65% of Americans support teaching creationism in public schools - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 02-12-2005, 05:09 PM

To me, this begs the question of how seriously Americans value the 1st Amendment. It makes it look like the majority of people are perfectly willing to discard the Constitution whenever it stands in the way their own personal religious agenda. I have no problem with people getting out in public and arguing for or against the matter with their own voice, but when they seem so willing to just toss aside the Bill of Rights as part of their political game I find that more than a bit disturbing.

Quote:

Evangelical Christians, buoyed by the re-election of Republican President George W. Bush, are turning American schools into a battleground over whether evolution explains the origins of life or whether nature was designed by an all-powerful force. In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach "intelligent design" - a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design - alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

.......

Supporters have proposed laws in state assemblies, campaigned for new policies at state and local school boards, and placed stickers in textbooks saying evolution is controversial and that students should consider alternatives. The Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania now requires that ninth-graders are told there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution, and that intelligent design is an alternative they should consider. The American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the policy in court as unconstitutional. A bill in Missouri would require public school biology textbooks to contain a "critical analysis of origins" and highlight controversial topics "such as biological evolution."

According to the National Council for Science Education, a pro-evolution group in Oakland, California, other states considering legislation on the issue include Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Texas. Other state or local school boards debating the teaching of intelligent design include Ohio, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Kansas, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, Tennessee and Alaska.

Most Americans believe in some form of creationism, according to a CBS poll conducted ahead of last November's election. 55% of Americans believed God created humans in their present form and a further 27% believed humans evolved, but God guided the process. 65% of all Americans favoured schools teaching creationism and evolution while 37% wanted creationism taught instead of evolution. The poll found greater support for teaching creationism among Republican voters - 71% of Bush voters favoured teaching creationism alongside evolution.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_st...%3fformat=html

Lebell · 02-12-2005, 05:18 PM

Erm,

I am a staunch supporter of evolution and I generally sneer at teaching intelligent design, but WTF does the story you posted have to do with the First Amendment??

CShine · 02-12-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

from the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When you inject religious doctrine into science class when there's no scientific basis for it, that's respecting an establishment of religion. If you support that then the only reason you're putting it there is to push a religious agenda.

Lebell · 02-12-2005, 05:51 PM

Oh, ic.

Carry on, then.

Willravel · 02-12-2005, 05:59 PM

I'm seriously considering supporting removal or circumvention of the first ammendment just so these idiots can see what they're asking for. People think they can live under stricktly protestent rule? Let them see what would really happen. I'll be in Sri Lanka.

NCB · 02-12-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

When you inject religious doctrine into science class when there's no scientific basis for it, that's respecting an establishment of religion. If you support that then the only reason you're putting it there is to push a religious agenda.

There's no scientific basis for treating boys and girls as the same, yet does anyone make a peep? No.

There are scientifically documented difference between boy and girls, yet the NEA and the DofE insist to ignore difference and teach them as unisex. For example, a PA HS took some students out West for a summer trip a few years back. During the trip, the students met with some sort of "get in touch with your feelings" sort of scavenger hunt (my memory is not what it used to be, so please bear with me). Anyways, they were all told to split up and find this or that and write their feeling about the item into their journal. Then they would meet at a certain point, where they would discuss what they wrote in their journals.

Somewhere along the way, the boys found each other and decided to just do their own thing. In the process, they ended up making a campfire out of their journals. When they meet with the girls and the counslers, they told them what happened. Of course, the counslers (all women of course) were furious and sent them back to their hotel early.

The moral of the story? Boys and girls are different. Thus, we should not require boys to learn to stich and sew (as a NY HS recently required out of their students). Nor should school admin crush the spirit of boys who show a certain aggressiveness in their behavior (ie...take the anti bullying policies and apply them not universally, but by gender). I could go on and on, but you get the pic.

CShine · 02-12-2005, 06:06 PM

Public schools may very well treat boys and girls differently. What's important is that they don't do so for religious reasons. The different kinds of treatment you speak of here don't have anything to do with religion, therefore that doesn't cause any problem with the 1st Amendment.

alansmithee · 02-12-2005, 07:57 PM

I honestly don't see why people get so uptight about religion. It seems that people on BOTH sides are willing to ignore parts of the constitution when it fits their needs, not just people who have religious beliefs. If people want to have schools teach their children creationism, let them.

raveneye · 02-12-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

If people want to have schools teach their children creationism, let them.

Sure, as long as it's in a religion class.

But if it's in a biology class in a public school, then that's state-sponsored religious indoctrination, not science.

alansmithee · 02-12-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Sure, as long as it's in a religion class.

But if it's in a biology class in a public school, then that's state-sponsored religious indoctrination, not science.

So you would agree to a religion class taught in public schools?

host · 02-12-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I honestly don't see why people get so uptight about religion. It seems that people on BOTH sides are willing to ignore parts of the constitution when it fits their needs, not just people who have religious beliefs. If people want to have schools teach their children creationism, let them.

The schools are public, supported by taxing people who have specific religious
beliefs, and people who don't. If the majority of the people who live in a public
school district are in favor of requiring female students to wear veils and to
"beef up" the school curricculum with teachings from the Quran, would you
not imagine how non-muslim taxpayers might react to that? Here is what
is happening in Iraq's post democratic election climate,,,,,don't you see how
our first amendment restrains the religious majority here ?

This is what is being communicated from the factions in Iraq who apparently
garnered the most votes in the democratic election of Jan. 30:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12171839%255E401,00.html">http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12171839%255E401,00.html</a>
Shias demand sharia law for constitution
From correspondents in Baghdad
07feb05

IRAQ'S Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and another senior cleric last night set out radical demands that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country's new constitution.

The shock Shiite move came after Iraq's leading Sunni clerics group yesterday demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces as a condition for joining talks on a new constitution.

After a leading Shiite cleric issued a statement setting out the position on sharia law, Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shiites, made it clear he backed demands for the Koran to be the basis of legislation.

The national assembly set up after last month's US-backed election is to oversee the drawing up of the new constitution. The role of Islam has been at the centre of a dispute between the rival parties and the US-led occupation authority that administered Iraq until last June.

Ayatollah Sistani leads the five most important clerics, known as Marja al-Taqlid, or sources of emulation, who had shown a more moderate face going into the election.

The surprise statement was issued by Sheikh Ibrahim Ibrahimi, a representative of Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, a member of the marja. "All the ulema (clergy) and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam," the statement said.

"We warn against a separation of the state and religion, because this is completely rejected by the ulema and marja and we will accept no compromise on this question."

A source close to Ayatollah Sistani said the spiritual leader backed the demand.

The role of Islam was a sticking point when the interim constitution was drawn up under the US-led occupation.

After acrimonious debate and the threat of a veto by US administrator Paul Bremer, the final version completed last March said Islam should be "a source" of legislation.

No law that "contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam" would be accepted, the final draft of the "fundamental law" stated.

alansmithee · 02-12-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The schools are public, supported by taxing people who have specific religious
beliefs, and people who don't. If the majority of the people who live in a public
school district are in favor of requiring female students to wear veils and to
"beef up" the school curricculum with teachings from the Quran, would you
not imagine how non-muslim taxpayers might react to that? Here is what
is happening in Iraq's post democratic election climate,,,,,don't you see how
our first amendment restrains the religious majority here ?

If they forced females to wear veils, that's one thing. But if they decided to have muslim creationist beliefs (and I profess my ignorance on what those might be, i assume similar to christian beliefs) i would have no problem with that. I don't see this as some indoctrinization, I see it as parents having the right to decide their schools curriculum.

Willravel · 02-12-2005, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

If they forced females to wear veils, that's one thing. But if they decided to have muslim creationist beliefs (and I profess my ignorance on what those might be, i assume similar to christian beliefs) i would have no problem with that. I don't see this as some indoctrinization, I see it as parents having the right to decide their schools curriculum.

Um...It has it's similarities to the general Christian theory of creation, thought the book of Genesis from the Christian Bible is considered corrupt by Muslims (they think it is not the word of Allah, and therefore is wrong). Allah created humanity through Adam, for example. I think a lot of creation is in chapter 38 of the Qur'an if you want to check it out.

Maybe they should teach an entire class of "world religions" as a social studies class. In the classs they learn about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Agnostic, and any other major world religion. If a parent get's mad, they simply say, "We'll get to your faith along with all the others, so shut the f**k up." Maybe they'll say it nicer, but you get the idea.

maximusveritas · 02-12-2005, 11:39 PM

These people would probably still object to a "world religions" class since it might turn little Johnny into an Arab or something.
Some people enjoy hiding from reality and that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to hide their chidren or other people's children from it as well.
This is more important than a 1st ammendment issue, this is about making sure the next generation of Americans will be able to move our country forward again (or at least stop the freefall)

guthmund · 02-12-2005, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

So you would agree to a religion class taught in public schools?

You didn't ask me, but I feel like answering....

Sure. As long they devote equal time to all the 'major' religions and not just the religions where Jesus died for my sins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Maybe they should teach an entire class of "world religions" as a social studies class. In the classs they learn about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Agnostic, and any other major world religion. If a parent get's mad, they simply say, "We'll get to your faith along with all the others, so shut the f**k up." Maybe they'll say it nicer, but you get the idea.

I learned quite a bit about world religions in high school through various social studies and history classes. Not a lot, but quite a bit and always respectfully taught. Maybe my high school was the exception to the rule or maybe we just weren't progressive enough. After all, I was only taught 'evolution' in science class and we all know how today that's considered 'just a theory.'

Willravel · 02-13-2005, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

These people would probably still object to a "world religions" class since it might turn little Johnny into an Arab or something.
Some people enjoy hiding from reality and that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to hide their chidren or other people's children from it as well.
This is more important than a 1st ammendment issue, this is about making sure the next generation of Americans will be able to move our country forward again (or at least stop the freefall)

I couldn't agree more.

Paq · 02-13-2005, 02:44 AM

i've always abvocated a world religions class in highschool, probably in the sophomore/junior year. I think it would give a different perspective on the world in general. Most highschool people i know at the moment can't tell many of the fundamental differences between judaism, christianity and islam, and in today's political landscape, that can get you in a world of trouble. It can also broaden horizons and maybe someone will learn something.....

now, i have no idea how so many in america could support creationism. Simply put, how can you really teach that, "God put this in motion, here we are' "why are _____" fill in the blank, "Bc god made it that way" ...yeah, that will go over well...

aKula · 02-13-2005, 03:00 AM

Why don't they allow parents to choose what class their child attends. I know in Germany during religion class you are either in the Catholic or Protestant class (they also learn about other religions in these classes). A third option could be introduced such as just a study class where the children can do homework.

raveneye · 02-13-2005, 05:45 AM

Quote:

So you would agree to a religion class taught in public schools?

Of course I do. Religion classes are taught in public schools, and have been for as long as this country has existed, as far as I'm aware.

jonjon42 · 02-13-2005, 07:35 AM

well I remember ap comparative religion at my high school was awesome
very good class.

and on the topic at hand...
does it really matter of 65% of Americans want creationism to be taught?
what percentage of those parents know what they are talking about? Why can't we just leave this issue to science and let it die as it should have done a long long time ago.

alansmithee · 02-13-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

well I remember ap comparative religion at my high school was awesome
very good class.

and on the topic at hand...
does it really matter of 65% of Americans want creationism to be taught?
what percentage of those parents know what they are talking about? Why can't we just leave this issue to science and let it die as it should have done a long long time ago.

The problem is that you can't disregard the voice of the majority and still remain a democratic country. People should be able to decide what their children are taught in schools.

Charlatan · 02-13-2005, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The problem is that you can't disregard the voice of the majority and still remain a democratic country. People should be able to decide what their children are taught in schools.

The issue is that religion has no place in a science class.

Teach comparative religions...

If you don't want your child to learn evolution in a science class, find a private school that meets your needs. The minority *is* protected from the "tyranny of the majority" in Canada by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the US by the Bill of Rights.

So yes, you can disregard the voice of the majority in many cases...

alansmithee · 02-13-2005, 09:01 AM

But then what protects the majority from a "tyranny of the minority"?

Superbelt · 02-13-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The problem is that you can't disregard the voice of the majority and still remain a democratic country. People should be able to decide what their children are taught in schools.

When it comes to a hard science, yes you CAN disregard what people want their children taught.

It's science class. We teach facts there. ID has no facts. The absolute bedrock of science if the ability to be falsible. ID cannot be falsified.

Democracy doesn't work for something like this. We can't just go and ask all the parents, "Give us the details of this bit of science" They don't know, they didn't spend their lives gaining a graduate degree in a field of science and studying something to find out what the truth is. Science doesn't work through majority opinion.

Children should be taught the truth, not what parents want to teach them. Schools have a duty to educate.

Charlatan · 02-13-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

But then what protects the majority from a "tyranny of the minority"?

Tolerance....

Willravel · 02-13-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

When it comes to a hard science, yes you CAN disregard what people want their children taught.

It's science class. We teach facts there. ID has no facts. The absolute bedrock of science if the ability to be falsible. ID cannot be falsified.

Democracy doesn't work for something like this. We can't just go and ask all the parents, "Give us the details of this bit of science" They don't know, they didn't spend their lives gaining a graduate degree in a field of science and studying something to find out what the truth is. Science doesn't work through majority opinion.

Children should be taught the truth, not what parents want to teach them. Schools have a duty to educate.

Well there are a lot of things we teach in science that aren't facts. A lot of physics that I was taught in my serior year of high school through college were theory. There was some evidence to support it, but there was no proof yet. The same is true of evolution. There is some evidence to support it, but it has yet to be proven. Recently, though, intelligent design has seena reemergance in scientific circles. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. In those cases, we see a possible contradiction to evolution and we see evidence of intelligence in design. To not include ID in schools is to exclude a valid theory. ID casn bee falasified in my eyes as can evolution. It's a matter of proof. I know not all scientists accept ID a a valid theory, but a lot of scietists don't accept evolution as valid as well.

Personally, I'd like to have ID taught in science classes, and religion taught in social studies classes. They are an integral part of human histroy. It doesn't make sense not to teach them.

raveneye · 02-13-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

But then what protects the majority from a "tyranny of the minority"?

So you're saying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights amount to tyranny?

Charlatan · 02-13-2005, 10:25 AM

willravel... just because it's a theory doesn't make it less true...

Science has a lot of theories. These theories are subjected to peer review. They prodded, tested and deemed plausible.

Are you suggesting that our Theory of Gravity is somehow less because it is a theory?
Our theory of light? Etc.

ID is not really a scientific theory. It is creationism with a sheen of science.

We can test the theories of science... you can't test faith you either have it or you don't.

Willravel · 02-13-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

willravel... just because it's a theory doesn't make it less true...

Science has a lot of theories. These theories are subjected to peer review. They prodded, tested and deemed plausible.

Are you suggesting that our Theory of Gravity is somehow less because it is a theory?
Our theory of light? Etc.

ID is not really a scientific theory. It is creationism with a sheen of science.

We can test the theories of science... you can't test faith you either have it or you don't.

I was trying to point out that difference between ID and religion. Religion is faith based, ID is based in some evidence. Check out an interesting article on ID evidence in physics at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aege...prfcosmos.html.

Also, famous atheism champion Antony Flew (philosophy professor) recently changed his mind. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

People asssume there is no proof or evidence for God. There is at least a possibility.

The_Dunedan · 02-13-2005, 11:00 AM

I'm just wondering where this idea came from that "society" gets to decide what children learn, and that their parents have no say in the matter. I believe in Evolution myself, but if a parent wants their child to learn ID, Creationism, or whatever, they's no skin off my nose. Either the kid will learn other ideas later on through natural exposure, and will make up their own mind and adapt, or they won't; either way, it will ultimately be THEIR decision.

"Society" does not own you, and "Society" does not own your kids. I agree that ( being unverifiable ) ID and Creationism have no place in a science classroom. However, the notion that "society" must "protect" kids from dangerous ideas is simply disgusting. For one thing, it posits that the Parent has no special place in the educational life of the child; for another that the individual is OWNED by the Group: a line of thought which is both Immoral and frightening, IMO. This is the kind of mentality which produces good little Hitlerjungen who spy on their parents and then turn them over to the State: after all, they've been taught from age 4-5 that their parents are just people they live with. When I was in DARE, back in Elem. School, I was emplicitly encouraged to rat on my parents "for their own good" if they were using drugs ( which the program defined as everything from Coca-Cola to Heroin ).

The real cure for all this nonsense, of course, is to get the State out of the education business. Gov't schools are nothing more than Statist indoctrination and "Re-education" facilities anyway: why do you think the State raises such hell about home-schooling and makes it so difficult for private schools to be accredited? Privatize the entire mess: with the associated drop in property/income taxation, parents could afford to send their kids to the school of their choice, where they could be taught the values and ideas that their family not the Bushes, Clintons, or Stalins held.

raveneye · 02-13-2005, 11:02 AM

Science exists because we don't know all the answers. Yet. To use an analogy, there are many "black boxes" that scientists are trying to open up. That's called research. That's what scientists do.

What creationists do is to put "GOD" inside of every black box, and stop there. Intelligent design is just another fancy word for "GOD". It it not science, in fact it is consciously, deliberately anti-science. It does not guide research, it halts research. All ID proponents are saying is, "Beats me. Somebody smarter than me must have done it."

The only place for intelligent design (ID) in biology is in a course in history or philosophy of biology.

raveneye · 02-13-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

ID is based in some evidence.

The fact that there are black boxes in science is not evidence for anything except that humans are not omniscient.

Rekna · 02-13-2005, 11:14 AM

Evolution and Creationism are both theories neither have been proven correct and there is scientific evidence on both sides. So if you are going to teach evolution teach it as a theory then teach the facts on both sides. Don't stop at just the pro but also present the con.

Superbelt · 02-13-2005, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Evolution and Creationism are both theories neither have been proven correct and there is scientific evidence on both sides. So if you are going to teach evolution teach it as a theory then teach the facts on both sides. Don't stop at just the pro but also present the con.

I will call you on the statement "there is scientific evidence on both sides"

Please provide some scientific evidence of ID.

raveneye · 02-13-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Evolution and Creationism are both theories neither have been proven correct and there is scientific evidence on both sides. So if you are going to teach evolution teach it as a theory then teach the facts on both sides. Don't stop at just the pro but also present the con.

Rekna, do you believe that a round earth is a theory just like the flat earth and both theories should be taught?

You might want to consider that people have observed evolution happening, just like they have observed the round earth. Evolution is a fact, just like a round earth is a fact.

fckm · 02-13-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The problem is that you can't disregard the voice of the majority and still remain a democratic country. People should be able to decide what their children are taught in schools.

See people, this is what happens when you don't pay attention in high school history class, you come out with the mistaken impression that the US is a democracy. We're not. We're a constitutional republic/democratic republic. The republic part is key.

As for Creationsim and ID, check out www.talkorigins.org

Quote:

Also, famous atheism champion Antony Flew (philosophy professor) recently changed his mind. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Maybe you should get the facts straight before going off and spewing nonsense:
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Pacifier · 02-13-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Evolution and Creationism are both theories

false.
creationism ist not a scientific theory, it is a fairy tale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

neither have been proven correct

false,
evolution has made correct predictions, chance of species has been observed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

and there is scientific evidence on both sides

cite a single evidence for creationism.

Rekna · 02-13-2005, 12:05 PM

Evolution takes a lot of time (billions of years).

The moon is recieding from the earth at a fixed rate. around 50,000 years ago the moon would have been touching the earth. The sun is shrinking (about 5 feet a day or something like that). Under a million years ago the earth would have been inside the sun. Lunar dust falls on planets at a fairly fixed rate. There was a huge concern about this on the first moon landing. All the scientists did calculations and they determined that there would be around 52 feet of lunar dust on the moon (which has no atmosphere so the dust hits and stays). However there was a fraction of an inch. I could list many more.

host · 02-13-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Evolution and Creationism are both theories neither have been proven correct and there is scientific evidence on both sides. So if you are going to teach evolution teach it as a theory then teach the facts on both sides. Don't stop at just the pro but also present the con.

Evolutionary theory, ideally is a body of knowledge that is not constrained
by the limits that a religiously originated belief system presumably adheres to.
I found the following helpful when posts in this thread challenged me to
re-examine whether my reflexive opinions are reasonable.

Quote:

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/writing/tech-94.html">Absolute Truth, Dogmatism Antithetical to Science</a>
....The scientific method insists upon questioning not only the objects and events that we find in the world, but also our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is, and the way we come to know things about it. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final; all knowledge is provisional, and postulates, methods, and conclusions are at all times open to the critical scrutiny not only of the researchers conducting the work, but also of the scientific community at large.

This is why science is so successful, and such an appealing method of rational inquiry: people are always asking questions, and never taking anything for granted. Controversy and discussion of competing ideas are a sure sign of good science in progress; when people start getting complacent, when they claim that all the important problems are solved, or that the final word has been spoken about a particular phenomena, we should be wary.

Scientific knowledge is never absolute. Rather, it represents the consensus of a critical and vigilant community of scholars. It is this idea of consensus which is often confused with Absolute Truth, and this is particularly apparent when we enter the realm of human action, and thus of moral judgment.......

..........Science can adapt to change precisely because its methods take nothing for granted; even these methods themselves are open to scrutiny and re-evaluation! There are no timeless, ahistorical truths. If moral judgment were to be a scientific affair, it would not concern itself with Absolute Truth, but rather with understanding the ways in which people form beliefs, and the possible ways of resolving conflicts between these beliefs -- without appeal to dubious universal laws.

The insistence that we can know Absolutes, moral or otherwise, is a denial of the dynamic character of the world around us, and it arises from the same sort of dogmatic appeal to absolute knowledge that in the present day condemns Salman Rushdie to a life of terror, and in earlier times twice put Galileo before the Inquisition. On this latter point we would do well to remember the response of a scholastic thinker when Galileo asked him to look through his telescope and observe the moons of Jupiter: the man replied that he needn't look through the device, as he would certainly not see anything that Aristotle had not written about more than a millennia before.

This is not a scientific outlook, and those who claim insight into moral Absolutes often find themselves in a similar position as the scholastic here described. They cannot account for new information, new insights, new ideas, precisely because they are trapped into asserting what seemed beforehand to be indubitable truth. New ideas, new interpretations are stifled because they are taken to be wrong a priori.

Thus for the knower of Absolute Truth there is no need to look through the telescope, no need to read The Satanic Verses, no need to meet and talk with a few homosexuals and thus understand that they are thinking, feeling, compassionate human beings, just like us hets.

It would be a shame if science actually were simply a quest for Absolute Truth, and it would be -- and often is -- a tragedy when the same association is made for matters of morals. So, despite Carlin's admonitions, here's to MIT students for escaping the lure of dogmatism, and for making science that much more relevant to society, and the moral problems therein.

Quote:

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/writing/origins.html">Origins: Some Questions and Answers about Evolution and Creationism</a>

But aren't evolution and creationism both untestable, and therefore unscientific? Don't they both require faith?

Again, in some sense, all human knowledge is arguably based in faith. But this does not mean that all knowledge claims are equally justifiable, equally reasonable. And when we frame evolutionary and creationist ideas as testable scientific hypotheses, the evidence tends to favour the former, and cast doubt on the latter.

To be clear on a point that is often downplayed by both sides to the origins debate: both evolutionary and creationist claims can be scientifically studied, in principle and often also in practice. For instance, the hypothesis that intelligent design and creation explains life on earth is readily testable: first, find the designer or designers, and the creator or creators (if the designers are not also the creators); then, figure out the specific designs, and the motives behind them; see if the stated or apparent motives correspond with the apparent function of the designed objects; find the tools that were used to implement the designs; and figure out where these tools came from, and how they work.

My high school teaches that evolution is a fact. Isn't that presumptuous, to say the least?

Evolution is a fact. Evolution is also a short-hand term for explanatory models that account for the differential success of certain organisms and stategies in terms of heredity and selection pressures. But theories of evolution are not facts: they are explanations of phenomena for which there are varying degrees of empirical confirmation. Some evolutionary explanations are more or less certain (i.e. some models of selection pressures over the short-term in specific ecosystems); whereas others are more uncertain and speculative (i.e. the origins of, and changes in, species over the long-term of earth's history).

Why do scientists and secular teachers ask me to accept, as fact, an account of human origins that is so vague and speculative?

Any account of human origins is bound to be speculative and uncertain. After all, these events took place millions of years ago, and we may never recover the evidence necessary to know for sure what happened. But the account that creationists offer is, I think, far more speculative and controversial, in that they also have to explain the origins of an incredibly powerful sentient being who is responsible for designing and creating the world we live in.

But if that's the case, how can we ever really say that the theory of evolution is true? I mean, doesn't science demand that we prove theories to be true? You've just hinted above that we probably cannot prove the truth of evolution for a range of phenomena early in earth's history.

Truth is a property of formal and natural languages. But there are no absolute truths in science: Nothing is proven by scientists, and sometimes we just have to accept uncertainty and a lack of evidence. But scientific explanations are checked and re-checked for their internal coherence and consistency, and tested and re-tested for their empirical accuracy with the data we do have. And until specific explanations are disconfirmed decisively and repeatedly, we accept their accuracy provisionally, so long as they are internally consistent and comport with related explanations for which there is empirical evidence. Nothing is 100% certain in science, and strictly speaking, nothing is true in the sense that it is proven absolutely. Every result, every explanation is open to critical re-evaluation in light of new ideas and new evidence..............................

............It seems to me that many of the more zealous advocates of evolution don't really take the time to acquaint themselves with recent approaches to creationism, some of which appear to be more scientific than past efforts.

I'm always open to being corrected on just what creation science is, and I've spent a fair amount of time trying to understand the creationist model as a scientific enterprise.

Having looked over some of the recent literature in creationist publications, what strikes me is the absence of any substantive discussion of specific mechanisms: how does the conjectural intelligent designer (presumably supernatural and god-like, but this isn't a rigid constraint on the model) actually go about designing, and implementing the design? What mechanisms are employed? What processes are invoked? How would we go about studying these mechanisms and processes? Creationists are pretty much silent on these questions, but if they really want to be scientific about their conjecture, they ought to be paying close attention to historians, archeologists, anthropologists and other social scientists who study designed systems as a matter of course.

Again, a creationist hypothesis could be studied scientifically, at least in principle but maybe also in practice. For instance, here again is a candidate model: an incredibly powerful sentient being, existing outside of space and time as we understand them, created the known universe, employing methods and satisfying motives that are as yet unknown to us. Here is an alternative creationist conjecture: an advanced civilization used a remarkable array of technologies to genetically engineer the first life on earth; they then left things to run their course over a billion years or so, the goal being to study how these designed organisms would evolve over time in a complex alien ecosystem.

To explore these conjectures, we'd at the very least need some sort of strategy for identifying the sorts of methods the designers employed in pulling off the remarkable feat attributed to her -- him? it? they? It would also be nice to have some method for figuring out the identity and intentions of the designer or designers. But so far as I know, creationists have yet to elaborate such methods for answering the specific "how" and "why" questions attending to design conjectures, let alone apply such methods.

Rekna · 02-13-2005, 12:18 PM

Also notice I did not say teach creationism. However I said if you teach evolution then teach both the evidence for and against it because if it is a scientific theory then it needs to stand up against all evidence. We can't simply choose the evidence that supports our theory and discard anything else.

02-12-2005, 05:18 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Erm, I am a staunch supporter of evolution and I generally sneer at teaching intelligent design, but WTF does the story you posted have to do with the First Amendment?? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-12-2005, 05:51 PM	#4 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Oh, ic. Carry on, then. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-13-2005, 02:44 AM	#17 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i've always abvocated a world religions class in highschool, probably in the sophomore/junior year. I think it would give a different perspective on the world in general. Most highschool people i know at the moment can't tell many of the fundamental differences between judaism, christianity and islam, and in today's political landscape, that can get you in a world of trouble. It can also broaden horizons and maybe someone will learn something..... now, i have no idea how so many in america could support creationism. Simply put, how can you really teach that, "God put this in motion, here we are' "why are _____" fill in the blank, "Bc god made it that way" ...yeah, that will go over well... __________________ Live. Chris

02-13-2005, 07:35 AM	#20 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	well I remember ap comparative religion at my high school was awesome very good class. and on the topic at hand... does it really matter of 65% of Americans want creationism to be taught? what percentage of those parents know what they are talking about? Why can't we just leave this issue to science and let it die as it should have done a long long time ago. __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

02-13-2005, 10:25 AM	#28 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	willravel... just because it's a theory doesn't make it less true... Science has a lot of theories. These theories are subjected to peer review. They prodded, tested and deemed plausible. Are you suggesting that our Theory of Gravity is somehow less because it is a theory? Our theory of light? Etc. ID is not really a scientific theory. It is creationism with a sheen of science. We can test the theories of science... you can't test faith you either have it or you don't. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-12-2005, 05:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm seriously considering supporting removal or circumvention of the first ammendment just so these idiots can see what they're asking for. People think they can live under stricktly protestent rule? Let them see what would really happen. I'll be in Sri Lanka.

02-12-2005, 06:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
CShine Crazy	Public schools may very well treat boys and girls differently. What's important is that they don't do so for religious reasons. The different kinds of treatment you speak of here don't have anything to do with religion, therefore that doesn't cause any problem with the 1st Amendment.

02-12-2005, 07:57 PM	#8 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I honestly don't see why people get so uptight about religion. It seems that people on BOTH sides are willing to ignore parts of the constitution when it fits their needs, not just people who have religious beliefs. If people want to have schools teach their children creationism, let them.

02-12-2005, 11:39 PM	#14 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	These people would probably still object to a "world religions" class since it might turn little Johnny into an Arab or something. Some people enjoy hiding from reality and that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to hide their chidren or other people's children from it as well. This is more important than a 1st ammendment issue, this is about making sure the next generation of Americans will be able to move our country forward again (or at least stop the freefall)

02-13-2005, 03:00 AM	#18 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	Why don't they allow parents to choose what class their child attends. I know in Germany during religion class you are either in the Catholic or Protestant class (they also learn about other religions in these classes). A third option could be introduced such as just a study class where the children can do homework.

02-13-2005, 09:01 AM	#23 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	But then what protects the majority from a "tyranny of the minority"?

02-13-2005, 11:00 AM	#30 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	I'm just wondering where this idea came from that "society" gets to decide what children learn, and that their parents have no say in the matter. I believe in Evolution myself, but if a parent wants their child to learn ID, Creationism, or whatever, they's no skin off my nose. Either the kid will learn other ideas later on through natural exposure, and will make up their own mind and adapt, or they won't; either way, it will ultimately be THEIR decision. "Society" does not own you, and "Society" does not own your kids. I agree that ( being unverifiable ) ID and Creationism have no place in a science classroom. However, the notion that "society" must "protect" kids from dangerous ideas is simply disgusting. For one thing, it posits that the Parent has no special place in the educational life of the child; for another that the individual is OWNED by the Group: a line of thought which is both Immoral and frightening, IMO. This is the kind of mentality which produces good little Hitlerjungen who spy on their parents and then turn them over to the State: after all, they've been taught from age 4-5 that their parents are just people they live with. When I was in DARE, back in Elem. School, I was emplicitly encouraged to rat on my parents "for their own good" if they were using drugs ( which the program defined as everything from Coca-Cola to Heroin ). The real cure for all this nonsense, of course, is to get the State out of the education business. Gov't schools are nothing more than Statist indoctrination and "Re-education" facilities anyway: why do you think the State raises such hell about home-schooling and makes it so difficult for private schools to be accredited? Privatize the entire mess: with the associated drop in property/income taxation, parents could afford to send their kids to the school of their choice, where they could be taught the values and ideas that their family not the Bushes, Clintons, or Stalins held. Last edited by The_Dunedan; 02-13-2005 at 11:12 AM..

02-13-2005, 11:02 AM	#31 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Science exists because we don't know all the answers. Yet. To use an analogy, there are many "black boxes" that scientists are trying to open up. That's called research. That's what scientists do. What creationists do is to put "GOD" inside of every black box, and stop there. Intelligent design is just another fancy word for "GOD". It it not science, in fact it is consciously, deliberately anti-science. It does not guide research, it halts research. All ID proponents are saying is, "Beats me. Somebody smarter than me must have done it." The only place for intelligent design (ID) in biology is in a course in history or philosophy of biology.

02-13-2005, 11:14 AM	#33 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Evolution and Creationism are both theories neither have been proven correct and there is scientific evidence on both sides. So if you are going to teach evolution teach it as a theory then teach the facts on both sides. Don't stop at just the pro but also present the con.

02-13-2005, 12:05 PM	#38 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Evolution takes a lot of time (billions of years). The moon is recieding from the earth at a fixed rate. around 50,000 years ago the moon would have been touching the earth. The sun is shrinking (about 5 feet a day or something like that). Under a million years ago the earth would have been inside the sun. Lunar dust falls on planets at a fairly fixed rate. There was a huge concern about this on the first moon landing. All the scientists did calculations and they determined that there would be around 52 feet of lunar dust on the moon (which has no atmosphere so the dust hits and stays). However there was a fraction of an inch. I could list many more.

02-13-2005, 12:18 PM	#40 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Also notice I did not say teach creationism. However I said if you teach evolution then teach both the evidence for and against it because if it is a scientific theory then it needs to stand up against all evidence. We can't simply choose the evidence that supports our theory and discard anything else.