Dover Panda Trial: Prediction of the Judge's Verdict

[Diamond]

It's time for skeptics to show their great paranormal powers against our team of highly trained psychics and predict the verdict by the judge in the Dover Panda Trial.

[Darat]

OK - he won't rule that ID is or isn't science he will however rule that the board's decision was a decsion to introduce religion into the classroom.

[Betenoire]

I think the judge's questioning indicates that he wasn't buying the "We didn't have a religious intent" argument from the Dover people. If that's so, then he understands there was religious intent, which means he rule against them.

[Mojo]

ID will be declared heresy; Michael Behe sentenced to be burned at the stake.





I bet you didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

[drkitten]

I think the judge's questioning indicates that he wasn't buying the "We didn't have a religious intent" argument from the Dover people. If that's so, then he understands there was religious intent, which means he rule against them.

Yeah. It is traditional for judges to make the narrowest ruling they can. In this case, the evidence that the intention of the board is religious is sufficiently strong that he can just find that he can just make a finding on the boards' intention and punt the rest.

Having said, this, I take heart from his response to the (rhetorical) question posed by the plaintiff's lawyers about "are we just going to be hearing from the Sudden Emergence movement?" I think the judge would like to write a statement damning ID and the horse it came in on as a cheap sham.

[Mojo]

Yeah. It is traditional for judges to make the narrowest ruling they can. In this case, the evidence that the intention of the board is religious is sufficiently strong that he can just find that he can just make a finding on the boards' intention and punt the rest. I think that's the point he has to rule on anyway. There's no prohibition on teaching bad science, just the separation of church and state thing. The purpose of the plaintiff's argument that ID is not real science was just to show that its introduction must have had a religious motivation.

[brodski]

As for science versus religion, I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 feet away from science at all times. :D

I was half expecting that the defendants would call a poet as a witness to testify that truth is beauty, and bueaty truth. The would then petition the judge to hold all scientific knowledge in comtempt of court, for being neither true, not beautiful.

[brodski]

I bet you didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

Mojo, at this point everybody expects the Spanish inquisition. :D

[chipmunk stew]

God will strike down the judge and the new Dover school board before the case can be decided. Pat Robertson will say, "See? I told you so. Isn't God the Greatest?"

[Luke T.]

I think that's the point he has to rule on anyway. There's no prohibition on teaching bad science, just the separation of church and state thing. The purpose of the plaintiff's argument that ID is not real science was just to show that its introduction must have had a religious motivation.

Hmmm. Suppose IDer's came clean and admitted ID is theologically based? Does that mean ID is automatically forbidden from the classroom under church and state separation, or just from the science classroom?

If it can be taught just down the hall in Sociology or Philosophy, that does not violate church and state separation.

This is about separation of church and science.

[Melendwyr]

Hmmm. Suppose IDer's came clean and admitted ID is theologically based? Does that mean ID is automatically forbidden from the classroom under church and state separation, or just from the science classroom?

If it can be taught just down the hall in Sociology or Philosophy, that does not violate church and state separation. It can be taught just down the hall only if it's not presented as factual, but as a set of beliefs intended to be examined from an outside perspective.

Comparative religion classes do not put forward any religious opinion. The stuff that's taught in science class is supposed to be the truth, or the best approximation of it we have.

[Luke T.]

The stuff that's taught in science class is supposed to be the truth, or the best approximation of it we have.

So the judge is supposed to rule on whether ID is the truth?

[drkitten]

I think that's the point he has to rule on anyway.

Depends on how you approach the case (and how you read Lemon). Another "theory of the case" is that teaching ID has no legitimate secular purpose -- basically going to the second prong of the Lemon test instead of the first. Under this argument, the board's purpose in setting policy is irrelevant -- they may have simply been led astray by bad company, to wit, the Discovery Institute and the More Law Center. Or they may have been willing accomplices. But because the board's decision is specifically bad public policy and has the effect of establishing religion, the judge need not make a determination about the board's motives, but only upon the primary effect of the policy. (I believe that this was the basis for the Cook County Sticker judgement -- merely putting the stickers on the textbook, regardless of the motivation, was impermissible.)

The purpose of the plaintiff's argument that ID is not real science was just to show that its introduction must have had a religious motivation.

See above -- if the introduction itself violates the separation of church and states, then the motivations are irrelevant.

Plaintiff actually argued both -- first, that the board was obviously acting from religious motives, and second, even if the board were not acting from religious motives, the primary effect would be to weaken the teaching of evolution and to strengthen ("establish") ID.

This gives the judge two legally separate reasons to rule in the plaintiffs favor. If the judge is serious about this case, he'll address both of them separately in his ruling and issue findings in favor of the plaintiffs on both reasons. This makes the decision much harder to appeal, since the appellate court would have to find both of Judge Jones' reasons incorrect in order to reverse on appeal.

Frankly, if I were the judge, I'd be inclined not to worry about possible appellate consequences, since the new board has more or less stated that they won't appeal against the board. This would also mean that I'd be unlikely to recommend perjury prosections against the various liars we saw in the stand, and similarly the More Center manages to escape a barratry charge (because those would provoke appeals). So Judge Jones has something of a free hand to write whatever he wants....

[drkitten]

So the judge is supposed to rule on whether ID is the truth?

No, just on whether there's a secular reason for regarding it as the truth.

[Luke T.]

No, just on whether there's a secular reason for regarding it as the truth.

Can there be a secular reason for regarding the existence of a God as a possible truth?

[Melendwyr]

So the judge is supposed to rule on whether ID is the truth? Oh, brother.

If ID is religiously-based, the government cannot present it as truth, and it cannot be in a science classroom for that reason. What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

[Luke T.]

Oh, brother.

If ID is religiously-based, the government cannot present it as truth, and it cannot be in a science classroom for that reason. What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

If evolution is a theory, is it a truth?

I am playing devil's advocate. A little socratic method. That's all. Don't assume my motives.

[KingMerv00]

Plaintiffs will win. There will be no appeal now that the school board has been replaced.

I give it 9 months before an identical case appears in Kansas.

[drkitten]

Can there be a secular reason for regarding the existence of a God as a possible truth?

Are you really so deceptive as to misrepresent the difference between "the truth" and "a possible truth"?

There are indeed legitimate secular reasons for regarding the existence of God as a possible truth. That's why comparative religion classes -- and indeed, much of the social science curriculum -- is able to pass constitutional muster. You can't understand history, geopolitics, philosophy, or political science without an understanding of the idea of God as a "possible truth."

There are no legitimate secular reasons for regarding the existence of God as a possible truth in a science class, because the existence of God is not a scientific question.

There are no legitimate secular reasons for regarding the existence of God as "the truth" in any class.

[Betenoire]

If evolution is a theory, is it a truth?

I am playing devil's advocate. A little socratic method. That's all. Don't assume my motives.

"[Science] is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

[drkitten]

I am playing devil's advocate. A little socratic method.

Was Socrates in the habit of twisting the wording of his debate partners in order to misrepresent what they actually said?

If not, then I suggest you might revisit your method.

[Melendwyr]

If evolution is a theory, is it a truth?

I am playing devil's advocate. A little socratic method. That's all. Don't assume my motives. No - the Socratic Method involves asking intelligent questions.

[Luke T.]

There are no legitimate secular reasons for regarding the existence of God as a possible truth in a science class, because the existence of God is not a scientific question.

It isn't? I've been reading Stephen Hawking lately and he seems to think it is. Should his books be banned from the science classroom?

Before anyone blows a gasket, I think my stand on the separation of church and state is pretty well established. Just do a search for "Tocqueville" on here and see my posts about the subject.

[Luke T.]

My opinion on the IDers is that they are being dishonest by claiming ID is not theologically based. Considering these are church people pushing for it to be taught in school, that they actually lie about the matter is the height of hypocricy. Classic hiding your light under a bushel tactics. I think they are doing irreparable damage to themselves.

[drkitten]

I've been reading creationist misrepresentations of Stephen Hawking lately and he seems to think it is. Should his books be banned from the science classroom?


You left out a few words.

If you're not a Creationist (and therefore a liar), you're a troll (and therefore an idiot).

Either way, our discussion has just concluded.

[Luke T.]

The end result of all this is that more and more Christians will home school. Isolate their children from society. This, we don't need.

[Luke T.]

You left out a few words.

If you're not a Creationist (and therefore a liar), you're a troll (and therefore an idiot).

Either way, our discussion has just concluded.

Excuse me? A Brief History of Time is a creationist misrepresentation?

Never heard that before.

[Melendwyr]

It isn't? I've been reading Stephen Hawking lately and he seems to think it is. Should his books be banned from the science classroom? I think it's pretty clear you didn't understand what he meant.

Luke T. is a moderator, yes? How can we report him for trolling?

[Luke T.]

According to a number of early cosmologies and the Jewish/Christian/Muslim tradition, the universe started at a finite, and not very distant, time in the past. One argument for such a beginning was the feeling that it was necessary to have “First Cause” to explain the existence of the universe. (Within the universe, you always explained one event as being caused by some earlier event, but the existence of the universe itself could be explained in this way only if it had some beginning.) Another argument was put forward by St. Augustine in his book The City of God. He pointed out that civilization is progressing and we remember who performed this deed or developed that technique. Thus man, and so also perhaps the universe, could not have been around all that long. St. Augustine accepted a date of about 5000 BC for the Creation of the universe according to the book of Genesis. (It is interesting that this is not so far from the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 BC, which is when archaeologists tell us that civilization really began.)

Chapter 1 (http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/n.html)

How am I misunderstanding that?

[Luke T.]

Luke T. is a moderator, yes?

No.

How can we report him for trolling?

You want to report me? Woooooooo!

Feel free.

But your preconceived notions of me are way off base. Totally clouding your perception.

[drkitten]

How am I misunderstanding that?

In how you apparently think that it says anything at all about whether or not the existence of God is a scientific question.

[Melendwyr]

Upon re-reading the chapter, it's as clear to me now as it was when I first read that book that Hawking is drawing a stark and not-very-flattering comparison between past religious and present scientific models of the universe.

And we once again confirm that Luke T. does not bother to think when confronted with a conclusion he likes.

[PatKelley]

According to a number of early cosmologies and the Jewish/Christian/Muslim tradition, the universe started at a finite, and not very distant, time in the past. One argument for such a beginning was the feeling that it was necessary to have “First Cause” to explain the existence of the universe. (Within the universe, you always explained one event as being caused by some earlier event, but the existence of the universe itself could be explained in this way only if it had some beginning.) Another argument was put forward by St. Augustine in his book The City of God. He pointed out that civilization is progressing and we remember who performed this deed or developed that technique. Thus man, and so also perhaps the universe, could not have been around all that long. St. Augustine accepted a date of about 5000 BC for the Creation of the universe according to the book of Genesis. (It is interesting that this is not so far from the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 BC, which is when archaeologists tell us that civilization really began.)
Chapter 1 (http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/n.html)

How am I misunderstanding that?
Um. Not to jump into the fray, but that's a history of cosmological ponderings. A nutshell of human understanding of the cosmos and time, not an argument for God; just why a beginning date for the universe would be palatable to those seeking a "first cause."

[Luke T.]

Melendwyr, your misperception of me started with my quoting Hawking in another topic, ironically enough. You completely failed to see I was being humorous at that time, because your blind hatred of Bush caused you to not see that I was making fun of the contradiction of natural selection and how goofy Bush is and yet has come to dominate, and you have not recovered since. It was satire, man!

Since then, you have had a hardon for me and can't see straight.

Go back and read that topic again with this new knowledge and hopefully you will now see. Start with my post about how we Republicans don't control that solenoid valve in Montana.

Jesus!

[Luke T.]

Um. Not to jump into the fray, but that's a history of cosmological ponderings. A nutshell of human understanding of the cosmos and time, not an argument for God; just why a beginning date for the universe would be palatable to those seeking a "first cause."

Exactly. Thank you! I was starting to get worried here.

Now there is nothing wrong with Hawking's presentation, right? Perfectly suitable for the classroom?

If your answer is yes, then we can proceed in the direction I have been aiming at.

[Floyt]

Woah - overreacting some, guys? Don't take the axe to a fellow skeptic because he doesn't mouth the exact party line ;) Looks a bit like a feeding frenzy here...

[PatKelley]

Exactly. Thank you! I was starting to get worried here.

Now there is nothing wrong with Hawking's presentation, right? Perfectly suitable for the classroom?

If your answer is yes, then we can proceed in the direction I have been aiming at.
But this realm of biology was covered for me in my classroom. We started with the fascination for new animals and zoological gardens as emulations of Noah's Ark, advances in pickling and the first inklings of the age of the earth from Geology, Linnean system binomial nomenclature, and finally how all of these came together when the naming system began to be grouped in higher and higher hierarchies. We discussed Linnean and Darwinian models, and how one could determine whether somatic changes were passed on, and why the Lamarckian model fell out of favor.

What ID represents is bringing into Hawking's book a modern electrical engineer's ideas about gravity being a purely electrical phenomenon, or electric comet theory. It doesn't represent the chain of discovery; it represents a cross-path engendered by an unwillingness or inability to realize these arguments have been made before, and were refuted. I have a booklet from 1898 (Called a "little blue book") which is a guide on how to refute creationist arguments and attacks on the theory of evolution, and what common myths were around at the time. They are all eerily fa... well, they're the same.

I think we could sum up ID in science class by saying "Some people hold to Lamarckian, Creationist, and other views of biology, despite the history and refutation of their arguments and lack of testable results."

[Melendwyr]

I think we could sum up ID in science class by saying "Some people hold to Lamarckian, Creationist, and other views of biology, despite the history and refutation of their arguments and lack of testable results." Is there really any point to mentioning that there are people who don't accept science in science classes? Sure, we could do so without violating any important principles (scientific or political), but why would we bother in the first place?

[Melendwyr]

Let's review.

In response to this: (Posted by drkitten) There are no legitimate secular reasons for regarding the existence of God as a possible truth in a science class, because the existence of God is not a scientific question.

Luke T. replied: It isn't? I've been reading Stephen Hawking lately and he seems to think it is.

That's either a deliberate attempt at trolling, or a fundamental misunderstanding of what Hawking was talking about. It's worthy of hammegk or Interesting Ian.

[Luke T.]

Here's where I am coming from. I believe a church does more harm to itself when it gets involved with the state than it does to the state. When a church gets involved in state affairs, it begins to be seen by nonbelievers as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1229970). And the church is ultimately dragged down, chained to the state.

So these IDers aren't doing themselves any favors. My opinion is borne out by the fact they are lying about their motives. If a man of God lies to accomplish a political goal, then his purported soul is on the way to being lost.

And, no, I am not a Christian. I just don't see Christians as being as evil as some people do. I see them as being as human as anyone else.

Stephen Hawking's book outlines the history of beliefs of the origins and nature of the universe. Those beliefs had a primarily religious structure to them in the beginning. But as science grew, religious beliefs began to be stripped away. Hawking's books is a deconstruction of those religious theories and beliefs and a construction of the science which supplanted them. It is very well done.

More later. I have to take leave from here for a little bit. Just hold that thought.

[Melendwyr]

And, no, I am not a Christian. I just don't see Christians as being as evil as some people do. I see them as being as human as anyone else.

[Official]: "Why do you have 'Die, Bart, Die' written on your chest?"
[Sideshow Bob]: "It's German for 'The Bart, the'."
[Officials]: "Well, no man who speaks German could be evil."

[c0rbin]

Jesus, LukeT, whose porridge did you piss in?

[Eos of the Eons]

When can we expect a ruling?

[bagtaggar]

Has anyone read this nut's rantings?

http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/C6/

[drkitten]

When can we expect a ruling?
Judge Jones has expressed hopes to be able to issue a ruling by the end of the year.

[Darat]

Judge Jones has expressed hopes to be able to issue a ruling by the end of the year.

If he can stop laughing by then.

[drkitten]

If he can stop laughing by then.

Oh, of that I have no doubt. It's a professional skill for judges, just like any emergency room physician has to be able just to say "Hmm..." instead of "You put your willy where? What on Earth made you think that would be a good idea?"

[Luke T.]

[Official]: "Why do you have 'Die, Bart, Die' written on your chest?"
[Sideshow Bob]: "It's German for 'The Bart, the'."
[Officials]: "Well, no man who speaks German could be evil."

You know, it's kind of funny. You are a concrete example of the bit about "political adversaries" I am talking about.

The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

[PatKelley]

You know, it's kind of funny. You are a concrete example of the bit about "political adversaries" I am talking about.

I'm curious why you used the term "nonbelievers" rather than, say, non-christians.

[Luke T.]

I'm curious why you used the term "nonbelievers" rather than, say, non-christians.

That is a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, written in 1832. I linked to my use of it, which contains the source link, in an earlier post on page 1 of this topic.

Updating the quote to America today, and it certainly is prescient, isn't it?

Anyway, I was working on a helluva long post to conclude my thoughts and it got swallowed in the ether. I don't feel like writing all that again so I will summarize.

Basically, a huge portion of America believes in God and Creationism and all that. It is stupid to ignore that. Look who got elected. How can you ignore THAT? :)

I think those who want ID in the classroom, if it is done right, would rue the day that their beliefs were brought into any proximity to the scientific method.

I say, go ahead. Let's shine some light on this ID thing. Let's take a look at it. You sure aren't going to convert anybody to it by talking about it in the context of the scientific method, but you just might disabuse someone of it.

I mean, WTF does the existence of God have to do with whether the Earth is flat or round? Well, people have all this brain power that isn't necessary to survival, so, between all that hunting and gathering, they got to wondering what shape the Earth is. And since science wasn't around to satisfy that need, religion stuck their finger into the mess. Once science came up with an answer, with proof, it was kinda embarassing how WAY OFF the religionists' answer had been, and they resisted giving up their dominion over the shape of the planet. But science won out. Science always wins out. Everybody now pretty much agrees the planet is round. But an awful lot of them still believe it is only 6,000 years old. So now science must address religion's dominion over the age and origin of the species. Bring it on! Nothing to be afraid of!

And let's not forget astronaut David Bowman's perplexing last transmission before he disappeared:

My God! It's turtles all the way down!

[PatKelley]

That is a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, written in 1832. I linked to my use of it, which contains the source link, in an earlier post on page 1 of this topic.

Updating the quote to America today, and it certainly is prescient, isn't it?

Anyway, I was working on a helluva long post to conclude my thoughts and it got swallowed in the ether. I don't feel like writing all that again so I will summarize.

Basically, a huge portion of America believes in God and Creationism and all that. It is stupid to ignore that. Look who got elected. How can you ignore THAT? :)

I think those who want ID in the classroom, if it is done right, would rue the day that their beliefs were brought into any proximity to the scientific method.

I say, go ahead. Let's shine some light on this ID thing. Let's take a look at it. You sure aren't going to convert anybody to it by talking about it in the context of the scientific method, but you just might disabuse someone of it.

I mean, WTF does the existence of God have to do with whether the Earth is flat or round? Well, people have all this brain power that isn't necessary to survival, so, between all that hunting and gathering, they got to wondering what shape the Earth is. And since science wasn't around to satisfy that need, religion stuck their finger into the mess. Once science came up with an answer, with proof, it was kinda embarassing how WAY OFF the religionists' answer had been, and they resisted giving up their dominion over the shape of the planet. But science won out. Science always wins out. Everybody now pretty much agrees the planet is round. But an awful lot of them still believe it is only 6,000 years old. So now science must address religion's dominion over the age and origin of the species. Bring it on! Nothing to be afraid of!

And let's not forget astronaut David Bowman's perplexing last transmission before he disappeared:

The problem is that, as I stated in my previous post, it's simply compounding the error of the past with the error of today. In my class, we did discuss creationism, briefly, at the beginning of our course on biology, if only to provide it as a contrasting worldview and show the growth of knowledge across the past four centuries. To return to it again, well, would be less than fruitful for the same reasons we don't cover perpetual motion machines and electric comets and the "Apollo Moon Hoax" in astronomy. A waste of time and energy.

Educational resources are limited; is the waste worth the gain?

Finally, looking at the demographics of the country is not fruitful in determining curriculum in science. It's precisely because we are lagging in science education that these statistics are what they are. Are we to remain beholden to these statistics and hence these ideas, perpetuating the ignorance that brought these opinions about because some people are uncomfortable?

[Melendwyr]

Discussing a hypothesis in a science class, except to immediately dismiss it, lends it an air of intellectual legitimacy. ID is due no such regard, and government-funded schools cannot dismiss it except by noting that it is not science.

Suggesting that we "teach the controversy" is a best foolish and at worst disingenuous.

[hammegk]

It's worthy of hammegk or Interesting Ian.
Stick around, n00b: you might educate yourself, although it's doubly tough for know-it-alls. :)

[Luke T.]

The problem is that, as I stated in my previous post, it's simply compounding the error of the past with the error of today. In my class, we did discuss creationism, briefly, at the beginning of our course on biology, if only to provide it as a contrasting worldview and show the growth of knowledge across the past four centuries. To return to it again, well, would be less than fruitful for the same reasons we don't cover perpetual motion machines and electric comets and the "Apollo Moon Hoax" in astronomy. A waste of time and energy.

Educational resources are limited; is the waste worth the gain?

Finally, looking at the demographics of the country is not fruitful in determining curriculum in science. It's precisely because we are lagging in science education that these statistics are what they are. Are we to remain beholden to these statistics and hence these ideas, perpetuating the ignorance that brought these opinions about because some people are uncomfortable?

If a majority of the population believed in the Apollo Moon Hoax, then you darn well ought to address it in astronomy class.

I think demographics should determine what is taught. After all, you aren't going to put calculus on the curriculum if the population can't add two plus two.

And if a mistaken belief is persistent, then it suggests a lack of education in that area and should be addressed.

So you might have to chop Advanced Movie Watching off the schedule to make room. No loss.

[Melendwyr]

If a majority of the population believed in the Apollo Moon Hoax, then you darn well ought to address it in astronomy class. Astronomy classes are almost always part of a college curriculum, not a high-school one.

So you might have to chop Advanced Movie Watching off the schedule to make room. No loss. Did you even go to school?

[PatKelley]

If a majority of the population believed in the Apollo Moon Hoax, then you darn well ought to address it in astronomy class.

I think demographics should determine what is taught. After all, you aren't going to put calculus on the curriculum if the population can't add two plus two.

And if a mistaken belief is persistent, then it suggests a lack of education in that area and should be addressed.

So you might have to chop Advanced Movie Watching off the schedule to make room. No loss.
Addressing ID would not help towards scientific education. That's my biggest problem with putting it in a science class: it isn't scientific. Do you spend time discussing unscientific arguments and take away from that day or two of studying Mendalian genetics?

As it is, our educational system does not foster much interest in science, and I doubt we need one more discouragment on the inside of the science classroom. If somebody had told me I could no longer form ideas and experience the fun of evaluating them and doing research but instead must allow some subjects to sit and not touch them, I would have so gone off science.

Put it in a philosophy or comparative sociology or comparative religion course. It is not science, and does not belong in a science class.

[MRWiffen]

I personally feel that if most of the class is going to tune out during evolution because "my dad says this is wrong god created the whole thing" it's best to start from why this is wrong. If you ignore what people believe they already know especially if it contradicts what they should know then these students would be left behind even more than they currently are. If a majority of students believe that 2+2=5 the first step in teaching them math is to teach them the proper definition of 2, 4 and 5 so that they realize that 2+2=4 (overly simplified argument I know). A lot of students just study for the test, they don't actually learn what they are being taught. The day they no longer need it they forget it and go back to what is comfortable.

[brodski]

Stick around, n00b: you might educate yourself, although it's doubly tough for know-it-alls. :)

Irony can be pretty ironic some times...

[Luke T.]

Astronomy classes are almost always part of a college curriculum, not a high-school one.

I was commenting on PatKelley's Moon Hoax and astronomy classes. Take a cold shower and cool off.

Did you even go to school?

Would you like my c.v.? I think even you might be impressed. I just don't feel it necessary to use my intelligence as a hammer.

I also have a son in high school. And when I married my second wife, her kids were D students. When I was done with them, they were on the honor roll.

[Luke T.]

I personally feel that if most of the class is going to tune out during evolution because "my dad says this is wrong god created the whole thing" it's best to start from why this is wrong. If you ignore what people believe they already know especially if it contradicts what they should know then these students would be left behind even more than they currently are. If a majority of students believe that 2+2=5 the first step in teaching them math is to teach them the proper definition of 2, 4 and 5 so that they realize that 2+2=4 (overly simplified argument I know). A lot of students just study for the test, they don't actually learn what they are being taught. The day they no longer need it they forget it and go back to what is comfortable.

Exactly. And not necessarily what is comfortable, but to what is familiar.

Critical thinking is not being taught in our schools, and so it is unfamiliar to students.

[Betenoire]

Critical thinking is not being taught in our schools, and so it is unfamiliar to students.

You know what, you're right!
No... wait... I'm having a thought, and it might be that... you're wrong! Let me critically think my way through this one... yes, yes, you're wrong. Because my capacity to analyze your statement as a gross false generalization and obnoxious attempt to degrade the entirety of our public education system just because it's hip in your world, or whatever motive you may have, was learned... guess where?
I bet we can critically think our way to this one... Yes... Listen to the hamster wheels turning and.......
IT'S THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!
Good sweet Lord almighty, it's NOT unfamiliar to our students. *happy dance*

I'm sorry, Luke, did you have some point that I missed?
If people disagree with you, Luke, it's not because they aren't critically thinking. It's because your ideas don't stand up to critical analysis.

[PatKelley]

Exactly. And not necessarily what is comfortable, but to what is familiar.

Critical thinking is not being taught in our schools, and so it is unfamiliar to students.
Except that if you deliberately assail ID as "wrong" and single it out, it becomes "persecution" of the Christians directly, which is pretty much what the DI and law center want. They want a fight; look, the law center and DI were itching for the right kind of fight, not the fight they got. They want it to be about godless materialistic science vs. ID, when it is not. ID is not an alternative; it is unscientific. Judged on its own merits it ranks with crackpot ideas like electric comets, craters formed by giant lightning bolts instead of meteors, a solid surface to the sun, and so on. If you single it out, it's persecution. If you address "alternative" claims in general, it takes away time from actual study. High school biology covers the ground work; if a student has creationist bent, they can always ask the teacher questions (and attempt to go for the full-on fantasy breakdown as shown in Chick's "Big Daddy"). What is more disconcerting is if the teacher is of a creationist bent. My youngest sister almost missed out on biology because her teacher dismissed evolutionary theory, and chewed her out for asking questions about animals and their relationships. I ended up giving her Larry Gonick's Cartoon Guide to the Universe, part one, to supplement her education.

[Luke T.]

You know what, you're right!
No... wait... I'm having a thought, and it might be that... you're wrong! Let me critically think my way through this one... yes, yes, you're wrong. Because my capacity to analyze your statement as a gross false generalization and obnoxious attempt to degrade the entirety of our public education system just because it's hip in your world, or whatever motive you may have, was learned... guess where?
I bet we can critically think our way to this one... Yes... Listen to the hamster wheels turning and.......
IT'S THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!
Good sweet Lord almighty, it's NOT unfamiliar to our students. *happy dance*

I'm sorry, Luke, did you have some point that I missed?
If people disagree with you, Luke, it's not because they aren't critically thinking. It's because your ideas don't stand up to critical analysis.

That's why Kevin Trudeau's book has been on the bestseller list for how many month's now, and the current number one is Andrew Weil?

That's why there are TWO primetime psychic programs "based on actual events" on the air right now?

That's why Psychic Detectives is one of the most popular programs on Court TV?

That's why George Bush (God Wants Me To Run For President) is President?

Yes. We are a nation of critical thinkers.

[Luke T.]

Except that if you deliberately assail ID as "wrong" and single it out, it becomes "persecution" of the Christians directly, which is pretty much what the DI and law center want.

Like I said, if they want a fight, let's give them a real fight. Science will win out. Make them rue the day they ever stepped out of bounds.

ETA: They have trapped themselves into a corner by claiming ID is not theologically based. So how can they claim religious persecution for critically examining it? They have already lost.

[Luke T.]

What students are being taught in our schools are the mechanics of science, but not the application of it. Richard Feynman gives an excellent example of this in his autobiography. If I remember later, I'll get my copy and quote the relevant text.

[Luke T.]

Not the text I was thinking of, but this is also an example of what I am talking about:

Here. (http://www.collectedthoughts.com/Quote.aspx?QuoteID=71)

I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, "Energy makes is go." And for the boy on the bicycle, "Energy makes it go." For everything, "Energy makes it go."
Now that doesn't mean anything. Suppose it's "Wakalixes." That's the general principle: "Wakalixes" makes it go. There's no knowledge coming in. The child doesn't learn anything; it's just a word!

But that's the way all their books were: They said things that were useless, mixed-up, ambiguous, confusing, and partially incorrect. How anybody can learn science from these books, I don't know, because it's not science."

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman also has a chapter about when he was asked to help choose textbooks for the California school system that is very enlightening. In one case, teachers had rated a book as suitable for the school system. Feyman was the only one who actually looked at it.

It was all blank pages.

When Feynman pointed this out, the publisher said they hadn't put the material together yet. But the point was that the teachers rated it as satisfactory without even opening it.

[PatKelley]

Like I said, if they want a fight, let's give them a real fight. Science will win out. Make them rue the day they ever stepped out of bounds.

ETA: They have trapped themselves into a corner by claiming ID is not theologically based. So how can they claim religious persecution for critically examining it? They have already lost.

That is a fight that science could not win.

How it can be couched: Here, there is a murderer. You must beat him with this innocent child as punishment, brandishing the infant like a club. Who wins? Does it matter? Even though the criminal is beaten, he still has the joy of watching you brandish a baby like a club.

They want a fight because outside of a court of law they can appeal to emotion, and direct attack would be seen as their proof that science is dogmatic and a religion itself. Science isn't about what feels good or right or comfortable. One of my axioms to my friend at work regarding science is that any scientific supposition taken to its furthest application that does not make you extremely uncomfortable is not science. If you don't argue with them, they win on silence. Argue with them, they win on persecution.

In a court of law, the appeal to emotion can be denied. Not so in the court of public opinion.

[Betenoire]

That's why Kevin Trudeau's book has been on the bestseller list for how many month's now, and the current number one is Andrew Weil?

That's why there are TWO primetime psychic programs "based on actual events" on the air right now?

That's why Psychic Detectives is one of the most popular programs on Court TV?

That's why George Bush (God Wants Me To Run For President) is President?

Yes. We are a nation of critical thinkers.

You said
Critical thinking is not being taught in our schools
I pointed out that it was. Your rhetorical questions do nothing to disprove my example.

Whether or not the idiots of this nation are learning or choosing to exercise their learning is a different question. If you were to say, for instance, "We are a nation of people choosing to be stupid," I'd not disagree. Or, indeed, the inverse of your ironic statement, "We are not a nation of critical thinkers," you'd be correct.

But blame the people, not the schools.

[Luke T.]

Ah. The same web site quotes another excellent part of Feynman's autobiography.

Do Not Debase Science: Don't Call On It To Settle Your Ancient, Provincial, Medieval Disputes (http://www.collectedthoughts.com/Quote.aspx?QuoteID=2)

:D

One day, two or three of the young rabbis came to me and said, "We realize that we can't study to be rabbis in the modern world without knowing something about science, so we'd like to ask you some questions."
Of course there are thousands of places to find out about science, and Columbia University was right near there, but I wanted to know what kinds of questions they were interested in.
They said, "Well, for instance, is electricity fire?"
"No," I said, "but... what is the problem?"
They said, "In the Talmud it says you're not supposed to make fire on a Saturday, so our question is, can we use electrical things on Saturdays?"
I was shocked. They weren't interested in science at all! The only way science was influencing their lives was so they might be able to interpret better the Talmud! They weren't interested in the world outside, in natural phenomena; they were only interested in resolving some question brought up in the Talmud.

It really was a disappointment. Here they are, slowly coming to life, only to better interpret the Talmud. Imagine! In modern times like this, guys are studying to go into society and do something- to be a rabbi- and the only way they think that science might be interesting is because their ancient, provincial, medieval problems are being confounded slightly by some new phenomena...
They didn't understand technology; they didn't understand their time.

[Luke T.]

You said

I pointed out that it was. Your rhetorical questions do nothing to disprove my example.

Your example of critical thinking being taught in our schools was that you say it is? That's the best you can do, in the face of all the evidence in our society that it isn't?

Randi would not be nearly so busy as he is if it was.

Once, when I was working in an Intel research and development fab, me and another guy were chatting inside the clean room. I was responsible for maintaining and he was responsible for operating some of the most advanced and complex machinery in the world. And he admits to me that he thinks maybe the moon landings were hoaxed.

One of the few times in my life I have been completely flummoxed.

Whether or not the idiots of this nation are learning or choosing to exercise their learning is a different question. If you were to say, for instance, "We are a nation of people choosing to be stupid," I'd not disagree. Or, indeed, the inverse of your ironic statement, "We are not a nation of critical thinkers," you'd be correct.

But blame the people, not the schools.

I do blame the schools. They are responsible for laying the groundwork for critical thinking in our formative years, and they are failing miserably. (ETA: It isn't enough to teach 2 + 2 = 4. We need to teach how to apply the logic behind math and science to everyday life. How to question claims.)

But don't take my word for it. Read Feynman's autobiography, for starters.

[Luke T.]

By the way, the way I chose to debunk the Apollo Moon Hoax with my Intel friend was to ask him how many people he thought that would take to pull it off.

Then I asked him if he believed that many people could keep it a secret when they couldn't even keep the President's sex life a secret.

And just like that, he snapped out it.

They don't teach that kind of critical thinking in school.

[Melendwyr]

"Critical thinking is not widely applied. Therefore, it is not being taught in our schools."

The conclusion has yet to be demonstrated. However, Luke T. was more than willing to demonstrate the validity of his assertion.

[drkitten]

They don't teach that kind of critical thinking in school.

Is there a difference between "they don't teach X" and "some students don't learn X"? (Hint: the question was rhetorical.)

[Luke T.]

Is there a difference between "they don't teach X" and "some students don't learn X"? (Hint: the question was rhetorical.)

If it is taught, but not learned, are the teachers bad teachers?

[drkitten]

If it is taught, but not learned, are the teachers bad teachers?

Another rhetorical question : is there a difference between a bad teacher and a good teacher teaching a bad student?

[Melendwyr]

Not if it lets Luke T. make a rhetorical point, it seems.

[Kimpatsu]

God will strike down the judge and the new Dover school board before the case can be decided. Pat Robertson will say, "See? I told you so. Isn't God the Greatest?"
Pat Robertson thinks himself to BE god, so no surprises there...

[BillHoyt]

And, no, I am not a Christian. I just don't see Christians as being as evil as some people do. I see them as being as human as anyone else.
Huh? What? Luke, this is totally at odds with many of your posts from the past.

To the others on this thread,

Luke simply asked some simple questions about theory and fact. He framed those questions by declaring he was taking the devil's advocate position. Other than personal curiosity, who cares whether he is or isn't Christian? Isn't that a subject / motive shift? Don't we have many believer as well as many non-believer skeptics on this forum and in the broader skeptical community? Is it not to our collective best interest that we keep our numbers growing?

[Luke T.]

Huh? What? Luke, this is totally at odds with many of your posts from the past.

How is that? I have often presented my understanding of the Christian position for a lack of Christians here, but I am not a Christian myself. I am a Deist.

As for my personal feelings toward Christians, I just don't view them with the hostility that is often expressed on this forum toward them.

[Luke T.]

Another rhetorical question : is there a difference between a bad teacher and a good teacher teaching a bad student?

Is the motive behind calling these rhetorical questions an attempt to not to have to defend them? :)

If a majority of the population holds paranormal beliefs, and they are all the product of a minority of the population's teaching, who should bear the brunt of the blame?

Are there that many bad students, or just that many (but a much smaller proportion of the population) bad teachers? Which one involves less entities?

Actually, I blame the school boards, which is what this topic is all about, isn't it? Students are controlled by their teachers, and teachers are controlled by the school boards. And Feynman's book gives an outstanding insight into the politics of school boards. It's about bribes and self-interest, and has nothing to do with educating children. Blank pages!

Religion is politicking the school boards to get their textbooks into the schools. And they can get away with that because they exert more energy than their opponents to control the boards. And he who writes the textbooks and curriculum, ultimately controls the minds of the kids.

What needs to be done is not being done. What needs to be done is to actually get material that is useful into our textbooks. And that takes a lot of effort.

So big deal. The judge is probably going to rule that the religionists textbooks are right out. So the kids will be stuck with the old books which are just about as useless. I see no victory here.

[Luke T.]

Another rhetorical question : is there a difference between a bad teacher and a good teacher teaching a bad student?

Just want to come back to this for a second. Before you even asked this question, I had answered it.

I think demographics should determine what is taught. After all, you aren't going to put calculus on the curriculum if the population can't add two plus two.

If a teacher is teaching calculus to a student who can't add two plus two, then whose fault is it the kid isn't learning calculus?

[drkitten]

Is the motive behind calling these rhetorical questions an attempt to not to have to defend them?

No, the motive is to illustrate the preconceptions that appear to be behind your original questions.


Are there that many bad students, or just that many (but a much smaller proportion of the population) bad teachers? Which one involves less entities?


Well, Americans in general are well-known for being grossly overweight. Since there are many more Americans than there are American nutritionists, "obviously" it's the fault of the nutritionists, because that involves fewer entities. Is that the line of reasoning you're proposing?


Religion is politicking the school boards to get their textbooks into the schools.


Finally, a statement that seems to be correct.

Of course, the reason that they can get away with doing this is because of the well-funded and popular political movements that center on religion and religious practice, and specifically of course, Protestant fundamentalism.

But why single the school board out for such? The political influence of the religious right is obvious everywhere, at every level of American government. The nomination of Roberts and now Alito to the SCOTUS, and the election of the President who nominated them, are also both victories for the fundamentalist Protestants -- but they have little to do with school boards and textbooks.

In a pure democracy, the 51% majority gets what it wants, which is one of the reasons that the USA was set up as a republic with some fairly stringent rules on what is, and is not, subject to the whims of the electorate. The establishment of religion was one such limit placed, which is why And they can get away with that because he who writes the textbooks and curriculum, ultimately controls the minds of the kids.


What needs to be done is not being done. What needs to be done is to actually get material that is useful into our textbooks. And that takes a lot of effort.

... and it's being done. Ken Miller's biology textbook is excellent, and he's putting a lot of work into keeping it current.



The judge is probably going to rule that the religionists textbooks are right out.


... as he should, because that's the way the law is written.

So the kids will be stuck with the old books which are just about as useless. I see no victory here.

This statement is, as far as I can tell, simply wrong -- and at several levels. The kids are not being "stuck with the old books"; the school board approved the purchase of the most recent edition of Miller's textbook, with the recommendation and support of the science experts among the faculty. That's the way the system is supposed to work, isn't it? The board alsoapproved the purchase of a stealth religious textbook, and got slapped down hard for it. Again, that's the way the system is supposed to work.

If you really think there' s "no victory here," what would you consider to be a victory? Good textbooks are being written, are being updated, are being approved, and are being taught from. The court system (we hope) stands to guard against subornation of the educational process in the name of religion. What more do you want?

[Luke T.]

If a teacher is teaching evolution to a kid who believes in an Intelligent Designer, whose fault is it if the kid isn't learning about evolution?

You MUST address ID.

[Diamond]

I'll make my own stab at this:

I think it like that the Judge will make Findings of Fact separate from Findings of Law.

Findings of Fact:
- that "Intelligent Design", "Sudden Emergence" or whatever posit a supernatural agent without recourse to any evidence and are therefore religious beliefs.
- that there is no science in ID - it is all a "God of the Gaps" religious philosophy.
- the book "Of Pandas and Men" is not a book of science but of religion.

Findings of Law:

- since ID is a religious belief, to teach it in tax-funded institutions is unconstitutional
- the former members of the Dover board and the one that is still there acted in an undemocratic and unconstitutional manner.

Just a guess. Or a wishlist.

[Luke T.]

Well, Americans in general are well-known for being grossly overweight. Since there are many more Americans than there are American nutritionists, "obviously" it's the fault of the nutritionists, because that involves fewer entities. Is that the line of reasoning you're proposing?

Elementary schoolkids are not offered a menu of options of what they can consume.

... and it's being done. Ken Miller's biology textbook is excellent, and he's putting a lot of work into keeping it current.

This is good news. However, if the mind of the student is pre-biased against it, I hope that problem is addressed.

If you really think there' s "no victory here," what would you consider to be a victory? Good textbooks are being written, are being updated, are being approved, and are being taught from. The court system (we hope) stands to guard against subornation of the educational process in the name of religion. What more do you want?

It is a systemic problem, as I've explained. If kids are learning just by rote (rote has it's uses), and not much more, then the result will be less than satisfactory.

[drkitten]

I do blame the schools. They are responsible for laying the groundwork for critical thinking in our formative years, and they are failing miserably.

This is simply wrong -- and the fact that so many people believe it is precisely why the schools (and the education level of the public) are in such bad shape.

This statement is an attempt to avoid responsibility by the people who share responsibility, but don't wish to acknowledge or shoulder it.

"Critical thinking in our formative years"? American school systems don't usually kick in until age 6 or so. Who is supposed to lay the groundwork upon which the first grade teachers rely? Who is supposed to address the children's needs after 3pm and before 8am? Who is supposed to make sure that the children are even physically capable of learning -- you know, all those things like "good nutrition" and "enough sleep" and "not suffering long-term effects of fetal alcohol and nicotine poisoning"?

If I see a dentist once a year, and I don't bother to brush my teeth at all in between visits, who should you blame when my teeth all fall out? If I visit my piano teacher each week, but don't practice, who should you blame that I can't play the piano? If I have an $8,000 treadmill in my home office, but am still fat, who's at fault?

The school board isn't responsible for educating your children. The teachers aren't responsible for educating your children. The textbooks aren't responsible for educating your children. They're resources to make it easier and more effective for you to fulfil your own responsibility to your own children -- and your responsibility as a citizen and stakeholder in the community at large to that community at large.

[Luke T.]

And just for my own curiosity, does anyone have any direct quotes of an ID defender in this case explicitly stating that ID theory is not religiously based?

I think such a thing would be nice to have at hand after the judgement when they then claim "religious persecution" or whatever.

[Luke T.]

This is simply wrong -- and the fact that so many people believe it is precisely why the schools (and the education level of the public) are in such bad shape.

This statement is an attempt to avoid responsibility by the people who share responsibility, but don't wish to acknowledge or shoulder it.

"Critical thinking in our formative years"? American school systems don't usually kick in until age 6 or so. Who is supposed to lay the groundwork upon which the first grade teachers rely? Who is supposed to address the children's needs after 3pm and before 8am? Who is supposed to make sure that the children are even physically capable of learning -- you know, all those things like "good nutrition" and "enough sleep" and "not suffering long-term effects of fetal alcohol and nicotine poisoning"?

If I see a dentist once a year, and I don't bother to brush my teeth at all in between visits, who should you blame when my teeth all fall out? If I visit my piano teacher each week, but don't practice, who should you blame that I can't play the piano? If I have an $8,000 treadmill in my home office, but am still fat, who's at fault?

The school board isn't responsible for educating your children. The teachers aren't responsible for educating your children. The textbooks aren't responsible for educating your children. They're resources to make it easier and more effective for you to fulfil your own responsibility to your own children -- and your responsibility as a citizen and stakeholder in the community at large to that community at large.

I agree wholeheartedly that parents are responsible for ensuring their kids are learning. But a school functions in loco parentis (by law!) for a large portion of their waking moments and bear an equal responsibility. That. Is. Their. Job. It is what they are paid to do. Kids don't see a teacher once a year like your dentist.

[BillHoyt]

If a majority of the population holds paranormal beliefs, and they are all the product of a minority of the population's teaching, who should bear the brunt of the blame?
Luke,

We all share the blame, I think, Luke. Scientists who stay out of politics, skeptics who won't exert the energy or donate the money needed to defend against this, everyone who knows better and remained silent. Also to blame are the teachers and their teachers for not decrying the situation. Also to blame are the teachers from the last four or five decades who actively and disingenuously railroaded the postmodernist agenda that has helped set the stage for utter confusion about the natures of science and truth, and that has made curious bedfellows of leftist academia and the radical christian right - a marriage we all (believer and non-believer) can agree was made somewhere other than heaven.

[Luke T.]

Luke,

We all share the blame, I think, Luke.

I agree.

The question now is what do we do about it? And it looks like everyone has their own ideas and are expressing them.

My opinion, as simply stated as I can make it, is that before you can construct something new, you first have to deconstruct the obstacle that stands where you plan on building. Otherwise, the new construction will be only a facade over the old and will eventually fall off.

[DavidJames]

I do blame the schools.Blaming the schools without also blaming the parents and the students themselves is myopic, a cop out and sounds like a conservative politically motivated platitude and if I may add, is completely devoid of critical thinking :)

[Betenoire]

If a teacher is teaching evolution to a kid who believes in an Intelligent Designer, whose fault is it if the kid isn't learning about evolution?

Still the kid's.


You MUST address ID.

Teacher's should not be required to address every last possible religious theory contrary to what is being taught on the off chance that a kid who adheres to that tenet is in the class.
The job of the teachers is to teach scientific thinking and scientific knowledge, and if the kid is going to stick to ID after that, then the kid has screwed himself, oh well.

[drkitten]

But a school functions in loco parentis (by law!) for a large portion of their waking moments

Not for fifty years under US law.

and bear an equal responsibility.

Let's see. Teachers see students for approximately 40 hours per week, nine months a year.

Parents see students for approximately 128 hours per week, except in summers when it's 168 hours per week -- or more, since they can pull students from class any time they like for reasons they think are sufficient, without even bothering to consult the teachers. Even counting waking hours, kids only sleep about sixty or so hours, leaving the parents with primary responsibility for between 60-100 hours per week, year round.

By what stretch of the imagination is this "equal" responsibility?


That. Is. Their. Job. It is what they are paid to do.


My dentist is paid to keep my teeth in good shape, too. That. Is. His. Job. Obviously, he bears equal responsibility with me.

[Luke T.]

Blaming the schools without also blaming the parents and the students themselves is myopic, a cop out and sounds like a conservative politically motivated platitude and if I may add, is completely devoid of critical thinking :)

If a kid believes a loony idea, chances are that he got it from his parents. So they bear the brunt of the blame for that.

If the school chooses to blithely ignore a loony idea held by a major portion of it's children, and does not address it, then they bear the brunt of the blame for the kids learning nothing from them.

[Luke T.]

Not for fifty years under US law.

???

Let's see. Teachers see students for approximately 40 hours per week, nine months a year.

Parents see students for approximately 128 hours per week, except in summers when it's 168 hours per week -- or more, since they can pull students from class any time they like for reasons they think are sufficient, without even bothering to consult the teachers. Even counting waking hours, kids only sleep about sixty or so hours, leaving the parents with primary responsibility for between 60-100 hours per week, year round.

By what stretch of the imagination is this "equal" responsibility?

A teacher is a professional educator. It's what they are trained and claim to do.

A parent is not.

My dentist is paid to keep my teeth in good shape, too. That. Is. His. Job. Obviously, he bears equal responsibility with me.

Again. You only see your dentist once a year.

[drkitten]

A teacher is a professional educator. It's what they are trained to do.


A dentist is a professional teeth-cleaner. It's what they are trained to do.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect a dentist to undo in an hour the damage it takes me a year to do -- but that it's somehow reasonable to expect a teacher to undo in forty hours the damage it takes parents a hundred hours to do?

If so, when did teachers become more superhuman than dentists?

[Luke T.]

A dentist is a professional teeth-cleaner. It's what they are trained to do.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect a dentist to undo in an hour the damage it takes me a year to do -- but that it's somehow reasonable to expect a teacher to undo in forty hours the damage it takes parents a hundred hours to do?

If so, when did teachers become more superhuman than dentists?

Are you saying it isn't possible to teach the methodology of critical thinking and the scientific method and how to apply it to ALL claims and beliefs?

The state obviously thinks teachers are better educators than parents, as it won't let parents keep their kids out of school.

[BillHoyt]

Not for fifty years under US law.
No. Courts began overturning in loco parentis in the early 70s. That would be thirty years ago. Since then, however, the doctrine has returned in both schools and universities. Source. (http://www.reason.com/0410/fe.dw.welcome.shtml)

[drkitten]

It won't let parents keep their kids out of school.

Um, wrong again. See "homeschooling."

[Luke T.]

Um, wrong again. See "homeschooling."

Homeschooling isn't "out of school", now is it? Do you know how homeschooling works? My kid brother was homeschooled.

And see my comment on homeschooling earlier in this topic.

[drkitten]

No. Courts began overturning in loco parentis in the early 70s. That would be thirty years ago. Since then, however, the doctrine has returned in both schools and universities. Source. (http://www.reason.com/0410/fe.dw.welcome.shtml)

If by "early 70s" you mean, "early 40s," then you're correct.

From your own source, "But in the 1961 decision Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the school’s claim of omnipotence."

Of course, w.r.t. primary and secondary schools (which your source doesn't address, the most obvious case is probably Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969). from which comes the famous statement that children "do not shed their rights at the schoolroom door." . But the first substantive case addressing substantive limitations of school authority was in 1943 with West Virginia State Board of Education V. Barnett (319 U.S. 637).

[Melendwyr]

Are you saying it isn't possible to teach the methodology of critical thinking and the scientific method and how to apply it to ALL claims and beliefs? Not in public schools. That'd violate separation of Church and State.

[Luke T.]

And I guess the circled in this topic is completed.

[Melendwyr]

If the school chooses to blithely ignore a loony idea held by a major portion of it's children, and does not address it, then they bear the brunt of the blame for the kids learning nothing from them. So you support schools and teachers instructing children that Santa Claus doesn't exist, there's no Easter Bunny, and that their parents are the ones who've been leaving coins under pillows instead of the Tooth Fairy?

[drkitten]

Are you saying it isn't possible to teach the methodology of critical thinking and the scientific method and how to apply it to ALL claims and beliefs?

I don't think it's possible for the teachers to successfully and widely teach something that the parents are opposed to their children learning, no.

Imagine trying to teach piano if the parents refuse to let their children practice, and, indeed tell them at every opportunity that piano playing is bad and should not be done. How effective can a teacher expect to be under those circumstances?

[drkitten]

And I guess the circled in this topic is completed.

Yes. We've walked completely around your position and it doesn't make sense from any angle.

[BillHoyt]

If by "early 70s" you mean, "early 40s," then you're correct.

From your own source, "But in the 1961 decision Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the school’s claim of omnipotence."

Of course, w.r.t. primary and secondary schools (which your source doesn't address, the most obvious case is probably Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969). from which comes the famous statement that children "do not shed their rights at the schoolroom door." . But the first substantive case addressing substantive limitations of school authority was in 1943 with West Virginia State Board of Education V. Barnett (319 U.S. 637).
Which is it, kit? Are you unable to read or a stubborn fool who'll do anything to avoid conceding a simple mistake? You think that one through yourself.

Now to the flotsam you just hurled. One, the source clearly says 70s. One has to wonder why the author would write that when you claim the author also provided evidence to the contrary. Strange claim, no? Two, your cited 1943 case was about religious liberty, sir, and not in loco parentis. Source. (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_WVABarnette.htm) Do you think any court ruling about a school matter is fair game? In that case, I'm sure we could reach back to the 19th century, too, and be even more idiotic.

If you want to continue our battles in the past, I am more than willing to tear you a new orifice wherever you would like. I strongly advise you not to try this crap in the future. The topic was in loco parentis. You were, simply, wrong. Tossing in court decisions about religious liberty cases is, you clown, the No True Scotsman fallacy. That makes you both clearly wrong and willing to reason fallaciously in defending the original error. Fabulous.

[BillHoyt]

You know what, kit? You didn't even read my original source, did you?

The rights of schools over their pupils were codified before the U.S. Constitution was written. In 1765 the legal scholar Sir William Blackstone wrote that, when sending kids to school, Dad "may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life to the tutor or schoolmaster of the child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parents committed to his charge."

Blackstone was writing about grammar school students, but 19th-century college administrators liked the idea too

But, clearly, kit, the source did not address primary and secondary schools. :rolleyes:

Fume away, you twit. Your head has been, and will always be, on fire.

[drkitten]

Strange claim, no? Two, your cited 1943 case was about religious liberty, sir, and not in loco parentis. Source. (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_WVABarnette.htm) Do you think any court ruling about a school matter is fair game?

In the case of limitations on schoolroom authority, yes, any court ruling about schoolroom authority is relevant. Parental authority includes religoius instruction and performance, in case you hadn't noticed....

Your father can make you go to church. Your schoolmaster cannot. Do you consider this distinction irrelevant, especially when we're talking in this thread specifically about the authority of the schools to carry out religious instruction (ID)?

But the final word is your if you want it, because I have other writings to attend to.

[BillHoyt]

But the final word is your if you want it, because I have other writings to attend to.
Someone should warn your editors about your inattention to small details like the truth and sound research.

In the case of limitations on schoolroom authority, yes, any court ruling about schoolroom authority is relevant. Parental authority includes religoius instruction and performance, in case you hadn't noticed....
All school authority is claimed to be in loco parentis? Right... But given you claim ilp is done, and that all school authority is in ilp, one wonders why they think kids can be told to go to school and when to go to school and... wow... the mind reels. Your evasions and delusions are noted.

Anybody, by the way, who read the second source I've now cited would also pick up on the fact that you could not have read that and written what you wrote. That makes two for two. Batting 1000.