise or loving or compassionate acid-base reaction.
I just narrowed my definition to the context of the current discussion. I'm not describing some motive force for natural processes. I'm just trying to describe how God is not necessarily supernatural in the way it's being defined here, but in fact in command of the natural laws. Now you're applying my definition to the other extreme, wondering how God can just be a chemical reaction.
I'm not positing some Victorian-age tinkerer, either, setting in motion some grand clockwork design.
If you're a parent, think of how you care and provide for your kids. Think of your relationship with them, and how much more you can do than them, and all you are willing to do on their behalf. They have your genes, they have so many of your characteristics, they follow your example and pretty much rely completely on you. Compared to them, you are all-knowing and all-powerful. You have purposes and goals in everything you do for them. You provide an environment at home where they can learn and grow. Now take that to a much grander scale and think of God as the parent. Not a chemical reaction, not a watchmaker, but someone with all the goals and purposes of a parent as well as power over the elements.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:I agree with this statement. However, it does not logically follow that the best way to correct this is to teach intelligent design. The more obvious solution would be to improve the teaching of evolutionary theory itself.
I suppose I'm proposing a less obvious solution, then. I'd say that the effect of teaching a controversy in schools is generally that students will later on be better able to judge which side of the controversy is correct.
Why do you continue to ignore the position that effective teaching with or without specific mention of stupid theories will guard one against intellectual dishonesty? The *nice* thing about ID is that it is so patently fallacious as a "theory." What we need really, is competent and intellectually curious students who understand science- not a defensive game against every piece of propaganda that gets thrown at the schools by religious extremists. After all, this is not a real controversy. It was created to further Creationist teaching in schools, it has never, and will never have a foothold in actual science- only in education. Science and education don't play the defensive game well- that is not their job, and ID promoters are making a conscious attempt, IMO, to corrupt our education system, either for profit, or out of religious fanaticism.
ID promotion is all about getting people to address ID and evolution as a binary debate. By including it in the curriculum, you encourage students to view it in this way, which lends credence to ID, because ID simply *doesn't* belong in the realm of a science discussion. By turning it into a binary debate, ID/Creationists can inflame people into believing that the schools are "rejecting" their beliefs, or saying that ID is "false." You hear endless mantras of "two competing theories." This is not a controversy, really. There are no contingents of credible scientists who promote the idea of ID as science. This is a propaganda campaign. And it's one that you are suggesting be accommodated.
I'm not going to continue with this, just so you know. You've come back with the same answer about 3 or 4 times now, so I think you're not willing to change your mind. That's fine.
quote: As has been mentioned earlier, only 40% of Americans report that they believe in evolution. I'd think this indicates that Americans are not being provided the tools to understand the science of evolution properly.
Perhaps it's harsh of me to say this, but I really don't care about those vast swaths of people, if they really exist (which I doubt). If you're so dirt stupid as to cling to the most pathetically childlike beliefs about the world around you, I have difficulty being empathetic. It concerns me, but these are not people I talk to or am interested in meeting. You might be shocked by that because we're all supposed to be Americans and countrymen, but I never believed in that, really. We get horribly upset at the differences between people in the states, and sometimes I don't see why. I shouldn't concern myself greatly with the stupidity of some guy living somewhere I'll never visit- nor have his idiocy inflicted on me if I ever do.
[ February 12, 2009, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"agglutinate"
Quite possibly the most awesome post in this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Except, Orincoro, they vote.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I was struck earlier by how much Tres has changed his mind over the years.
I read through the thread last night. There is some classic John Van Pelt too. I really miss that guy.
For my own part, I have come to accept that there may be structure below Planck length even though I am far more skeptical about string theory generally. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: "agglutinate"
Quite possibly the most awesome post in this thread.
Definitely word of the week.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Except, Orincoro, they vote.
Which is why I frankly believe that the US will not last forever. Everyone knows this intellectually of course, everything ends. But I think the end of our nation in its presently ungainly form is closer than most people appreciate. I'm not encouraged by the idea, but I do accept it as a probability.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I was struck earlier by how much Tres has changed his mind over the years.
His first post in the thread could easily be mistaken for his latest posts in this thread... are you being sarcastic? Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You want to teach kids "The scientific consensus is total; the earth is a few billion years old. But there's a valid political and religious controversy over that fact"? What does this teach kids, except that scientific facts are trumped by religious whining?
If taught correctly, I'd think it should teach them that religion can trump science, but whether it does so is a question for philosophy and politics to work out; within science, science must abide by the rules that allow it to be so effective, making evolution the conclusion that scientists must accept in their models.
I'd also think that, at least if we are talking about kids who are being expected to do things like understand the periodic table or understand how DNA can determine an organism's traits, they should be able to learn the difference between what I said above and the claim that evolution and creationism are equally valid in science.
quote:And that's not the worst outcome. You tell Creationist teachers to teach Creationism in any form in their class, they will teach Creationism as fact. Creationist teachers simply are a fact of life, and yes, people will teach Creationism anyway, even if the rules explicitly forbid it, but having the rules that say "No Creationism in science class" is still better than a rule saying "teach Creationism alongside evolution".
The same could be said for issues regarding sex education - that doesn't mean we should simply take all sex education out of the curriculum. I don't think we should allow a minority of Creationism enthusiasts to hold education hostage; we should teach students what they need to learn, and if some teachers aren't willing to do it correctly, then we need to get new teachers.
quote:Why do you continue to ignore the position that effective teaching with or without specific mention of stupid theories will guard one against intellectual dishonesty?
Because I don't think students will care about or understand the boundaries of science unless they see how it is applied to issues that are actually confronting society. And I don't think most will understand how to apply that understanding to the evolution/creationism issue as well as if they were explicitly taught what the issue is all about. Otherwise, they're going to try to understand the issue through the arguments presented to them by two talking heads on Fox News. Again, I think its clear, based on the statistics, that our education system right now is not producing enough people who have all the tools needed to guard against intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Again, I think its clear, based on the statistics, that our education system right now is not producing enough people who have all the tools needed to guard against intellectual dishonesty. "
And I can garuntee you that putting intellectual dishonesty into the classroom will increase the number of people who can't gaurd against it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I have not argued that we put any intellectual dishonesty in the classroom. I think everything I've said we should teach as true is true.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: His first post in the thread could easily be mistaken for his latest posts in this thread... are you being sarcastic?
hmmm, I may have linked to the wrong thread, I read through quite a few last night.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I have not argued that we put any intellectual dishonesty in the classroom. "
Yes, you have. You're arguing we should put creationism into science curriculum. Read a science curriculum sometime. The things that are in there are scientific principles, and tools that help in performing science. Creationism doesn't fit into either category, so what you're doing is saying that the science curriculum should contain things that are not science, and do not help perform science, as things that need to explicitly be taught. Yes, you're arguing that science teachers should teach that it is not science... but at that point, you have something in the curriculum that is assumed to be science. And in order to over-come the impression that it is science by virtue of it being a topic the teacher brings up, that shows up on the syllabus, etc, you have to spend inordinate amounts of time on it, which, unless done exactly correctly, means that kids will walk away thinking its a scientific principle.
Leave not-science out of the science curriculum. Not-science still comes into the class through student-teacher dialoguing. But when it comes up because a student asks a question, the teacher can spend only a few minutes on it, and the impression created is much more strong that its not-science.
A high school science curriculum is simply not the place to put non-science, even if you put it in to teach "this is not science." Especially then. The dynamics of a high school science classroom, and the way learning actually occurs, make it MORE likely students walk away thinking not-science is science, if the not-science is part of the curriculum. The only thing to be gained by including not-science as part of the formal science curriculum is to legitimize not-science.
And everyone, but you, arguing for creationism as part of the curriculum knows it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Just for snits and giggles, here's the link ot the MA biology frameworks.
(follow all the links)
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: If taught correctly, I'd think it should teach them that religion can trump science,
Can you name some valid scientific facts or conclusions that you think religion should trump?
The the earth is billions of years old? That AIDS is caused by a virus? That drinking poisons can kill you?
What exactly did you have in mind?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm not positing some Victorian-age tinkerer, either, setting in motion some grand clockwork design. ... Compared to them, you are all-knowing and all-powerful. You have purposes and goals in everything you do for them. You provide an environment at home where they can learn and grow. Now take that to a much grander scale and think of God as the parent. Not a chemical reaction, not a watchmaker, but someone with all the goals and purposes of a parent as well as power over the elements.
So if I understand correctly, you don't believe in the watchmaker hypothesis, you believe that God takes an active role in day to day affairs.
At the same time though, you seem to be sure that there is nothing "supernatural" involved, that God works completely within the bounds of nature, having, "power over the elements" as you say.
My difficulty then, is if God only works through natural processes, how is it possible to find any evidence of God? Natural processes are natural, by definition. Gravity always pulls things at the same rate, nerve fibers fire with the same intensity, water takes the same amount of heat to boil.
If all these things are constant, how is there any room for some unknown force to guide them? If I pour boiling water on my foot, and pray to God for help, a God who works within the natural processes cannot do anything, because gravity is going to make the water fall, the temperature is going to burn my foot, and so on.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Yes, you have. You're arguing we should put creationism into science curriculum. Read a science curriculum sometime. The things that are in there are scientific principles, and tools that help in performing science. Creationism doesn't fit into either category, so what you're doing is saying that the science curriculum should contain things that are not science, and do not help perform science, as things that need to explicitly be taught. Yes, you're arguing that science teachers should teach that it is not science... but at that point, you have something in the curriculum that is assumed to be science. And in order to over-come the impression that it is science by virtue of it being a topic the teacher brings up, that shows up on the syllabus, etc, you have to spend inordinate amounts of time on it, which, unless done exactly correctly, means that kids will walk away thinking its a scientific principle.
Understanding the philosophy of science, meaning the boundaries that define science from nonscientific studies and the role of science, is helpful (if not essential) to properly perform science. A discussion of Creationism is, or at least can be, part of that. And I see no reason to give it an inordinate amount of time - I'm not even sure it would merit more than a page in the textbook.
quote:The only thing to be gained by including not-science as part of the formal science curriculum is to legitimize not-science.
And everyone, but you, arguing for creationism as part of the curriculum knows it.
The study I linked to earlier shows this is not true. Over 70% of science teachers believed creationism should be "discussed" in science classes. That's far higher than the percent of science teachers who actually believe creationism, meaning at least some portion of that 70% must agree that there is value in discussing creationism other than to legitimize it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I believe that Creationism should be discussed for a total of about 1 minute. "Some people believe Creationism, not evolution brought about life on earth. That's a religious belief, based only on faith, not a scientific understanding of nature based on an examination of facts. Hence, it is no more appropriate to this class than to discuss any other religious belief."
Someone could probably cut that down to even less time, since I hate to give it too much credit.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is what people have been suggesting. At least I have.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Can you name some valid scientific facts or conclusions that you think religion should trump?
The the earth is billions of years old? That AIDS is caused by a virus? That drinking poisons can kill you?
What exactly did you have in mind?
Well, science presumably says Jesus could not have performed miracles. That's one case where my religious views trump what would be concluded from science.
This is a bigger issue for those who assume the Bible and/or the church is infallible in some way, because they'd have to conclude the Bible and/or church trumps science whenever they disagree. I don't consider either of those to be infallible, so there are fewer cases where it would make sense for me to consider science trumped by religion.
As I said, whether or not it makes any sense to think in that fashion is something for philosophy and religion to figure out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Science only says Jesus could not have performed his miracles absent supernatural (which is definitionally outside of science) intervention.
Since presumably you believe he did those miracles supernaturally, science doesn't contradict anything about those beliefs.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Well, science presumably says Jesus could not have performed miracles. That's one case where my religious views trump what would be concluded from science.
By that argument, Norse Mythology trumps Science, because science has never found the rainbow bridge to Valhalla. Star Trek also trumps science, because science doesn't know how to teleport people, and Star Trek does.
Those things aren't "trumping" science. You're just saying that you're willing to ignore science in certain circumstances, for no reason except that you prefer to believe otherwise.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm not positing some Victorian-age tinkerer, either, setting in motion some grand clockwork design. ... Compared to them, you are all-knowing and all-powerful. You have purposes and goals in everything you do for them. You provide an environment at home where they can learn and grow. Now take that to a much grander scale and think of God as the parent. Not a chemical reaction, not a watchmaker, but someone with all the goals and purposes of a parent as well as power over the elements.
So if I understand correctly, you don't believe in the watchmaker hypothesis, you believe that God takes an active role in day to day affairs.
At the same time though, you seem to be sure that there is nothing "supernatural" involved, that God works completely within the bounds of nature, having, "power over the elements" as you say.
My difficulty then, is if God only works through natural processes, how is it possible to find any evidence of God? Natural processes are natural, by definition. Gravity always pulls things at the same rate, nerve fibers fire with the same intensity, water takes the same amount of heat to boil.
If all these things are constant, how is there any room for some unknown force to guide them? If I pour boiling water on my foot, and pray to God for help, a God who works within the natural processes cannot do anything, because gravity is going to make the water fall, the temperature is going to burn my foot, and so on.
If a chemist puts two chemicals together and they react, would you still call that a natural process? But without the chemist they wouldn't have reacted at all. Bread rising is a natural process, but wouldn't occur without the baker mixing the yeast into the rest of the ingredients. The chemist and the baker aren't going outside the natural laws to produce their results, but they are producing something according to those laws that wouldn't have occurred without their intervention.
I'm not saying anything about evidence of God's existence here; that's another discussion. I'm just saying that God can certainly work within the natural laws to produce the results he wants. He is not limited by our understanding of them.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I think this was the thread I was refering to earlier.
2009:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I believe in evolution. I think the world is billions of years old. And I think ID is not supported by any science, and doesn't even fit the criteria for a scientific theory.
2005:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Every piece of evidence that supports evolution also supports Intelligent Design equally well. I'm referring to the fossils, the DNA evidence, the noted similarity of certain species, the observations of actual mutations going on, and so on and so forth - Each of these is equally consistent and not at all inconsistent with both Macroevolution and Intelligent Design, because both accept the fact that life evolved, only disagreeing on the method through which it evolved in the long run. Therefore, they are equally supported by science, since it has proven essentially impossible to observe directly how life evolved in the long run (at least, until we can get time travel).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If a chemist puts two chemicals together and they react, would you still call that a natural process? But without the chemist they wouldn't have reacted at all. Bread rising is a natural process, but wouldn't occur without the baker mixing the yeast into the rest of the ingredients. The chemist and the baker aren't going outside the natural laws to produce their results, but they are producing something according to those laws that wouldn't have occurred without their intervention.
My point is that we can actually see a baker or chemist doing this work. Where do we see God putting something together and mixing it up?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Orlox,
Normally I don't like to give Tres any credit, since he's my lesser half, but I will say that in this case the 2005 quote is actually more accurate. What I should have said in this thread, to be technically accurate, is that I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design better than it supports evolution. Hence there's no scientific reason to accept it over evolution.
I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Actually, tres is dead wrong. ID is not supported at ALL by science, whereas evolution is. Id isn't falsifiable, so its not supported by any evidence, scientifically speaking.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres seems to still be incorrectly conflating theistic evolution with intelligent design.
Theistic evolution is the religious belief that evolutionary theory was caused by (and even possibly guided by, in some sense) God; often this boils down to a conviction that God invokes the natural world.
Intelligent design is an assertion that the scientific evidence shows evolution could not have occurred without intervention from some "super intelligence".
That is not supported by evidence that supports evolution.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If a chemist puts two chemicals together and they react, would you still call that a natural process? But without the chemist they wouldn't have reacted at all. Bread rising is a natural process, but wouldn't occur without the baker mixing the yeast into the rest of the ingredients. The chemist and the baker aren't going outside the natural laws to produce their results, but they are producing something according to those laws that wouldn't have occurred without their intervention.
My point is that we can actually see a baker or chemist doing this work. Where do we see God putting something together and mixing it up?
Here we come back to a pretty well-worn Hatrack discussion topic. I obviously don't have an answer that will satisfy you. It is how you look at it. We get so caught up in how we look at a tree that we no longer see the forest.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Orlox,
Normally I don't like to give Tres any credit, since he's my lesser half, but I will say that in this case the 2005 quote is actually more accurate. What I should have said in this thread, to be technically accurate, is that I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design better than it supports evolution. Hence there's no scientific reason to accept it over evolution.
I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread.
Okay. I retract my point: Tres hasn't learned anything in the last 4 years.
In fact, I'll even start calling you Xapo. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: It is how you look at it. We get so caught up in how we look at a tree that we no longer see the forest.
That just sounds like hand waving to me. I understand believing in God on faith. I don't understand the desire to claim that there's actually some evidence for God, but then being unwilling to actually describe, search for, or even account for that "evidence."
That sort of wishy-washy idea of what constitutes evidence or proof is what encourages people to say ID is reasonable science.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Can you name some valid scientific facts or conclusions that you think religion should trump?
The the earth is billions of years old? That AIDS is caused by a virus? That drinking poisons can kill you?
What exactly did you have in mind?
Well, science presumably says Jesus could not have performed miracles. That's one case where my religious views trump what would be concluded from science.
Okay, so if I take the line from the bible about snake bites seriously, I could say "Well, science presumably says that drinking poison kill kill me. That's one case where my religious viewd trump what would be concluded from science", you would be oaky with the schools promulgating that view?
Or is it only okay for religious beliefs you like to trump the facts, and not religious beliefs you disagree with?
quote:This is a bigger issue for those who assume the Bible and/or the church is infallible in some way, because they'd have to conclude the Bible and/or church trumps science whenever they disagree.
No. Believing that one's hopes and wishes trump reality is a problem found everywhere you find human nature. It's just that when people tack the word "religious" to their hopes and wishes, lots of people think its a virtue.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread."
Didn't you notice when it was pointed out that creationism and ID are the same thing? The latter is just warmed over creationism, wearing clothes the proponents hope look sciencey.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: It is how you look at it. We get so caught up in how we look at a tree that we no longer see the forest.
That just sounds like hand waving to me. I understand believing in God on faith. I don't understand the desire to claim that there's actually some evidence for God, but then being unwilling to actually describe, search for, or even account for that "evidence."
That sort of wishy-washy idea of what constitutes evidence or proof is what encourages people to say ID is reasonable science.
I haven't been claiming in this discussion that there is scientific evidence for God, and therefore I haven't backed down on any promise for that evidence. I'm sorry if I gave the impression otherwise. For the record, I am also not a supporter of ID.
Edit: That sounded stupid, didn't it? I'll have time to write a better response later. I don't mean to kill the conversation.
[ February 12, 2009, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
What I should have said in this thread, to be technically accurate, is that I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design better than it supports evolution.
Hold on, hold on. What do you thnk the definition of ID is, anyway?
I'm using the definition found in the ID textbook authored by one of the founders of ID, Dembski.
Do you think that this is a bad source?
Are you actually arguing that the biological data of genetics and fossils show that definition to be an accurate description of biology?
quote:I'm also probably guilty of conflating creationism with ID too much in this thread.
Conflating them too much?
I have an idea. Consult the Creationist textbook "Of Panda's and People", as it existed in 1983. Then consult the definition of ID as it existed in the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" after 1987.
Bring back both definitions, and tell us all about how unfair it is to "conflate" them.
You'll find all the info you need on the "Of Pandas and People" Wiki
Woah.... a bit of time travel going on in this thread...
quote:Actually, tres is dead wrong. ID is not supported at ALL by science, whereas evolution is. Id isn't falsifiable, so its not supported by any evidence, scientifically speaking.
In the thread that was linked to, I argued macroevolution, as a historical theory, and intelligent design are both unfalsifiable. I don't think we'd need to go into the same arguments here.
quote:Tres seems to still be incorrectly conflating theistic evolution with intelligent design.
Theistic evolution is the religious belief that evolutionary theory was caused by (and even possibly guided by, in some sense) God; often this boils down to a conviction that God invokes the natural world.
Intelligent design is an assertion that the scientific evidence shows evolution could not have occurred without intervention from some "super intelligence".
If that's how you're using the terms, then yes.
quote:Hold on, hold on. What do you thnk the definition of ID is, anyway?
I'm using the definition found in the ID textbook authored by one of the founders of ID, Dembski.
Which definition would you like to use? I'm perfectly fine using the one fugu just gave, although it wasn't the definition I was using in 2005.
But, I should also point out that fugu's definition above definitely is not identical to creationism.
[ February 13, 2009, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Woah.... a bit of time travel going on in this thread...
Sheesh... I'm trying to make a pragmatic argument about education here, Tres, and now you've gone and confused things. Go take your arguments back to 2005 where they belong....
quote:Okay, so if I take the line from the bible about snake bites seriously, I could say "Well, science presumably says that drinking poison kill kill me. That's one case where my religious viewd trump what would be concluded from science", you would be oaky with the schools promulgating that view?
As I said, I'm okay with schools promulgating the view that whether or not science can be trumped by religion is a question to be resolved in the realm of philosophy and politics, and that scientists should be looking only at what they can conclude within the boundaries of science. I didn't say schools should promulgate anything beyond that.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Which definition would you like to use? I'm perfectly fine using the one fugu just gave, although it wasn't the definition I was using in 2005.
I think it's safer to stick with the definitions used by the founder of the movement, so that people don't start arguing against strawmen.
To paraphrase, it's that modern organisms appeared out of nothing, with all their features completely mature. No transitions through evolution.
Are you arguing that this is unfalsifiable? Or that the evidence supports this?
[ February 13, 2009, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: swbarnes2 ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Okay, so if I take the line from the bible about snake bites seriously, I could say "Well, science presumably says that drinking poison kill kill me. That's one case where my religious viewd trump what would be concluded from science", you would be oaky with the schools promulgating that view?
As I said, I'm okay with schools promulgating the view that whether or not science can be trumped by religion is a question to be resolved in the realm of philosophy and politics, and that scientists should be looking only at what they can conclude within the boundaries of science.
So if a kid comes in and says "My political and philosophical views tell me that my religious beliefs that I can drink poison and not die trump the scientific argument that doing such will kill me. The followers of Christ are protected from poison, by a mechanism that I say is beyond the boundaries of science. Hand me the Draino, teacher, please", your view is that professional educators should not contradict this?
Let's say that you had an inter-racial child in school, and someone eles'e kid had a religious belief that your mongrel kid wasn't really human, and therefore, shouldn't be in school, espeically not in the same classroom as the human kids. And that this was one of those cases where political and religious beliefs trump science, that the non-humanity of your kid is obvious from their religious texts, but beyond the capacity of science to ken.
Do you really think that the teacher should say "Well, Xaposert Jr, this may be one of those times where we're outside the boundaries of science. Your classmate has decided that his religious beleifs trump science, and I can't say he's wrong in this case"?
Once you decide to open the door to politically and religiously motivated nonsense to "trump" the facts of physical reality, where do you stop?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: In the thread that was linked to, I argued macroevolution, as a historical theory, and intelligent design are both unfalsifiable. I don't think we'd need to go into the same arguments here.
Macroevolution, as a historical theory, is absolutely falsifiable.
If we find modern human skeletons in the same time period as dinosaurs, we've falsified it. The same goes for any number of ways we can show that the current evolutionary theory is clearly wrong, and we need to come up with a better model.
You are right that ID is unfalsifiable, because no matter what we find, ID can just claim that it was made from scratch that way.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
ID can be falsified in only one way--that of the religion it is trying to promote.
In the Bible, it states the the world was made in 7 days by a creator.
If you believe in the Bible literally, you can not believe in anything that makes creation lasting more than 7 days.
If you believe literally in the Bible you also must believe in other things--Jesus, Noah's Flood, and that it is a sin to "Bear false witness."
You also must believe in Satan, and that he uses lies and fraud to entice people into sin.
The founders and the literature of ID have stated that they are not Creationism in disguise, but that they are a form of science neutral on the point of religion.
Things like the "Of Panda's and People" story and comments made by those same founders prove that ID is a front for Creationism.
ID is based on lies.
It is a fraud and a illusion used to promote a religion that denounces fraud and illusion. It confuses people of faith with false demons to fight, when they should be fighting real issues and real problems.
People are hungry and sick and need a hand. But ID wants you to spend your time arguing politics and school lessons and counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.
ID uses false-hood, deception, political maneuvering.
ID uses the tools of Satan.
Hence, ID is Satanic and for the souls of our children, should not be allowed anywhere near our schools.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So if a kid comes in and says "My political and philosophical views tell me that my religious beliefs that I can drink poison and not die trump the scientific argument that doing such will kill me. The followers of Christ are protected from poison, by a mechanism that I say is beyond the boundaries of science. Hand me the Draino, teacher, please", your view is that professional educators should not contradict this?
No, that's not my view. My view is that the educators should in that case say "Sure, it might be possible for a religious belief to trump a scientific belief in some cases, but neither I nor the school consider this to be one of those cases."
quote:Once you decide to open the door to politically and religiously motivated nonsense to "trump" the facts of physical reality, where do you stop?
I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
My personal view is that it is up to our human judgement where you stop. But that is beyond anything schools should be teaching. Students need to know that the scope of science is not limitless and that scientists must limit themselves to the rules of the scientific method, but its not the job of the school to tell students how they are supposed to relate and/or reconcile scientific conclusions with their religious or other beliefs.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: [QB]
quote:So if a kid comes in and says "My political and philosophical views tell me that my religious beliefs that I can drink poison and not die trump the scientific argument that doing such will kill me. The followers of Christ are protected from poison, by a mechanism that I say is beyond the boundaries of science. Hand me the Draino, teacher, please", your view is that professional educators should not contradict this?
No, that's not my view. My view is that the educators should in that case say "Sure, it might be possible for a religious belief to trump a scientific belief in some cases, but neither I nor the school consider this to be one of those cases."
So you want teachers to be making arbitrary decisions about which religious beliefs trump reality?
Let me get this straight.
these beliefs:
Drinking poison is safe for believers Jewish people have horns black people are not quite human
Those beliefs you would respond to with: "neither I nor the school consider this to be one of those cases."
But would you actually want the school to respond the same way to these religious beliefs?
That Moses parted the sea That Joshua made the sun stand still for a day That Peter walked on water.
I think not. I repeat my question: do you have any reason, aside from your personal religious preference, for shooting down the first set, and priviliging the second set?
quote:I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
So basically, I can make up whatever wildly false belief I like, have my kids spout it all day long at school, and you think that the school really should say nothing, so long as I say it's backed by "religious evidence"?
So if my kid accuses the Jewish kids of drinking baby's blood, my kid shouldn't be corrected, or censored in anyway, because he's decided that his religious evidence trumps scientific evidence?
And if my kid gets your kid to drink Draino, while the teacher watches, the teacher is right to stand by and do nothing, because my kid's convinced your kid that the religious evidence trumps the scientific evidence, and the teacher has to respect that choice?
quote:My personal view is that it is up to our human judgement where you stop. But that is beyond anything schools should be teaching.
So pass the Draino 'round, kids. If your human judgement says it's okay, it must be. Because allowing human judgment to trump the evidence always works out well. Teenagers have such great judgment, you know.
quote:its not the job of the school to tell students how they are supposed to relate and/or reconcile scientific conclusions with their religious or other beliefs.
No, it's not. I think that it's the job of schools to make sure that students learn accurate facts, and how to reason from facts to conclusions. You seem to think that students should be absolved from accepting facts they don't like, and should be trained in the impeccable logic of "If you don't like the conclusions drawn from real facts, make up your own, call them religious evidence, and believe whatever you like".
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sometimes I wish that people who deny evolution would do without all the scientific breakthroughs that have come about as a result of the understanding of evolution. I have a feeling that would change their mind pretty quickly.
I mean, nobody denies gravity, because if you jump head first out of a 3rd floor window and doubt gravity, you still break you neck.
Perhaps if people realized all the things we've learned as a result of evolutionary theory, they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as false, when it's clearly highly useful.
There are certainly no health or medical advances which have come about as a result of anyone believing ID.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So you want teachers to be making arbitrary decisions about which religious beliefs trump reality?
For the second time, I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
There's also nothing arbitrary about the difference between telling students they can't drink poison and allowing students to believe Moses parted the sea if that is their belief. I think there's obviously clear, strong evidence (of many kinds) that drinking poison will result in medical emergencies in schools.
quote:So basically, I can make up whatever wildly false belief I like, have my kids spout it all day long at school, and you think that the school really should say nothing, so long as I say it's backed by "religious evidence"?
No, why do you keep asserting I'm saying people should make up wildly false beliefs? No, I don't think that.
quote:So if my kid accuses the Jewish kids of drinking baby's blood, my kid shouldn't be corrected, or censored in anyway, because he's decided that his religious evidence trumps scientific evidence?
No, I didn't say that.
quote: And if my kid gets your kid to drink Draino, while the teacher watches, the teacher is right to stand by and do nothing, because my kid's convinced your kid that the religious evidence trumps the scientific evidence, and the teacher has to respect that choice?
No, again I didn't say that either. Read what I wrote in my posts. For convenience, here it is again: "If taught correctly, I'd think it should teach them that religion can trump science, but whether it does so is a question for philosophy and politics to work out; within science, science must abide by the rules that allow it to be so effective, making evolution the conclusion that scientists must accept in their models."
This is what I'm saying. Don't make up other crazy things and assert I'm saying those too, because I'm not. There is nothing in the above statement about making up false beliefs or being able to trump reality. There is nothing about teachers being forbidden from stopping students from violating school policy by doing things like drinking poison. There is nothing about teachers not being allowed to correct students.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:So you want teachers to be making arbitrary decisions about which religious beliefs trump reality?
For the second time, I'm not talking about anything trumping the facts of reality. I'm talking about a set of beliefs about reality based on religious evidence trumping a set of beliefs about reality based on scientific evidence.
How is this different? If my kid convinces your kid that he can drink Draino if his faith is strong enough, that's belief based on the religious evidence of the Bible. It's totally contradicted by the scientific evidence but according to you, there's nothing objectionable in rejecting that conclusion in favor of what the Bible clearly states, and teachers should be teaching that this is okay to do.
quote:There's also nothing arbitrary about the difference between telling students they can't drink poison and allowing students to believe Moses parted the sea if that is their belief.
Why not? Both are cases where the religous 'evidence', the text of the Bible, says that people can part water by magic, and that believers can't be poisoned. The only difference I see is that you personally accept one, but not the other.
quote:I think there's obviously clear, strong evidence (of many kinds) that drinking poison will result in medical emergencies in schools.
But the religious evidence trumps that scientific evidence, remember? It's your own argument!
quote:No, why do you keep asserting I'm saying people should make up wildly false beliefs? No, I don't think that.
But what prevents them from doing so, and using your own "My religious 'evidence' supports my belief, and that trumps your scientific evidence" argument?
quote:So if my kid accuses the Jewish kids of drinking baby's blood, my kid shouldn't be corrected, or censored in anyway, because he's decided that his religious evidence trumps scientific evidence?
No, I didn't say that.[/quote]
Of couse you didn't. But it's the inescapable result of your argument. If you get to have your irrational wishes treated as valid beliefs, then it's hypocritical not to treat other people's irrational wishes as valid beleifs. And yes, that puts you in the position of respecting repugnant and heinous things, but that's the end result of your argument. Simply saying "I didn't say that" doesn't change that fact.
quote:This is what I'm saying. Don't make up other crazy things and assert I'm saying those too, because I'm not.
But they are the inescapable consequences of your argument, and you haven't said one thing to explain why they are not. A lame "Well, my irrational beliefs based on the text of the Bible and my 'personal judgement' are fine, yours equally based in the Bible and your 'personal judgement' are not". is hardly convincing.
I think that, in the end, it's what you really believe, but it doesn't make for a logical, reasonable argument.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But they are the inescapable consequences of your argument, and you haven't said one thing to explain why they are not.
No, most of them are inescapable consequences of things you claim I'm saying but that I'm not saying. Most of them are also based on your assumption that religion is irrational. Neither I nor most people would agree with that assumption.
quote:But what prevents them from doing so, and using your own "My religious 'evidence' supports my belief, and that trumps your scientific evidence" argument?
Because just saying that is not enough. I didn't say "religion can trump science whenever a religious person wants it to". I said whether or not religious evidence trumps scientific evidence in any given instance is a matter for philosophy and politics to decide.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think the objections and arguments against teaching intelligent design alongside evolutionary theory can be milled down to:
"It is a colossal. waste. of. time."
Because, honestly, it is. It accomplishes nothing.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: [QB]
quote:But they are the inescapable consequences of your argument, and you haven't said one thing to explain why they are not.
No, most of them are inescapable consequences of things you claim I'm saying but that I'm not saying.
But you can't explain why I'm wrong, can you? Your bald assertions that I am is not convincing.
quote:Most of them are also based on your assumption that religion is irrational. Neither I nor most people would agree with that assumption.
I'm not assuming anything. You named some irrational thing that you believe trumps the scientific evidence. Well, I named a bunch of other beliefs that people hold that they also think trumps the scientific evidence. Why is it okay for you to do that, and not other people?
quote:
quote:But what prevents them from doing so, and using your own "My religious 'evidence' supports my belief, and that trumps your scientific evidence" argument?
Because just saying that is not enough.
Why not? And anyway, it's not just "saying so". The lines about drinking poison are in the Bible. Now, my decision to treat the Bible as "religious evidence" is based only on my "say-so", but once you start on the path of "religious evidence trumps real evidence", then you can't go around saying what is and isn't real "religious evidence" because you've thrown away the only possible yardstick you're ever going to have. So unless you are going to be a naked hypocrite, and say "my religious evidence is good, yours are stupid lies", then you have to accept whatever "religious evidence" is offered.
quote:I didn't say "religion can trump science whenever a religious person wants it to". I said whether or not religious evidence trumps scientific evidence in any given instance is a matter for philosophy and politics to decide.
So let's say that you are Jewish, and you are running against some other parent for a position on the school board.
The other parent wants to win, so he starts saying that all Jews are born with horns, and eat Christian babies. Of course, the scientific evidence obviously demonstrates this to be false, but it's "religious evidence" and the political reaons for believing it are quite clear. And it happens to match the parent's philosophy too.
Yes, yes, you'll say that this wasn't what you had in mind, even though it's exctly what you wrote...people, trumping observed reality for "religious evidence" when the political situation merits it, and their personal philosophy agrees.
It's a recipe for disaster, as any intelligent person can see. Why keep defending it?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But you can't explain why I'm wrong, can you?
I'd just point back to my previous posts - I think they already explain what I am saying, and why the stuff you are attacking is not what I am saying.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Tres, this is the part where you fall on your sword.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Sometimes I wish that people who deny evolution would do without all the scientific breakthroughs that have come about as a result of the understanding of evolution. I have a feeling that would change their mind pretty quickly.
I mean, nobody denies gravity, because if you jump head first out of a 3rd floor window and doubt gravity, you still break you neck.
Perhaps if people realized all the things we've learned as a result of evolutionary theory, they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as false, when it's clearly highly useful.
There are certainly no health or medical advances which have come about as a result of anyone believing ID.
This assumes that ID and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive, which I don't believe they are. You can believe in evolution and believe that it was intelligently designed. What you can't do is believe in ID and believe in random selection. And you can't believe in evolution and believe in creationism. Both of those are separate from evolution and intelligent design.
I'm not saying I believe in evolution or intelligent design. But they don't inherently conflict.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When ID tries to push evolution out of science class is when they become mutually exclusive. Also, to say that ID isn't the same as creationism is working with a different version of ID than the one people want taught in school.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
I think you are making a false assumption if you believe there is one unified theory of intelligent design. It is as varied as the differing views on evolution.
I'll admit, I was taught both evolution and ID in school by my biology teacher. The version taught to us centered around the theories of Michael Behe and irreducible complexity. I'm not suggesting those theories are legitimate. But they aren't creationism.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mercury: This assumes that ID and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive, which I don't believe they are.
Believe what you like, but the ID textbook, co-authored by the founder of ID is quite explicit:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
That's not what evolution says happened. That's not what the evidence says happened.
quote:And you can't believe in evolution and believe in creationism. Both of those are separate from evolution and intelligent design.
Here's the definition of Creationism from a textbook:
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Doesn't sound differnt from Intelligent Design at all, does it?
And you think that Behe is advocating some kind of ID different from the version in the ID text I quoted?
Please, please ask me who wrote the blood-clotting section of that textbook.
Go ahead, ask.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
quote:Believe what you like, but the ID textbook, co-authored by the founder of ID is quite explicit:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
That's not what evolution says happened. That's not what the evidence says happened.
What I'm saying is that intelligent design can't have a real founder, at least not in the way you are arguing. Some proponents of intelligent design are creationists, maybe even most. But that isn't necessary to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design, simply the idea that life was designed by an intellect, be it aliens, God, multiple gods, or Jedi doesn't inherently demand a belief in creationism.
I was just using Behe as an example. The parts of his theories I was presented with discussed the intelligent design of certain microorganisms, and how this was different from the gradual development of multicellular organisms. Again, not saying any of it's right. But it was arguing against random selection, not evolution (and they are different).
There seems to be an assumption that ID is some kind of centralized force. Theories, even flawed unscientific ones, are never like that. It's like arguing evolution today isn't really evolution because it's no longer Darwinian. Yes, Darwin developed the theory, but many people have added and altered it. Many people today continue to argue its mechanisms. It's still evolution though.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:ID is not science After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while intelligent design arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
ID is the progeny of creationism The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.
Either way, it isn't science.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mercury:
quote:Believe what you like, but the ID textbook, co-authored by the founder of ID is quite explicit:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
That's not what evolution says happened. That's not what the evidence says happened.
What I'm saying is that intelligent design can't have a real founder, at least not in the way you are arguing.
ID is a political movement, and political movements have founders. But why do you think that what you wrote is a response to what you quoted?
quote:But that isn't necessary to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design, simply the idea that life was designed by an intellect, be it aliens, God, multiple gods, or Jedi doesn't inherently demand a belief in creationism.
But it's not simply that. Read what ID advocates write. They aren't limiting their claims to "some warm and fuzzy somebody designed the mammalian ear". They write "Intelligent Design is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
You want to be a theistic evolutionist, fine. But don't think that the political movement of ID is about that. The evidence shows that they aren't.
quote:I was just using Behe as an example. The parts of his theories I was presented with discussed the intelligent design of certain microorganisms, and how this was different from the gradual development of multicellular organisms.
And his conclusions were presented as well-respected scientific conclusions? They are quite the reverese, you know that, right? That the bacterial flagella is descneded from the type 3 secretory system? That lots of organisms get on fine missing parts of the blood clotting cascade that he deemed indispensable?
quote:Again, not saying any of it's right. But it was arguing against random selection, not evolution (and they are different).
"Random selection"? The whole point of selection is that it's not completely random. Perhaps throwing around your own example as an okay way to educate people is not such a hot idea.
quote:There seems to be an assumption that ID is some kind of centralized force.
It's a political movement. It's spearheaded by a couple of political groups with the same agenda: to undermine "scientific materialism" in favor of certain Christian religious beliefs. It's all in the Wedge document.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mercury: I think you are making a false assumption if you believe there is one unified theory of intelligent design. It is as varied as the differing views on evolution.
The two things are not relatable. You can say they are similar for various reasons, but one is science, and one is not science. You could be discussing your theories on the nature of the humor of flatulence, and comment that they are "as varied as the differing views on evolution" and not have said anything worth noting.
This desire to establish a false equivalence is central to the ID movement- because ID has nothing to offer anyone in terms of actual human progress in the understanding of science. Nothing.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The non-definitive nature of ID is one of its sneakiest and underhanded gimmicks.
If you ask a group of scientists if they think that Evolution could have been directed by a higher power, some will say yes. Then you go about with "Proof that Scientists agree with ID."
Then you take that proof and build a curriculum that does not state that "evolution could have been directed by a higher power." You state an alternative description of ID--That God made everything in, oh, seven days?
They use one definition to sound reasonable and gather acceptance from reasonable people, then implement another definition that is designed to pre-program kids into their faith.
Their faith being one that uses lies, tricks, and planned confusion to gather followers.
As I said early, it sounds like the schemes the devil uses.
Hence--ID is satanic, and should be kept away from our kids in order to save their souls.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Mercury, you're making a common mistake in conflating "theistic evolution" (which is the POV you seem to be advocating here) and "Intelligent Design," which is the self-chosen name of a political movement. As swbarnes has noted, Intelligent Design, the political movement, is derived directly from the old creationist movement and proposes exactly the same thing, albeit with the word "God" replaced by "intelligent designer."
In fact, the ID textbook that sparked the recent mess in Dover, PA has been proven to be a creationist textbook in which the word "creationism" was replaced by "Intelligent Design" via the creative method of search-and-replace-all. This was demonstrated by comparison of several passages comparing the current version of the book with an older creationist text, in which the words are entirely unchanged save for the removal of references to the Judeo-Christian God and the use of the word "creationist." One particular instance was especially damning: there was a typo in the original text, in which "creationists" read "ccreationistsists." As a result, the search-and-replace algorithm replaced the nested "creationist" with "design proponents," resulting in the use of "cdesign proponentsists" in the final text.
In other words, nobody here is attacking the idea that God may have used evolution as a means for creation, Deist-style, or that God may even have tweaked evolution here or there. That's theistic evolution, and it's something that does not contradict evolutionary theory. What people are opposing here is the modern political movement known as Intelligent Design, which seeks to reinstitute creationism in science classrooms under the guise of a non-religious theory.
As the cell biologist Ken Miller has noted, and as has just been demonstrated in this thread, the real genius of ID is not in its pretense at scientific thinking (which was refuted almost immediately by real scientists), but rather as a public relations exercise. The term "intelligent design" was purposely chosen by the movement's founders to sound reasonable and to be easily confused with theistic evolution, so that people arguing against it would, to the casual observer, come off as closed-minded, elitist blowhards. It wins followers not through reasoned debate or presentation of solid evidence, but through deception and politics. It is fundamentally dishonest, and because of that, is in my eyes far more repugnant than the creationist movement that birthed it.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: One particular instance was especially damning: there was a typo in the original text, in which "creationists" read "ccreationistsists." As a result, the search-and-replace algorithm replaced the nested "creationist" with "design proponents," resulting in the use of "cdesign proponentsists" in the final text.
I saw this on the NOVA program the other day, and I found this amusing:
"However, the proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the Kitzmiller trial, and 'cdesign proponentsists' has been described as 'the missing link between creationism and intelligent design.'" Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
HOBBES! Hiya! Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hi Rivka!
I still remember endlessly debating with myself as to if I should capitalize your name when you yourself didn't. Of course it always turned out the same way.
I'd something of actual value to the thread but I'm afraid I have little to say on the evolution issue. I was more interested in the affirmative action implications of the Palin pick.
Hobbes Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Hey Hobbes!
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I was more interested in the affirmative action implications of the Palin pick.
Wait... you're telling me this thread was supposed to be about Palin?
I've avoided this thread, but I thought I'd throw out a howdy to you, Hobbes!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Hi Rivka!
I still remember endlessly debating with myself as to if I should capitalize your name when you yourself didn't. Of course it always turned out the same way.
It doesn't matter much. Capitalized is just my RL name.
Glad to see you around. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Hi Hobbes! Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It appears that there's a great deal of disagreement here over what Intelligent Design actually is. There's been at least three significantly different definitions given:
Fugu: "Intelligent design is an assertion that the scientific evidence shows evolution could not have occurred without intervention from some 'super intelligence'."
swbarnes2: "To paraphrase, it's that modern organisms appeared out of nothing, with all their features completely mature. No transitions through evolution."
Mercury: "Intelligent design, simply the idea that life was designed by an intellect, be it aliens, God, multiple gods, or Jedi doesn't inherently demand a belief in creationism."
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Those three definitions are not mutually exclusive. The folks who coined the term "intelligent design" certainly embrace both fugu's and swbarnes2's definitions in full. They also use elements of Mercury's definition (specifically, the removal of explicit reference to a "god") to appeal to those who want their creationist cake with a healthy dollop of pseudoscience to legitimize it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Those three definitions are not mutually exclusive.
But the last, the one where the designer might be Jedi or something, is exclusive with the evidence of what ID advocates say the designer is. When ID advocates hook up with Creationist textbook writers, and say that ID is the logos of John couched in scientific language, when ID is described as the means of oveturning scientific materialism to replace it with Judeo-Christain beliefs, that proves that they aren't talking about aliens.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This desire to establish a false equivalence is central to the ID movement- because ID has nothing to offer anyone in terms of actual human progress in the understanding of science. Nothing.
You seem to be under the false impression I have stated ID is a valid theory, when I actually said the exact opposite multiple times. My purpose was to correct what I believe to be a misperception regarding ID, and nothing more.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The non-definitive nature of ID is one of its sneakiest and underhanded gimmicks.
To what end exactly? To argue that ID is a unified, consistent theory would seem to me to be a much easier way of making the argument it is valid science. (Again, an argument I explicitly stated I did not support.)
Tarrsk
Thank you for correcting my mistake. All of what you wrote was my point exactly, written much more eloquently and with far more clarity. Thank you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So if a kid comes in and says "My political and philosophical views tell me that my religious beliefs that I can drink poison and not die trump the scientific argument that doing such will kill me. The followers of Christ are protected from poison, by a mechanism that I say is beyond the boundaries of science. Hand me the Draino, teacher, please", your view is that professional educators should not contradict this?
Well, I don't know Tres's opinion on this, in fact from his later posts I don't think Tres knows his own opinion on this. But for myself, yes, the teacher should absolutely be handing out the Drano. How often do you get people volunteering to directly test big, important questions like the power of prayer and the existence of natural selection in a science classroom? And in an immediately verifiable manner, at that! No messing around with probabilities and statistics and one-fourth-sigma effects on obscure patient welfare indices; just boom, either the kid dies or he doesn't. That's real science, real religion, and real classroom participation. I give the hypothetical kid a posthumous A for effort, and D for dead. (Well - providing the experiment comes out as I expect, of course. If the grades turn out not to be posthumous, then A for providing us with extremely important experimental evidence, and co-authorship of the resulting scientific paper.)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)