Interesting NYT article about evolution in US schools

[tromik]

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.
Interesting article. It's amazing that Campbell is basically creating his own curriculum on such a complex and senstive subject.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&ref=science).

[Anaxagoras]

It's unbelievable that any modern science teacher needs to put up with that kind of shit. The parents who indoctrinate their kids with the idea that science is the enemy of faith deserve nothing but contempt.

[MarinusWA]

When I first heard of the term Intelligent Design I wondered why this was mutually exclusive with evolution. Then I found out what the actual "theory" behind it was.

[Tim James]

Shouldn't that be "ten questions to ask your biology teacher about natural selection?" I thought evolution was the one that was beyond obvious since it's readily observable, and natural selection is where religious folks can get some wiggle room. Maybe I have that backwards.

[Fugitive]

You can separate evolution into two parts: the 'fact' of evolution, which is simply that life on the planet has changed over time, which is pretty clear from the fossil record and our own observations (though there are a few who dispute those), but says nothing about how it came to differ. And then there's the 'theory' of evolution, which is the 'how' component of the above, and includes natural selection and the like.

Even ID would be compatible with the 'fact' of evolution, if they could come up with a coherent theory for it, but well that's the rub...

[MarinusWA]

Even ID would be compatible with the 'fact' of evolution, if they could come up with a coherent theory for it, but well that's the rub...
That's pretty much what I initially thought. I mean, if you are a near omnipotent being who decides to seed a world with life would you
A) Predesign a ton of fixed life forms and set them loose all at once
B) Create lifeforms which are flexible and adaptive and let it grow over time.

If this was a software project it would be Waterfall vs Agile. Guess which is better!

[Tim James]

I'm no school teacher or hyperliberal, but it always seemed like a good teaching moment to me about the difference between fact/law and theory. Then move on to another subject. Maybe the problem is that the kids are too young to handle that.

Anyway, I should probably pipe down because I don't follow this issue at all.

[Shadarr]

The problem is that the kids have been brainwashed from the time they are born, and specifically brainwashed against evolution.

[Tim James]

The problem is that the kids have been brainwashed from the time they are born, and specifically brainwashed against evolution.I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.

[idrisz]

I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.

I mean why we even bother teaching kids earth isn't flat, and sun isn't the center of the universe, it's not harming anyone.

Ignorance is bliss!

[Adam B]

The same reason we're against teaching classical alchemy to young children. Filling the next generation's heads with distortions, fabrications, and outright lies is inherently wrong.

[Quaro]

Why do people care whether the basic unifying theory of biology is taught in a biology class?

[Funkula]

I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.

Teaching kids that scientists are the Enemy couldn't have any further repercussions!

[Talisker]

I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.
Yeah, rejecting science can't possibly have any negative repercussions.

[Charles]

I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.

Because I'm allergic to ignorance. It causes irritation.

Thing is, how is science supposed to move forward if people are choosing to move backwards? If we wiped out all knowledge of science every generation, we wouldn't get very far. Same thing applies.

[Kraaze]

Teaching kids that scientists are the Enemy couldn't have any further repercussions!

That actually is the main thing I worry about. I couldn't give a shit whether someone biology at a junior high or grade school level is or isn't taught about evolution. But I don't want them taught science is the enemy.

[TheTrunkDr]

I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.
Nothing like raising an ignorant population, or worse impose that ignorance on others by demanding this BS be taught in schools.

[Charles]

Also, I really hate the abuse of the word 'theory'. Theories in science are backed up by evidence, research, and experimentation. They are simply not called facts because scientists are smart enough to know that until they can prove it conclusively via either experimentation or other means, they leave the doors open.

That doesn't mean someone just pulled it out of their ass, and that's what all these ID fuckwits would have you believe.

[Kraaze]

I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.

Because it's the forefront of the war of science vs religion, plus people get all sorts of wound up about the any issue with an OMG-think-of-the-children angle.

[Tim James]

Nothing like raising an ignorant population, or worse impose that ignorance on others by demanding this BS be taught in schools.I guess I can understand where the FUD comes from, especially when one has a vision of highly centralized government where what people think in Bumfuck, KS actually has an effect on someone in Seattle, WA. I forget this a lot of times.

I'm still not sure it's worth getting worked up over. Backwards people will always screw their kids up until the end of time. But again, I only have a Type A personality on a few issues, so don't fret about my shoulder shrugging. :)

[Anaxagoras]

I guess I can understand where the FUD comes from, especially when one has a vision of highly centralized government where what people think in Bumfuck, KS actually has an effect on someone in Seattle, WA. I forget this a lot of times.

It's because of Bumfuck, KS that we have Bush as President. It's because of Bumfuck, KS that Obama will probably lose the upcoming election. It's because of Bumfuck, KS that we're involved in a stupid & pointless war overseas. It's because of Bumfuck, KS that the country wastes *unbelievable* amounts of money fighting a futile War on Drugs.

When you live in a democracy, massive levels of ignorance in a wide swath of the population, coupled with an inability to think critically, is a dangerous situation. And this resistance to the teaching of evolution is both a cause of & a symptom of the problem.

[Jason McCullough]

I guess I have to ask: why do people care about this issue? It's not like brainwashing kids against contraceptives or something that can do actual harm to real human beings.

Like heliocentrism, it sounds stupid but makes a certain kind of sense. "Some of that stuff we told you about religion is wrong" can't be admitted, because that puts a foot in the door, and certain approaches to religion can't ever admit anything wrong without fearing collapse. Next thing you know everyone will be having abortions and gay sex because they're related to apes!

It's because of Bumfuck, KS that we have Bush as President.

Kansas doesn't decide elections anymore than Massachusetts. Technically I'd use Missouri as the example.

[Tim James]

When you live in a democracy, massive levels of ignorance in a wide swath of the population, coupled with an inability to think critically, is a dangerous situation.We should've kept that constitutional republic.

<Runs for the door, fast>

Anyway, I empathize now. I am just not used to seeing this many articles about side issues like this in the forums I browse. I am totally with you in every way, it's just not something I would ever be compelled to post about every month or two. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

[salwon]

Why do people care whether the basic unifying theory of biology is taught in a biology class?


Thank you.

It's just a theory, anyway. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

[JeffL]

As a Christian and a Ph.D. scientist, and someone who has some issues with some of the details of some aspects of the theories in evolution, I really hate it when I see science ignorant people arming kids up to blindly attack evolution as being "anti-God."

And one of the ironies for those who do this with their kids: they will eventually come to realize that their arguments ultimately lose - which then turns them 180 degrees against the people who set them up, and makes them then throw out their faith.

Now, I realize for many here, anything that results in a kid renouncing a faith in God is good, but as a scientist and a Christian is it sad because there's no necessary conflict.

[Qenan]

I'm bugged by ID because it teaches poor thinking skills.

[Kraaze]

I'm bugged by ID because it teaches poor thinking skills.

Are you sure about that?

As I recall, a lot of high school science isn't explained all the way down to basic principles or explored via experiments and empirical results. Instead some teacher/text says "this is how it is" and students are expected to memorize and regurgitate come test time.

Maybe that's different for kids nowadays but I'm doubtful. There's a lot of science to teach and not a lot of time in the school year. Taking things slowly and going into deep detail to really explain them to the point where nobody has to memorize and accept something because authority figure X said so is probably impossible given the time constraints.

[russellmz00]

Are you sure about that?

As I recall, a lot of high school science isn't explained all the way down to basic principles or explored via experiments and empirical results. Instead some teacher/text says "this is how it is" and students are expected to memorize and regurgitate come test time.

Maybe that's different for kids nowadays but I'm doubtful. There's a lot of science to teach and not a lot of time in the school year. Taking things slowly and going into deep detail to really explain them to the point where nobody has to memorize and accept something because authority figure X said so is probably impossible given the time constraints.

teaching evolution might not help teach critical thinking.
teaching id definitely does not help teach critical thinking.

[Sidd_Budd]

As I recall, a lot of high school science isn't explained all the way down to basic principles or explored via experiments and empirical results. Instead some teacher/text says "this is how it is" and students are expected to memorize and regurgitate come test time.
That certainly summed up my high school experience, in every area, not just science. I went to a decent public school, graduated top of my class, blew the doors off of SATs & ACTs, & knew very little about actual critical thinking until I got to college. I did what my teachers told me to do, & liked their positive reinforcement, since I wasn't getting much from females my age at the time. They generally tested memorization & basic problem-solving (e.g., if a gas is compressed into X volume, what's the pressure?).

I think fundamentalist criticism of evolution works with some people because its proponents do believe they are getting adolescents to think critically. "Don't just accept things unquestioningly, think for yourselves. Here are some questions to fire back at your science teacher." Most people in the US, adolescents and adults, love to be told that they are independent thinkers, and that they should question the status quo. These kids are getting excited about scientific stuff at Sunday school, and are bored in fifth-period biology. Sadly, the excitement is being used to promote inaccuracies of evolutionary theory, and limits critical thinking. I wouldn't say they are incapable of critical thinking, since I haven't yet met a person who applies critical thinking consistently across all areas of reasoning.

The teacher profiled in the original article should be praised not only because he's sticking to his scientific convictions and teaching evolution, but also because he's engaging in dialogue with his students about their concerns and questions. That encourages student participation and promotes critical thinking. If a student threw out the "but evolution is only a theory" criticism, I bet this teacher would totally agree, and then demonstrate how all explanations in science are theories. That leads to deeper understanding of how science progresses while simultaneously rendering the Creationist-based criticism harmless.

My high school science teachers were mostly nice guys (all were male), but I'm pretty sure they just wouldn't want the controversy. They had lots of students, lots of papers to grade, and just wanted to get through the semester with no students needing to use eyewash stations. Critical thinking just wasn't a top priority.

[Kraaze]

That certainly summed up my high school experience, in every area, not just science. I went to a decent public school, graduated top of my class, blew the doors off of SATs & ACTs, & knew very little about actual critical thinking until I got to college. I did what my teachers told me to do, & liked their positive reinforcement, since I wasn't getting much from females my age at the time. They generally tested memorization & basic problem-solving (e.g., if a gas is compressed into X volume, what's the pressure?).

I only ever noted it in science classes because those were the ones where I would question the teacher and thus get in trouble for "disrupting the class." In fairness to my teachers, I was pretty disruptive to the flow of letting the teacher dictate a set series of notes and bullet points in a 45 minute class.

My favorite high school science class story concerns the kindly but overworked physics teacher I had my senior year. This lady, who I really liked, told me after class one day that I needed special educational opportunities to satiate my curiosity. She just had me to stop turning in assignments, gave me a few books on relativity to read during class time, and gave me an A for the semester sans doing ANY work. At the time I thought it a wonderful deal. In retrospect I realize I was bribed to stop disrupting her class with my torrent of questions ;-)

[Kraaze]

teaching evolution might not help teach critical thinking.
teaching id definitely does not help teach critical thinking.

Care to elaborate on that? Do you think intelligent design the only distortion to the otherwise pure, factual, and unsullied stream of information that high school students are presented with?

[Miramon]

The amusing thing is, merely considering the implications of the phrase, there is nothing about "intelligent design" that is inconsistent with evolution or any other aspect of science, as science doesn't even try to answer questions for which no experiment and no induction or deduction can apply.

There could have been transcendent beings determining the basic constants of the universe, and they could for that matter have determined the conditions leading to life on Earth. It's just that there's no way, even in principle, to prove or disprove ones points of faith in this matter, so it's pointless even to try to argue the issue one way or another.

But the funny thing is that those who triumphantly tout their freshman-philosophy arguments against scientific explanation of first causes don't understand that their negative arguments do nothing to support their own arbitrary and whimsically mythical and illogical creation stories -- like those of the Bible.

It never seems to occur to those people that argue in favor of a 6-day creation, rib-o-genesis of the female, or other idiotic notions, that their arguments just as well support any other religion's dumb creation story as their own.

I guess the flying spaghetti monster died in vain.

[tromik]

Anyway, I empathize now. I am just not used to seeing this many articles about side issues like this in the forums I browse. I am totally with you in every way, it's just not something I would ever be compelled to post about every month or two. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.
I don't hang about in P&R much - sorry if this is just bringing up old debates. Not that it was much of a debate, it seemed as if you you were asking a sincere question, not slamming evolution. Anyway, my intention was just point out the article and the dedication of the teacher.

[Enidigm]

I'm not certain i completely agree with this Sidd_Budd; my experiences with pubic school were that critical thinking was the teaching concept in vogue at the time.

The fear of evolution struck, and still strikes, a chord of fear in the hearts of teachers because of the very real threat of parental and administrative intervention. A penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure, ect. Easier to let the concept of evolution slide out of view than face the hyena-like criticism of an enflamed community and an administration more often sympathetic with community "views and beliefs", if not actually their own as well.

And i think critical thinking might be misconstrued in science. You don't "think critically" doing calculus - you do it right, or you do it wrong. Likewise, in basic science, and even in higher level high-school science like physics and biology, there is a very clear right and wrong. You either get cellular mitosis, or you don't.

Critical thinking in the science department, at the high school level; that is, critical thinking in service of analyzing and or refuting current scientific standards and theories; and not criticial thinking about, you know, how thermometers work, or the physics behind a bed of nails, or what would happen if you put water in your car's gastank or something; is beyond high school student's knowledge. High schoolers can't really debate evolution at their level, and teachers often can't really grapple with the answers in a meaningful way (if they understand them at all). I know i was bombarded with silliness from teachers like "depth of moondust" and "waves in space" and other things that, while i knew must have been untrue, couldn't do anything with but dismiss out-of-hand being unable to address the objection, either. And would it not be destructive to have a smart-aleck creationist student showing up a mediocre science teacher with the reams of anti-evolution information easily available today? Are there not pamphlets ect. instructing religious youngsters how to debate evolution with their teachers?

So to fight the good fight in the name of evolution, teachers have to have a very hard understanding of the concept and armed with the latest critiques and evaluations, and having knowledge of the most common objections is certainly a plus. The aggressive friction used to assail evolution is simply overwhelming and exhausting, and most teachers simply haven't the knowledge, time, and inclination, to fight it.

[Fugitive]

So to fight the good fight in the name of evolution, teachers have to have a very hard understanding of the concept and armed with the latest critiques and evaluations, and having knowledge of the most common objections is certainly a plus. The aggressive friction used to assail evolution is simply overwhelming and exhausting, and most teachers simply haven't the knowledge, time, and inclination, to fight it.
It's a problem at all levels, really. You can find lists of objections to evolution/geology/the moon landing/medicine/etc. designed to instill doubt that are aimed at adults, too. You'd have to have PhDs in a half-dozen different fields to refute them properly, so you wind up falling back on premade counterarguments that other experts have put together. And the people raising the objections certainly didn't put together their own list, so now you've got dueling bullet points and critical thinking has gone entirely out the window...

[Pogue Mahone]

I agree with TheSelfishGene, to an extent at least. I was taught at a Southern Baptist private high school and junior high, and I can at least say without controversy that the experience was interesting. One thing I can't fault them on is the quality of education; I had a generally broader and deeper understanding of mathematics and sciences than most other college freshmen once I went away to school.

Now of course some of those sciences were absolutely taught from a Christian, creationist point of view. I recall a pastor being brought in to explain to us how the earth literally was created in the space of a week about six thousand years ago, and explaining 'scientific' facts that support this theory.

I learned critical thinking in this way -- not by being shown the way but by asking my own questions. Can the fossil record, carbon dating and general scientific consensus be wrong, and the Bible correct? Of course I couldn't answer that question but the asking was key. I don't argue with anyone who says critical thinking is a valuable skill, but I don't see it coming from a textbook. Curiosity is the prerequisite, maybe the only one that matters.

[Jafisob]

I only ever noted it in science classes because those were the ones where I would question the teacher and thus get in trouble for "disrupting the class." In fairness to my teachers, I was pretty disruptive to the flow of letting the teacher dictate a set series of notes and bullet points in a 45 minute class.

My favorite high school science class story concerns the kindly but overworked physics teacher I had my senior year. This lady, who I really liked, told me after class one day that I needed special educational opportunities to satiate my curiosity. She just had me to stop turning in assignments, gave me a few books on relativity to read during class time, and gave me an A for the semester sans doing ANY work. At the time I thought it a wonderful deal. In retrospect I realize I was bribed to stop disrupting her class with my torrent of questions ;-)

Kindly but overworked public high school teacher? So she led a lot of extracurricular school activities(debate team, science club, sports coach), had a side business, and/or taught evenings at the local community college?

[Anaxagoras]

Care to elaborate on that? Do you think intelligent design the only distortion to the otherwise pure, factual, and unsullied stream of information that high school students are presented with?

Oh Nick. Your hyperboles are so cute!

[Tim James]

Oh Nick. Your hyperboles are so cute!Personally, I prefered this one. :)
When you live in a democracy, massive levels of ignorance in a wide swath of the population, coupled with an inability to think critically, is a dangerous situation.

[Kraaze]

Kindly but overworked public high school teacher? So she led a lot of extracurricular school activities(debate team, science club, sports coach), had a side business, and/or taught evenings at the local community college?

Perhaps a poor choice of terms there. She always seemed busy and flustered. Don't read too much into it, I'm reiterating the judgment of a 17 year old.

[Kraaze]

Oh Nick. Your hyperboles are so cute!

I find it amusing that, after a whole thread of people lamenting how ID will destroy education and critical thinking, I'm the first person to be called out for hyperbole.

There's lot of suspect things taught to kids in school every day. One more isn't going to ruin the whole experience or the value of education. If I honestly thought (and I don't) that just teaching ID would shut the fundies up and that would be the end of the strife I'd be all for it.

[Rimbo]

Because it's the forefront of the war of science vs religion, plus people get all sorts of wound up about the any issue with an OMG-think-of-the-children angle.

It's more accurately a war between Fundamentalism vs. Everyone Else. Few non-Fundamentalist Christians discredit Science in any way; also, if Science were to somehow lose the war to the Fundamentalists, then the Fundamentalists would just find another non-fundamentalist foe to fight.

The good news for the Good Guys is that the Fundamentalists are choosing a multi-front war. The bad news is that they reproduce like bunnies and indoctrinate their children with idiocy and intellectual laziness.

[Sidd_Budd]

Critical thinking in the science department, at the high school level; that is, critical thinking in service of analyzing and or refuting current scientific standards and theories; and not criticial thinking about, you know, how thermometers work, or the physics behind a bed of nails, or what would happen if you put water in your car's gastank or something; is beyond high school student's knowledge. High schoolers can't really debate evolution at their level, and teachers often can't really grapple with the answers in a meaningful way (if they understand them at all). I know i was bombarded with silliness from teachers like "depth of moondust" and "waves in space" and other things that, while i knew must have been untrue, couldn't do anything with but dismiss out-of-hand being unable to address the objection, either.
I'm confused by this part of your post. It sounds like you are saying that high school teachers do regularly teach critical thinking, but that the level has to be adjusted for high school comprehension. I'm having difficulty with your examples. Could you give a few more examples of topics that you believe could effectively be used to promote critical thinking in high school?

[jfletch]

Are you sure about that?

As I recall, a lot of high school science isn't explained all the way down to basic principles or explored via experiments and empirical results. Instead some teacher/text says "this is how it is" and students are expected to memorize and regurgitate come test time.

Maybe that's different for kids nowadays but I'm doubtful. There's a lot of science to teach and not a lot of time in the school year. Taking things slowly and going into deep detail to really explain them to the point where nobody has to memorize and accept something because authority figure X said so is probably impossible given the time constraints.

Isn't that true of most subjects in high school? I mean, I got my degree in math, but I didn't know how to properly write a proof in high school. And that is where the rubber hits the road.

The problem is that these high school kids are fed total bullshit, and cannot and will not be prepared to learn the more interesting, more fundamental things. I imagine a fair amount of fairly smart and capable kids are being turned away from the sciences because of this, which is a shame - the USA is already lagging behind other developed countries on that metric. We don't need this crap.

[russellmz00]

teaching evolution might not help teach critical thinking.
teaching id definitely does not help teach critical thinking.


Care to elaborate on that? Do you think intelligent design the only distortion to the otherwise pure, factual, and unsullied stream of information that high school students are presented with?

what's to elaborate? let me say almost the same thing as up top, only with your phrasing:

there might be other distortions in a public school education.
id would definitely be a distortion.

[Lizard_King]

I'm confused by this part of your post. It sounds like you are saying that high school teachers do regularly teach critical thinking, but that the level has to be adjusted for high school comprehension. I'm having difficulty with your examples. Could you give a few more examples of topics that you believe could effectively be used to promote critical thinking in high school?

I wouldn't say secondary teachers regularly teach things that would be covered by that popular buzzword. I'd say there's still a lot of "banking" style fact depositing and regurgitation (currently experiencing a renaissance with the advent of No Child Left Behind and the Kaplanizing of curricula), with many teachers working the middle part of the spectrum where they have activities and projects that appear critical but are actually a form of sleight of hand. That is, the kids are making stuff, and it looks good, and they're engaged at a superficial level because they have a clearly defined rubric to follow, but it's just a more sophisticated form of regurgitation.

I had a long screed on the subject, but it's not really germane to the subject at hand. Suffice it to say there is a lot of time being wasted on bullshit in classrooms, and NCLB has distorted the incentives to an absurd degree.

Evolution is important in this broader discussion, because the hard sciences are difficult enough to teach without wasting time on fairy tales. Even the best teachers are going to struggle with integrating the theory in a sufficiently comprehensive manner throughout their curriculum that it becomes more than a definition the kids learn. It is a logical conceptual step in developing students as scientists, as opposed to people that can repeat some science "facts" for the amount of time required to pass standardized tests.

I suppose we are just lucky that ID advocates have yet to tackle physics as directly (no doubt there's a miracle based alternative to relativity somewhere). But make no mistake, the damage they can do with providing "alternative" biology will successfully undermine the entire structure for that student, and it is not hyperbole to view a lot of the problems we currently face as symptomatic of that kind of shit education. Perhaps I am underestimating their ability to economize their efforts, but I try not to ascribe to coordinated malice what stupidity can explain.

[Kraaze]

what's to elaborate? let me say almost the same thing as up top, only with your phrasing:

there might be other distortions in a public school education.
id would definitely be a distortion.

Right, we agree that ID is a distortion.

Why does having a distortion in there harm critical thinking? Especially considering it's but one of many, so any nascent critical thinkers have probably already spotted that they aren't being fed 100% pure unvarnished truth.

[Kraaze]

But make no mistake, the damage they can do with providing "alternative" biology will successfully undermine the entire structure for that student

How will it undermine biology? I thought that was ID's annoying point, that it's a story shaped to fit into the puzzle of biology and mesh with all the other peices so it's rather hard to refute. Straight up Book of Genesis creationism doesn't have any room for genes, DNA, etc. ID does talk about and account for all that stuff.

I'm not an authority on biology by any means since my last class on the topic was my high school biology course but I remember covering a lot of stuff that isn't going to be at all affected by whether one is explaining origins via ID or evolution.

[Adree]

How will it undermine biology? I thought that was ID's annoying point, that it's a story shaped to fit into the puzzle of biology and mesh with all the other peices so it's rather hard to refute. Straight up Book of Genesis creationism doesn't have any room for genes, DNA, etc. ID does talk about and account for all that stuff.

I'm not an authority on biology by any means since my last class on the topic was my high school biology course but I remember covering a lot of stuff that isn't going to be at all affected by whether one is explaining origins via ID or evolution.

Why should we include one creation myth? Why not all of them?

[Lizard_King]

How will it undermine biology? I thought that was ID's annoying point, that it's a story shaped to fit into the puzzle of biology and mesh with all the other peices so it's rather hard to refute. Straight up Book of Genesis creationism doesn't have any room for genes, DNA, etc. ID does talk about and account for all that stuff.

I'm not an authority on biology by any means since my last class on the topic was my high school biology course but I remember covering a lot of stuff that isn't going to be at all affected by whether one is explaining origins via ID or evolution.
Well, I think that's the core problem here. I'm by no means a biologist, but I'm at the point in my understanding of the subject where it becomes easy to grasp but difficult to explain exactly the sort of conceptual damage that takes place when something like ID is offered as a credible option to the theory of evolution.

So in the spirit of qt3, let me offer you an analogy that I think is applicable: I doubt you would tolerate a history teacher that regarded extreme conspiracy theories as being equally valid in comparison to logically developed evidence based explanations that are rationally defended. I'm all about taking controversy head on, and viewing history as a fluid contest between perspectives. However in the limited scope of a high school history class, you have failed to teach the student if he walks out of that class at the end of the year knowing as much about the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the grassy knoll shooter, and what "really" happened on 9-11 as he does about the different levels of analysis of the causes of the Civil War or the tension between the "great man" view of Nazi history or the "blood on everyone's hands" approach.

You want to explore ID, by all means. Major in theology in college, go to Sunday school, take a comparative religions class. But don't crush the already fragile reasoning of students by giving them something we know isn't scientific in their biology class. You have to build a base for critical reasoning and the scientific method before you can go off the beaten track.

[Kraaze]

Why should we include one creation myth? Why not all of them?

How is that a response to what I posted? I wasn't advocating teaching ID, I was just curious why people think it's such a calamity.

[Kraaze]

Well, I think that's the core problem here. I'm by no means a biologist, but I'm at the point in my understanding of the subject where it becomes easy to grasp but difficult to explain exactly the sort of conceptual damage that takes place when something like ID is offered as a credible option to the theory of evolution.

So in the spirit of qt3, let me offer you an analogy that I think is applicable: I doubt you would tolerate a history teacher that regarded extreme conspiracy theories as being equally valid in comparison to logically developed evidence based explanations that are rationally defended. I'm all about taking controversy head on, and viewing history as a fluid contest between perspectives. However in the limited scope of a high school history class, you have failed to teach the student if he walks out of that class at the end of the year knowing as much about the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the grassy knoll shooter, and what "really" happened on 9-11 as he does about the different levels of analysis of the causes of the Civil War or the tension between the "great man" view of Nazi history or the "blood on everyone's hands" approach.

You want to explore ID, by all means. Major in theology in college, go to Sunday school, take a comparative religions class. But don't crush the already fragile reasoning of students by giving them something we know isn't scientific in their biology class. You have to build a base for critical reasoning and the scientific method before you can go off the beaten track.

History was a bad analogy example because I think that subject, as it was taught to me in high school, was heavily distorted. The American history I got fed in civics classes and so forth was heavily heavily rose tinted.

But back on topic, maybe we need a biologist in here but my understanding of ID is that it doesn't try to contradict any of the stuff that can be empirically demonstrated. There's no challenges to cellular biology or biochemistry or any of that stuff. It's just a different slant on how all this wonderfully diverse biology that we see around us sprang up.

[Adree]

But back on topic, maybe we need a biologist in here but my understanding of ID is that it doesn't try to contradict any of the stuff that can be empirically demonstrated. There's no challenges to cellular biology or biochemistry or any of that stuff. It's just a different slant on how all this wonderfully diverse biology that we see around us sprang up.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

[Kraaze]

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

Right, I get that. But that isn't a challenge to how any of this stuff provably works right now.

If I took my car to the mechanic and told him that I'd inherited it when in reality I'd traded 50 magic cards and my sister for it, he'd still be able to fix it right?

[Lizard_King]

History was a bad analogy example because I think that subject, as it was taught to me in high school, was heavily distorted. The American history I got fed in civics classes and so forth was heavily heavily rose tinted.
Well, that's not how I was taught. So forgive me if I can't tailor my explanations to your apparently awful high school education.

But back on topic, maybe we need a biologist in here but my understanding of ID is that it doesn't try to contradict any of the stuff that can be empirically demonstrated. There's no challenges to cellular biology or biochemistry or any of that stuff. It's just a different slant on how all this wonderfully diverse biology that we see around us sprang up.
Back on topic, what you need is to stop basing your expectations and tolerances for education on whatever subpar product you are familiar with. The fact that you are incapable of seeing how ludicrous that last statement you made speaks volumes. I don't think I exaggerate when I say this is an even bigger "coming from another planet" situation than when we talk about self defense.

If you can't understand the difference between the "random" criticism ID puts forth of evolution and the reality of the theory and why that matters (for instance), then it's beyond the scope of this thread to fix it. May your spaghetti monster have mercy on your soul, and I'll leave it to the more tolerant link finders.

[Adree]

Right, I get that. But that isn't a challenge to how any of this stuff provably works right now.

If I took my car to the mechanic and told him that I'd inherited it when in reality I'd traded 50 magic cards and my sister for it, he'd still be able to fix it right?


http://www.chuacuuthe.org/images/jesus-pic/images/Jesus%20Sad_jpg-crop.jpg

[Kraaze]

Well, that's not how I was taught. So forgive me if I can't tailor my explanations to your apparently awful high school education.


Apparently we had very different educations then. My high school level introduction to American history didn't cover japanese internment camps in WW2 or our atrocious treatment of native peoples. It was all a rosy story about our noble fight for independence and how we were the best darn nation on the planet.



Back on topic, what you need is to stop basing your expectations and tolerances for education on whatever subpar product you are familiar with.


Where did that come from? I've had a general sense of agreement from several other posters in this thread so far about how poor secondary education is for teaching critical thinking. It hardly seems like I'm some wacko making a unique or outlandish claim.


The fact that you are incapable of seeing how ludicrous that last statement you made speaks volumes. I don't think I exaggerate when I say this is an even bigger "coming from another planet" situation than when we talk about self defense.


Obviously we aren't seeing this issue 100% the same way, but I'm not trying to make or defend any absolute assertions in this thread. I'm just looking for various people to explain why ID is such a mortal blow to science. You made the assertion that ID "undermines" biology, I just wanted to see why you thought that since I'm not seeing it.



If you can't understand the difference between the "random" criticism ID puts forth of evolution and the reality of the theory and why that matters (for instance), then it's beyond the scope of this thread to fix it. May your spaghetti monster have mercy on your soul, and I'll leave it to the more tolerant link finders.

I can see a lot of differences between ID and evolution, but I don't see any that blow up the whole subject of biology. There are plenty of working theist scientists in many fields and their belief that some higher power designed the universe doesn't impair their ability to observe the universe, make hypotheses, test them, and generally apply the scientific method.

But like I said, I know I'm not well informed on the topic of biology so I'm open to someone explaining why ID blows up biology.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Right, I get that. But that isn't a challenge to how any of this stuff provably works right now.

Yes it is. Selection, natural and otherwise, is observable -- particularly in organisms with a short life cycle. If drug-resistant bacteria are the wrath of an angry God, then we don't need to worry about the misuse of antibiotics. But THEY'RE NOT, and WE DO. Materialism can be frightening, but make your fucking peace with the fact that we as human beings collectively know some stuff about how the world works. It's not all coming out of a black box that demands sacrifices.

[Kraaze]

Yes it is. Selection, natural and otherwise, is observable -- particularly in organisms with a short life cycle. If drug-resistant bacteria are the wrath of an angry God, then we don't need to worry about the misuse of antibiotics. But THEY'RE NOT, and WE DO. Materialism can be frightening, but make your fucking peace with the fact that we as human beings collectively know some stuff about how the world works. It's not all coming out of a black box that demands sacrifices.

Hmm, maybe my understanding of ID is flawed then. I thought that the ID people didn't try to argue with the observable stuff like short term natural selection and mutating bacteria and so forth. I thought the ID argument was that complex biological designs had irreducible complexity and required an intelligent designer. Stuff like eyeballs and whatnot.

[Lizard_King]

Where did that come from? I've had a general sense of agreement from several other posters in this thread so far about how poor secondary education is for teaching critical thinking. It hardly seems like I'm some wacko making a unique or outlandish claim.
Yeah, one of those was me. The current state does not dictate what our expectations of it should be, or what modifications we should tolerate simply because hey, how much more fucked up can it get? There is a big difference between lower level thinking education that is still fact/evidence/reason based and the sort of flying leap into wilful ignorance that ID represents. The sort of biased history narrative you were given remains superior to voluntarily presenting fiction as equivalent to truth insofar as we can verify it.

People are going to keep trickling in and pointing out places where ID fails to be consistent with reality as we understand it. They may hit some threshold with that approach, but I doubt it.

Obviously we aren't seeing this issue 100% the same way, but I'm not trying to make or defend any absolute assertions in this thread. I'm just looking for various people to explain why ID is such a mortal blow to science. You made the assertion that ID "undermines" biology, I just wanted to see why you thought that since I'm not seeing it.
You don't understand basic tenets of evolutionary theory. That much is obvious. Without that common ground it is very difficult for these things to be clarified.


I can see a lot of differences between ID and evolution, but I don't see any that blow up the whole subject of biology. There are plenty of working theist scientists in many fields and their belief that some higher power designed the universe doesn't impair their ability to observe the universe, make hypotheses, test them, and generally apply the scientific method.

But like I said, I know I'm not well informed on the topic of biology so I'm open to someone explaining why ID blows up biology.
There's a big difference between having some kind of faith based "why" at the core of your belief system and ID. The sort of examples people are getting at above are not the exception. At every step, ID is a means of coopting the appearance of scientific method into what is essentially virgins-in-the-volcano reasoning. Everything happens because god wills it, and (here's the key) we will turn the specific terminology that science uses to reason out the universe into a broken, crippled shadow of itself incapable of reasoning past a certain point by design. You know, the kind of thinking that could accept evolution as an incidental occurrence but sneer at the idea that something so "random" could link us with a 4.5bn year old petri dish sample.

So pick a Dawkins, Gould, or whatever else you prefer stylistically to help you out. It pisses me off especially that someone like you so who is probably familiar with so much specific knowledge that deals in evolutionary terms (meme, anyone) would be so willing to serve as a useful idiot for these people.

[Adree]

Hmm, maybe my understanding of ID is flawed then. I thought that the ID people didn't try to argue with the observable stuff like short term natural selection and mutating bacteria and so forth. I thought the ID argument was that complex biological designs had irreducible complexity and required an intelligent designer. Stuff like eyeballs and whatnot.

http://threadbombing.com/data/media/54/monkey.JPG

[Lh'owon]

Hmm, maybe my understanding of ID is flawed then. I thought that the ID people didn't try to argue with the observable stuff like short term natural selection and mutating bacteria and so forth. I thought the ID argument was that complex biological designs had irreducible complexity and required an intelligent designer. Stuff like eyeballs and whatnot.

And evolution states that there is a very clear natural process that accounts for, say, an eyeball. Irreducible complexity is in direct (and very deliberate) conflict with modern science's basic understanding of the theory of evolution.

I don't understand how people don't see a conflict.

[Lizard_King]

Hmm, maybe my understanding of ID is flawed then. I thought that the ID people didn't try to argue with the observable stuff like short term natural selection and mutating bacteria and so forth. I thought the ID argument was that complex biological designs had irreducible complexity and required an intelligent designer. Stuff like eyeballs and whatnot.

Let's pretend it was just about that second part: failing to extrapolate from the "observable" stuff you cite into the big picture, particularly when simply broken math and logic is used to bar the passage, is a betrayal of everything a science education is supposed to be about. Which is exactly what ID is intended to do: cripple science from within in order to ensure that the ignorant by choice are Harrison Bergeroned into an artificial level of competitiveness. Ironically, despite being completely incapable of understanding evolution conceptually, fundamentalists are very attuned to its implications for the ideologically inflexible and blind.

[Adree]

Perhaps I shouldn't have tried to wander into one I'm not very knowledgeable about given how combative P%R is but I must say I didn't expect this level of abuse.

Bastion of tolerance this forum in general is, much less the yelling subforum.

http://i33.tinypic.com/72btjk.gif

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Hmm, maybe my understanding of ID is flawed then. I thought that the ID people didn't try to argue with the observable stuff like short term natural selection and mutating bacteria and so forth. I thought the ID argument was that complex biological designs had irreducible complexity and required an intelligent designer. Stuff like eyeballs and whatnot.

Yeah, one theory proposes that observable processes, which have been manipulated by humans for thousands of years and are more measurable and better understood every year, have been operating even before they were observed. The other proposes some funky-ass bullshit that's not observed on any level and then adds "oh yeah, but where you can actually TEST anything, it LOOKS the other theory is right. Don't let Satan trick you!" The latter theory is deeply inferior in every respect save as a stalking horse for creationism. More accurately, it is creationism declaring "no punch back." Which has, of course, been its policy all along. There is no effective scientific refutation to creationism because creationism is not science, creationism adherents are rejecting science, and therefore how do you expect to convince those people using scientific principles?

Imagine this bullshit in geology (where it has in fact surfaced from time to time). Should schools teach one theory of geology that indicates that observable processes have been going on for a long time, and this has gradually led to the world's matter being in its present-day configuration, and another theory of geology that indicates that observable processes can be observed, but what REALLY happened was that an all-powerful god named God made everything to LOOK like it was the result of some piddly-shit red herrings he cooked up to trick us because it would be hilarious^Wholy, and PS "geology" only APPEARS to be true but how can they dare to teach erosion without covering the controversy, how does scientificism KNOW it wasn't Intelligent Landscaping?

Well... should they? Aren't mountains too big and complicated to be formed by the same forces that cause earthquakes? How can ivory-egg towerheads generalize from puddles and streams to the Great Lakes and the Mississippi? The Mississippi River is REALLY BIG! Have you ever seen a river that big just FORM out of nowhere? Of course not, because God does it when you're not looking so you won't feel bad about how much more awesome than you he is. SO CONSIDERATE. And soil types. Sure, you can manipulate a soil sample in the lab with your godless alchemy and "agriculture" (the only culture we need is GODriculture!), but has scientetics directly observed the whole history of the formation of the Ultisols in Virginia? I thought not! And surely Mollisols are simply too good for farming to have arisen naturally. They are a blessing from an-almighty-god-named-God-named-Slickback, and if we question them, he will take them away and gay men will kiss.

[Lizard_King]

Nice one.

[Miramon]

And evolution states that there is a very clear natural process that accounts for, say, an eyeball. Irreducible complexity is in direct (and very deliberate) conflict with modern science's basic understanding of the theory of evolution.

I don't understand how people don't see a conflict.
Well, I think that's an oversimplification. Evolutionary theory is not so monolithic that "it states" all that much that can't be argued.

There are lots of competing scientific ideas about some of the more exciting evolutionary developments, and how they work, whether certain developments occur in leaps or not, and to what extent survival of the fittest is really the mechanism at work in various cases.

But eyes never bothered me. I mean, photosensitive cells, that's easy, right? Then you allow the patch of cells a bit of a concave curve, so you get a slightly better directional notion of where the light is coming from even if you still have no image. Not a big deal, I think. Then you grow a translucent film over the patch, to protect the sensitive cells from physical harm. Not such an amazing leap. Then you allow curvature and thickening of the film, and hey presto! You've got a lens! After that you have to develop a nervous system to interpret the virtual image of neural firing in the retina, but it seems like it could evolve incrementally too as nerves are so useful for many purposes, despite the standard anti-evolution argument that says it had to be crafted.

If eyes are crafted, I guess that's why God gave various cave-dwelling creatures vestigial eyes that don't work any more, just to mess with scientists. Ha.

[Rimbo]

As a Christian and a Ph.D. scientist, and someone who has some issues with some of the details of some aspects of the theories in evolution, I really hate it when I see science ignorant people arming kids up to blindly attack evolution as being "anti-God."

And one of the ironies for those who do this with their kids: they will eventually come to realize that their arguments ultimately lose - which then turns them 180 degrees against the people who set them up, and makes them then throw out their faith.

Now, I realize for many here, anything that results in a kid renouncing a faith in God is good, but as a scientist and a Christian is it sad because there's no necessary conflict.

qfmft

[Sidd_Budd]

This whole thread is a great example of how to stifle curiosity & debate, and hinder the development of critical thinking. Kraaze's been upfront about his limitations in knowledge, and has asked for specific feedback on certain elements. In response, he's been repeatedly ridiculed for his lack of knowledge, mocked for asking questions in the first place, had none of his questions addressed, and been presented with simplistic summaries of intelligent design that contain as many distortions as the creationists provide when discussing carbon dating. He's actually not that far off in some of the basic views of some IDers (for example, some of Dembski's (http://www.designinference.com/) stuff*), and some of the followers of scientism here are correcting Kraaze when they seem to have even less understanding of the view. I expect the "IDers eat babies, helped get Firefly cancelled, and want to censor videogames" critique next.

You wonder why proponents of ID say science is hostile to alternative views? Look at this thread. Fundamentalists of both religion and science don't want their authority questioned, and mock non-believers for questioning the orthodoxy. It's P&R, so I know we're proud of our flaming condescending snarkiness, but you don't encourage curious debate and dialogue with repeated mocking.

*For the record, I think Dembski's got some interesting points, but I don't find intelligent design compelling. I believe evolution & natural selection is a more powerful theory. I just don't see how you can believe in the scientific method and *not* read documents and studies that attempt to refute current theoretical understanding.

[Sol Invictus]

Teaching ID teaches you that anything you can't understand must be god's unfathomable will so you shouldn't even bother thinking about it.

[Adree]

I just don't see how you can believe in the scientific method and *not* read documents and studies that attempt to refute current theoretical understanding.

Scientism? Did you just watch Expelled?

Please link me a paper that uses the scientific method to put forth the idea of Intelligent Design.

[Not One Of Us]

This whole thread is a great example of how to stifle curiosity & debate, and hinder the development of critical thinking. Kraaze's been upfront about his limitations in knowledge, and has asked for specific feedback on certain elements. In response, he's been repeatedly ridiculed for his lack of knowledge, mocked for asking questions in the first place, had none of his questions addressed, and been presented with simplistic summaries of intelligent design that contain as many distortions as the creationists provide when discussing carbon dating. He's actually not that far off in some of the basic views of some IDers (for example, some of Dembski's (http://www.designinference.com/) stuff*), and some of the followers of scientism here ar

http://truemeaningoflife.com/images/science.jpg

[Funkula]

Man I wish I was a scientist now :(

[Sidd_Budd]

Scientism? Did you just watch Expelled?

Please link me a paper that uses the scientific method to put forth the idea of Intelligent Design.
I have no interest in Expelled, but I do know a number of folks who elevate science to dogma, and I think the term scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism) fits. In some ways, they bug me even more than fundamentalist religious folks, because as a fellow scientist, I believe they should know better.

I used a poor phrase in my last post. I should have substituted critical thinking for the scientific method, so the phrase you quoted of mine should read I think one aspect of critical thinking is the willingness to examine documents and studies that attempt to refute current accepted positions. I think the scientific method is a useful tool in critical thinking, but critical thinking can extend to fields other than science. Thanks for drawing my attention to my awkwardly worded first attempt.

I don't think I could find a paper that does what you are asking, mainly because, IMO, there are many aspects of intelligent design theory that can't be scientifically tested. A number of ID proponents refuse to believe this, of course, which is just one of the main reasons I find evolution & natural selection to be superior scientific theories. I do believe Dembski exhibits critical thinking on some issues. I'd say more, but I'm finding the discussion generally hostile with little analysis of, or attempts at understanding, the points I was making. Any more input from me is unlikely to be helpful for myself or those who think differently, so I'll just bow out of the thread.

[Adree]

I don't think I could find a paper that does what you are asking, mainly because, IMO, there are many aspects of intelligent design theory that can't be scientifically tested. A number of ID proponents refuse to believe this, of course, which is just one of the main reasons I find evolution & natural selection to be superior scientific theories.

It is not a scientific theory.

[Funkula]

I don't think I could find a paper that does what you are asking, mainly because, IMO, there are many aspects of intelligent design theory that can't be scientifically tested.

There you go. It can't be tested, therefore it is not science, and thus cannot be debated as such. The proper response to someone introducing it as an alternate theory is "It is not a theory, it is a series of unfalsifiable postulates, and as such it is incapable of explaining anything scientifically."

The reason for the hostility is that 9 times out of 10 ID is used in bad faith as a stalking horse for creationism. That is in fact the entire reason that it was conceived. It does suck that unwarranted hostility is sometimes heaped on an innocent person trying to learn more, but nerves tend to get a bit frayed the ninth or tenth time you find yourself having the argument.

[Euri]

I will state one thing for the record:

We know more, and understand more about Evolution than we do about gravity. If you don't 'believe' in Evolution, you may as well not believe in gravity. Both are blindingly obvious to anyone not totally retarded, and we actually have a method for how Evolution actually WORKS. You can't really say that about gravity. When it comes right down to it we know shit about it. We know what it does, but we only have vague mathematical understanding of the how and the why, and we have no understanding at all of how it relates to every other force in the universe.

Intelligent Design is another word for creationism. It is an obvious attempt to subvert science in favour of religion. It is a power ploy.

[Lizard_King]

I have no interest in Expelled, but I do know a number of folks who elevate science to dogma, and I think the term scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism) fits. In some ways, they bug me even more than fundamentalist religious folks, because as a fellow scientist, I believe they should know better.
I don't believe it's up to me to bring someone to the point where they understand that things that simply aren't scientific need to be "refuted" as if they weren't specifically designed to evade those tests. I believe it's exactly that tolerance for fundamentalists and their "contributions" to the scientific debate that's brought us to the perilous point where school boards are seriously considering inflicting this on our already struggling public schools.

I used a poor phrase in my last post. I should have substituted critical thinking for the scientific method, so the phrase you quoted of mine should read I think one aspect of critical thinking is the willingness to examine documents and studies that attempt to refute current accepted positions. I think the scientific method is a useful tool in critical thinking, but critical thinking can extend to fields other than science. Thanks for drawing my attention to my awkwardly worded first attempt.
Yeah, I have, for myself, as part of my education. I've read the books, I've listened to the arguments as presented by allegedly educated people, some in my own family even, and I've found them not only lacking but worrisome.

I don't think I could find a paper that does what you are asking, mainly because, IMO, there are many aspects of intelligent design theory that can't be scientifically tested. A number of ID proponents refuse to believe this, of course, which is just one of the main reasons I find evolution & natural selection to be superior scientific theories. I do believe Dembski exhibits critical thinking on some issues. I'd say more, but I'm finding the discussion generally hostile with little analysis of, or attempts at understanding, the points I was making. Any more input from me is unlikely to be helpful for myself or those who think differently, so I'll just bow out of the thread.
It's not a question of superior. They are simply not the same kind of thing. And the fact that you (a scientist) can take an article of faith and mistake it for a brand of critical thinking that belongs in a science curriculum is illustrative of just how pernicious it is.

You claim to be concerned about my hostile tone? Let me tell you what's worse: being an enabler for Kraaze and people like him that are caught in the middle. If you were curious middle schoolers it'd be one thing, but you are grown men capable of voting, raising children, and in generally being fully active members of society. I don't think asking you to demand that ID meet basic minimum standards of science before it belongs in that category is excessive.

It's the same courtesy that atheists need to extend religions when it comes to intruding into their appropriate sphere of society. You can have your tax free operations and as many faiths as people can handle, but leave them out of our allegedly secular schools. At least Muslim fundamentalists have the decency to label their madrassas plainly without any pretensions to what they aren't.

[Hanzii]

I hate it when I agree with LK ;-)
But the man is spot on.

You people can believe what you want and question evolution to your hearts content. You're free to teach your kids that what they learn in school is wrong - but trying to prevent other kids from learning it or presenting faith alongside with science so kids that are allready struggling to understand very complex matters gets even more confused, is not right.

You of all people should be fighting this fight, since it's written in the one document many Americans holds more sacred than the bible (and which has inspired the rest of the world).

[salwon]

According to some hardcore IDers, once they win Science, Civics is next.

[Kraaze]

I hate it when I agree with LK ;-)
But the man is spot on.

You people can believe what you want and question evolution to your hearts content. You're free to teach your kids that what they learn in school is wrong - but trying to prevent other kids from learning it or presenting faith alongside with science so kids that are allready struggling to understand very complex matters gets even more confused, is not right.

You of all people should be fighting this fight, since it's written in the one document many Americans holds more sacred than the bible (and which has inspired the rest of the world).

That's a noble sentiment and one I agree with fwiw but I still don't understand how it relates to the discussion at hand. Who is defending the idea of ID or the idea of teaching ID here?

[Tim James]

According to some hardcore IDers, once they win Science, Civics is next.
http://www.onmoneymaking.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/scared.jpg

We'll be answering to the Pope!

Hell, what if the hardcore IDers want to teach what the Constitution actually is and does? That would certainly be nice.

[salwon]

Well...not quite. You know how the Constitution says that America has judges? Apparently there are those who think there is only the one judge.

Although I think it's important to note that almost 0 of these guys are Catholics. We may not believe in condoms, but at least we have no problems with DNA!

[Enidigm]

I'm confused by this part of your post. It sounds like you are saying that high school teachers do regularly teach critical thinking, but that the level has to be adjusted for high school comprehension. I'm having difficulty with your examples. Could you give a few more examples of topics that you believe could effectively be used to promote critical thinking in high school?

Sorry i was confusing, it was off-the-cuff.

What i meant to say and imply was that critical thinking as understood, based upon the intellectual framework and knowledge of high school students, is more instinctive and based on broad understandings - and, ergo, basically indefensible and lacking rigour.

I understood the the theological implications of the fossil records, gas giants, geological timeframes, ect., before i was 10 years old; it's not hard to see contradictions. But i couldn't really defend those positions against an intellectual critique other than to fire back some critiques of my own.

Hard sciences are hard to pin down with critical thinking - a watchword used far more in the literature and social sciences classes. Critical thinking is connecting the dots between economic and political fortunes of empires and nations in a history class, or between the allegories of The Catcher in the Rye and the author's life; science thinking is asking why plants are all green if the different kinds of chlorophyll are equally efficient, or thinking abstractly/mechanically in a physics class (designing the ubiquitous egg saving container dropped off a building).

Criticial thinking is not asking for a proof of every trignometric function, in every class, every day. Or asking to prove that George Washington really existed.

We live in a strange time where knowledge itself is mutable; in a time where the basic foundation of epistomology, observation, is no longer completely valid. Everything is falsifiable and changable; video, pictures, audio can all be faked, changed, and corrupted. Teaching kids that, you know, there might be something else, that nothing is certain, that everything that is known is questionable, and rejectable, is i think what those who dismiss ID most fear would be the outcome of a politically expedient curiculum that directly shows an example of rejecting hard science if it is uncomfortable.

[Tim James]

Although I think it's important to note that almost 0 of these guys are Catholics. We may not believe in condoms, but at least we have no problems with DNA!True. Protestants need a good leadership figure so the joke works. I don't follow it so I don't know if any of those televangelists are still alive. That might work.

[skedastic]

Although I think it's important to note that almost 0 of these guys are Catholics. We may not believe in condoms, but at least we have no problems with DNA!

Roughly 30% U.S. Catholics believe humans and other animals were created exactly as they are today and did not evolve. Roughly another 30% believe in evolution which was guided by God rather than natural selection, which is the argument of sophisticated Intelligent Design advocates. Only about 30% believe in evolution through natural selection. Source. (http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties)

[Unicorn McGriddle]

You can have your tax free operations and as many faiths as people can handle

Why does religion need tax-free status? Special privileges for religion, even if extended to all religions, force the government to get into the business of deciding what counts as a religion and constitute a government promotion of religion.

We live in a strange time where knowledge itself is mutable; in a time where the basic foundation of epistomology, observation, is no longer completely valid. Everything is falsifiable and changable; video, pictures, audio can all be faked, changed, and corrupted.

Fallibility of the senses, new for 2008. "Knowledge itself is mutable"? What the fuck do you think knowledge IS? Has observation EVER unquestionably guaranteed a truth value? Has ANYTHING?

Teaching kids that, you know, there might be something else, that nothing is certain, that everything that is known is questionable, and rejectable

Never fear THAT, champ. Intelligent Design is not a movement of skeptics, but one of believers. The problem is not that everything is open to falsification and subject to doubt, but that the things they consider important are NOT. Therefore, anything that conflicts with them MUST be false.

Everything that is known can be questioned. For the questions to be good ones, they should be grounded in reasonable certainties, but nothing should be considered fundamentally (word apropos) above question. Popper, represent.

[Tim James]

Roughly 30% U.S. Catholics believe humans and other animals were created exactly as they are today and did not evolve.Those are some seriously confused people. Not only do they not believe science, but they don't believe their religious teachings. I guess they believe in... noise that shows up in polls?
Never fear THAT, champ. Intelligent Design is not a movement of skeptics, but one of believers.Yeah I think a better politicized topic for teaching kids skepticism is global warming. Haha!

[MarchHare]

Those are some seriously confused people.

No kidding. Didn't the Vatican accept evolution about 50 years ago? How are 30% of American Catholics so far behind the established beliefs of their own religion?

[Kraaze]

Why does religion need tax-free status? Special privileges for religion, even if extended to all religions, force the government to get into the business of deciding what counts as a religion and constitute a government promotion of religion.


Religions gets tax free status for the same reason that secular non profit organizations get tax free status.

[Tim James]

Why does religion need tax-free status?Funny that you bring that up. A lot of libertarians argue that this lets government get their hooks into religion, and that it's a bad thing because churches are starting to get behind war, state-paid/faith-run welfare, etc. Now that evangelicals are fighting evolution or whatever, maybe the secular types should go after the money! They ought to hop right into place.

[asspennies]

Also, I really hate the abuse of the word 'theory'. Theories in science are backed up by evidence, research, and experimentation. They are simply not called facts because scientists are smart enough to know that until they can prove it conclusively via either experimentation or other means, they leave the doors open.

That doesn't mean someone just pulled it out of their ass, and that's what all these ID fuckwits would have you believe.

I hate it too, but I hate that scientists themselves abuse it all the time. Think about "String Theory." There's no evidence, no experimentation whatsoever. It is at BEST a conjecture - there's not even a complete hypothesis yet.

To me, it's a lot like people shouting nyah-nyah at people they find stupid when they pronounce nuclear "nucular," but not saying a word when people they find smart do the very same thing.

Until scientists stop calling it "String Theory", the "A Theory is different than a theory" argument is going to be full of holes. It gives the impression - not unfounded - that scientists can declare what is "Theory" simply by fiat.

[Anaxagoras]

I find it amusing that, after a whole thread of people lamenting how ID will destroy education and critical thinking, I'm the first person to be called out for hyperbole.

There's lot of suspect things taught to kids in school every day. One more isn't going to ruin the whole experience or the value of education. If I honestly thought (and I don't) that just teaching ID would shut the fundies up and that would be the end of the strife I'd be all for it.

Jesus Christ. No one has claimed that teaching ID will single-handedly destroy education and critical thinking. The way you summarized the thread is, already, hyperbolic. And inaccurate. If you're wondering why people are jumping down your throat, it's because you're lazily waving your hand in the air, saying "I don't see what the big deal is", and putting up half-assed arguments as to why it's no big deal. When someone who's lazy & ignorant is arguing that proveably unscientific theories should be taught in a science class, that tends to anger those of us who are scientists. Hell... it angers those of us who aren't.

BTW.... Tim... that paragraph that you quoted of mine that you thought was filled with hyperboles... it wasn't. Every single thing stated in that paragraph is exactly true, not hyperbolic.

[Glenn]

Funny that you bring that up. A lot of libertarians argue that this lets government get their hooks into religion, and that it's a bad thing because churches are starting to get behind war, state-paid/faith-run welfare, etc. Now that evangelicals are fighting evolution or whatever, maybe the secular types should go after the money! They ought to hop right into place.Or they can just pay taxes like every other social club. Stepping down off a pedestal is not the same as being thrown in a ditch.

[Kraaze]

Jesus Christ. No one has claimed that teaching ID will single-handedly destroy education and critical thinking. The way you summarized the thread is, already, hyperbolic. And inaccurate. If you're wondering why people are jumping down your throat, it's because you're lazily waving your hand in the air, saying "I don't see what the big deal is", and putting up half-assed arguments as to why it's no big deal. When someone who's lazy & ignorant is arguing that proveably unscientific theories should be taught in a science class, that tends to anger those of us who are scientists. Hell... it angers those of us who aren't.


Oh my, such name calling? Now I'm lazy and ignorant to boot?

Interesting that you think name calling and getting angry is the proper way to deal with someone who lacks knowledge. That's especially ironic considering education is a core topic of this thread. You've really impressed me with your abuse and won me over to your way of thinking. You win!

[Tim James]

Or they can just pay taxes like every other social club. Stepping down off a pedestal is not the same as being thrown in a ditch.I was thinking that social clubs and hundreds of other types of organizations and businesses could just not pay income tax either, but your way has a similar effect of equalization.
BTW.... Tim... that paragraph that you quoted of mine that you thought was filled with hyperboles... it wasn't. Every single thing stated in that paragraph is exactly true, not hyperbolic.Ah, now it all makes sense.When you live in a democracy, massive levels of ignorance in a wide swath of the population, coupled with an inability to think critically, is a dangerous situation.You stupid jerks will note that he didn't say teaching ID will single-handedly destroy critical thinking. He's just stating a general fact that could apply to anything. So lay off.

[tromik]

No kidding. Didn't the Vatican accept evolution about 50 years ago? How are 30% of American Catholics so far behind the established beliefs of their own religion?
Yea, I remember learning in school that the Catholic church stated that God drove evolution after Origin of the Species was released. However, that may have just been their position before The Descent of Man.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Oh my, such name calling? Now I'm lazy and ignorant to boot?

Interesting that you think name calling and getting angry is the proper way to deal with someone who lacks knowledge. That's especially ironic considering education is a core topic of this thread. You've really impressed me with your abuse and won me over to your way of thinking. You win!

You're being an idiot and saying dumb things. We can pretend that you have an intriguing viewpoint, but that would just legitimize idiocy. A rude reception for you is kind of a microcosm of refusal to teach Intelligent Design.

Religions gets tax free status for the same reason that secular non profit organizations get tax free status.

Why can't religions seek tax exemption under the same conditions as secular organizations? If they're non-profit, that is.

[salwon]

Roughly 30% U.S. Catholics believe humans and other animals were created exactly as they are today and did not evolve. Roughly another 30% believe in evolution which was guided by God rather than natural selection, which is the argument of sophisticated Intelligent Design advocates. Only about 30% believe in evolution through natural selection. Source.

Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time;

Source (http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties)

[tiohn]

Why aren't we teaching the Ptolemaic System? It yields very accurate results, so our students should be free to decide for themselves where the center of the universe is!

[Kraaze]

You're being an idiot and saying dumb things. We can pretend that you have an intriguing viewpoint, but that would just legitimize idiocy. A rude reception for you is kind of a microcosm of refusal to teach Intelligent Design.


It must be comforting to know that if you can't be eloquent or persuasive, you at least have juvenile name calling to fall back on.


Why can't religions seek tax exemption under the same conditions as secular organizations? If they're non-profit, that is.

Well, there is that whole constitutional issue against establishment of a religion. Religions get the free pass while the secular organizations can be more tightly regulated.

[extarbags]

Well, there is that whole constitutional issue against establishment of a religion. Religions get the free pass while the secular organizations can be more tightly regulated.

So... isn't giving religions special privileges kind of the opposite of that?

[Tim James]

So... isn't giving religions special privileges kind of the opposite of that?Again, in my fantasy world I like to think that keeping all of your income is the default state, not the privilege. It's just that most every other organization and individual gets sucked dry for taxes. :)

I didn't realize that churches don't even have to file for tax exemption status under the IRS code. They just get an automatic exception. That actually seems like fewer hooks from the feds than I thought.

[Quaro]

believe in evolution which was guided by God rather than natural selection, which is the argument of sophisticated Intelligent Design advocates.

I've always been confused by the "guided by God" thing. In Expelled you also hear that evolution was "powered by God" rather than natural selection.

The scientists referenced in Expelled, like Sternberg, argue that there's too much happening in the Cambrian explosion for it to be explained by just natural selection. But natural selection is just fine for other parts of the Earth's history. So evolution via natural selection explains most of life, but not all.

But this doesn't seem to be the argument of sophisticated ID advocates? Rather, God replaces natural selection entirely. And does it in a way that looks like it's controlled by selection pressures, except for few outliers where decided not to make it look like that. A weird designer.

[Wallapuctus]

Guys life on earth was seeded by extraterrestrials, and I demand that this alternative viewpoint be taught in schools. I have plenty of evidence to support it.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

It must be comforting to know that if you can't be eloquent or persuasive, you at least have juvenile name calling to fall back on.

Do you think it's more or less comforting for me to be unable to persuade you than it is for you to be unable to be persuaded?

Well, there is that whole constitutional issue against establishment of a religion. Religions get the free pass while the secular organizations can be more tightly regulated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The obvious question in interpretation is whether this is intended to place religion above the law, or simply protect it from discrimination. Naturally, you favor the former interpretation -- what else can a double-secret Creationist do? (For your next post: "I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm not even arguing for intelligent design! I just don't see why you're all so DOWN on fundamentalists rewriting biology as scripture. Don't you want to learn more about their faith-based science? OPEN YOUR MIIIND MAN, EVERYTHING IS TRUE, NOTHING IS PERMITTED.")

Practice, however, favors the latter. Religion is not a defense against any law you don't like. Kill somebody and you'll be charged as normal no matter how devout you are or what official spiritual position you hold. (Think of all the banbers with crucifix jewelry or religious tattoos. You can paint the Virgin Mary on your ass but she won't get the cops off it.) Even the regulations of federal and state agencies have force over institutions of religion. (Turn your apartment block into a Tower of Silence and watch the CDC investigate. Let the EPA have some fun with a petrochemical plant designated a "church" in order to protect its dangerous emissions as sacraments.)

No, that clause is about not outlawing a specific religion, which happened quite a bit in European history. And it's about not making a religion's adherents second-class citizens, which also happened a lot, or adopting a state religion, which -- you guessed it -- was common in the national histories the founders were familiar with. Churches not paying taxes? That's an oppressive, archaic holdover from the ecclesiastical privileges of the Vatican's glory days, when religious institutions were loci of wealth. Friendly state subsidies for mind flayers and soul tyrants. It may have made some of the Constitution's drafters feel comfortable, the way "equal time" for religion and science in a scientific discipline makes YOU feel comfortable, but it was a betrayal of the revolutionary ideals that drove a different wedge between church and state than the mutual and mutually exclusive ambitions of priests and princes.

Complain some more about how little respect you're getting. You talked shit and we told you to wipe your mouth. Now you're pretending that you could have changed your mind, if only we'd been POLITE. Which is a complete fucking lie -- one so bad, it's as bad as the rest of your shit. You weren't gonna change your mind. I fucking guarantee you that you leave this thread with your absurd beliefs about biogodology (because you put the GOD in biology, geddit?) unchanged and even reinforced. People who disagree with you... why, they just aren't DECENT. My goodness.

[Kraaze]

The obvious question in interpretation is whether this is intended to place religion above the law, or simply protect it from discrimination. Naturally, you favor the former interpretation -- what else can a double-secret Creationist do? (For your next post: "I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm not even arguing for intelligent design! I just don't see why you're all so DOWN on fundamentalists rewriting biology as scripture. Don't you want to learn more about their faith-based science? OPEN YOUR MIIIND MAN, EVERYTHING IS TRUE, NOTHING IS PERMITTED.")


Now I'm a double secret creationist because I wanted to discuss specifically how and to what extent ID is bad? Hehe, this thread continues to deliver. I hope Tom reads this and awards me a special title.



Practice, however, favors the latter. Religion is not a defense against any law you don't like. Kill somebody and you'll be charged as normal no matter how devout you are or what official spiritual position you hold. (Think of all the banbers with crucifix jewelry or religious tattoos. You can paint the Virgin Mary on your ass but she won't get the cops off it.) Even the regulations of federal and state agencies have force over institutions of religion. (Turn your apartment block into a Tower of Silence and watch the CDC investigate. Let the EPA have some fun with a petrochemical plant designated a "church" in order to protect its dangerous emissions as sacraments.)

No, that clause is about not outlawing a specific religion, which happened quite a bit in European history. And it's about not making a religion's adherents second-class citizens, which also happened a lot, or adopting a state religion, which -- you guessed it -- was common in the national histories the founders were familiar with. Churches not paying taxes? That's an oppressive, archaic holdover from the ecclesiastical privileges of the Vatican's glory days, when religious institutions were loci of wealth. Friendly state subsidies for mind flayers and soul tyrants. It may have made some of the Constitution's drafters feel comfortable, the way "equal time" for religion and science in a scientific discipline makes YOU feel comfortable, but it was a betrayal of the revolutionary ideals that drove a different wedge between church and state than the mutual and mutually exclusive ambitions of priests and princes.


I like the concept of state subsidized illithids. Could you expand on that a bit more?


Complain some more about how little respect you're getting. You talked shit and we told you to wipe your mouth. Now you're pretending that you could have changed your mind, if only we'd been POLITE. Which is a complete fucking lie -- one so bad, it's as bad as the rest of your shit. You weren't gonna change your mind. I fucking guarantee you that you leave this thread with your absurd beliefs about biogodology (because you put the GOD in biology, geddit?) unchanged and even reinforced. People who disagree with you... why, they just aren't DECENT. My goodness.

Oh my, you've certainly laid a crystal clear argument for why you are the shining voice of reason in this thread and I'm just being willfully ignorant by ignoring you. But please continue, your tantrum is amusing if nothing else.

[extarbags]

Again, in my fantasy world I like to think that keeping all of your income is the default state, not the privilege.

Well as you say, that's in your fantasy world.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Now I'm a double secret creationist because I wanted to discuss specifically how and to what extent ID is bad?

Between this and your passionate case for a law that bans "tasteless" abortions? I'd say yes, particularly since Intelligent Design is all about masking the doctrinaire promotion of a religious viewpoint as OH BUT THE DISCOURSE. This is exactly what you're doing. People say "Intelligent Design is not science" and you respond "are you suuuure? Are you EXTRA sure?" There is no "debate" to have on Intelligent Design, any more than we should be talking about whether packets of silica gel should be included in school lunches*.

But please continue, your tantrum is amusing if nothing else.

You are far above the churlishness of the people who call you out. The Emperor's new clothes are FABULOUS.

*As food, I mean. I guess they could be used to keep the individually packaged portions of boot-sole sandwiches dry.

[Kraaze]

Between this and your passionate case for a law that bans "tasteless" abortions? I'd say yes, particularly since Intelligent Design is all about masking the doctrinaire promotion of a religious viewpoint as OH BUT THE DISCOURSE. This is exactly what you're doing. People say "Intelligent Design is not science" and you respond "are you suuuure? Are you EXTRA sure?" There is no "debate" to have on Intelligent Design, any more than we should be talking about whether packets of silica gel should be included in school lunches*.


So if I'm not with you I'm against you. And asking questions automatically makes someone against you.

Where have I heard this reasoning before . . . ?

[Unicorn McGriddle]

And now I'm Bush. Good to see you're saving your A material for when you've got a better cause of the moment than "let us once again pretend that fundamentalists might know more about biology than biologists."

[shift6]

I will state one thing for the record:

We know more, and understand more about Evolution than we do about gravity.
While true, this is a fairly vacuous statement. When comparing an entire field of study and framework for most of an entire segment of science (biology) to a single topic in one area of science, of course we know more about the former. It's just so much larger. We could know 90% about gravity and 30% about Evolution and your statement would still be true.

Intelligent Design is another word for creationism. It is an obvious attempt to subvert science in favour of religion. It is a power ploy.
Agreed.

[Anaxagoras]

Oh my, such name calling? Now I'm lazy and ignorant to boot?

Interesting that you think name calling and getting angry is the proper way to deal with someone who lacks knowledge.

Nick? Those words "lazy" and "ignorant"? They're not just labels. (aka name-calling.) They're actual meaning-filled adjectives that describe your behaviour. And I believe that using adjectives to accurately describe something is the proper way to deal with someone who lacks knowledge. (aka someone who is ignorant) That's how knowledge is imparted.

Did I expect you to be swayed by the analysis? Of course not. You've already dug in your heels and have shown very little interest in fixing your ignorance. You've shown much more interest in advancing your ignorant thesis & lazily expecting us to provide arguments so simple that even you can understand them. (You'll notice that adjective "lazy" is making a reappearance. There's a reason for that. It's an accurate description.)

Many people in this thread would be happy to educate you. But there's no point in educating you when you consider "ignorant" to be an empty name call. Nick... you *are* ignorant about evolution. I'm sorry, but you are.


BTW... Tim... those words that you highlighted in my post? Yeah... those are the ones that weren't hyperbolic. I already stated that. I'm not sure why you thought highlighting the words somehow supported your argument.

[Anaxagoras]

While true, this is a fairly vacuous statement. When comparing an entire field of study and framework for most of an entire segment of science (biology) to a single topic in one area of science, of course we know more about the former. It's just so much larger. We could know 90% about gravity and 30% about Evolution and your statement would still be true.

Nah.... if we knew 90% about gravity and 30% about Evolution, then we would understand gravity better than Evolution. But I think the point that Euri was trying to make, and I suspect he slightly misquoted it, is that the theory of Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science... it has more support than the theory of Gravity. And that point is 100% true.

[Euri]

While true, this is a fairly vacuous statement. When comparing an entire field of study and framework for most of an entire segment of science (biology) to a single topic in one area of science, of course we know more about the former. It's just so much larger. We could know 90% about gravity and 30% about Evolution and your statement would still be true.

I understand your criticism, but we're not a technical bunch here. My intention was to evoke a visceral response on the level that is used in this debate by 'the other side.' It is a problem with science in general. Intellectuals and scientists are losing a culture war because they refuse to use easily remember slogans. Science is, in and of itself, not an easy topic when you get into the meat of it, and religion just feels better to most people. So, combat that by comparing something like Evolution, which to some people is vague and theoretical, to something that they take for granted and observe every day. If we wanted to couch the analogy in more equal term, substitute gravity for cosmology, or physics. We know a lot about what the universe is doing, but not why. We are missing matter, missing particles, missing a lot of things. We're further, much further ahead in biology than we are in physics.

[Darniaq]

And we're going to miss the next stages of knowledge evolution if we keep allowing the support of these throwback theistic "understanding" of things.

I'm fine with individuals thinking whatever they want. But when you try to nationalize voluntary ignorance on my tax dollars...