Arkansas more backwords than I thought [Archive]

Red Siegfried

26th March 2006, 01:48 PM

IMO, there is a place for ID in public schools. It would be a great topic to discuss in civics and government classes, so the kids could talk about why these sort of things get traction, how curricula are determined, etc. Knowing how it gets decided what they're going to be taught is a good thing.

Now in private schools or a public school class about religionS (plural), no problem there. Discussing religions is a good thing. Indoctrinating is not. Drawing the line between discussion and indoctrination is even harder.

But science it ain't. I can think of quite a few ways you could discuss ID and its associated issues in a public school but teaching it as science is just wrong, even if we didn't have freedom of religion in this country.

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th March 2006, 03:54 PM

Arkan, it looks better, when talking about how "backwords" others are, to spell backwards correctly. :D

Considering I posted pre-coffee this morning I'm surprised that's the only grammatical error. And since I can't edit the thread title there's no point in worrying about it now.

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th March 2006, 03:56 PM

Perhaps you would like to correct your statement by saying that the Arkansas EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, or those who run it, is/are more backwards than you thought. ;)

Be careful about pigeonholing all those people. You may need someone from AR to help you out someday.

Besides, the US educational system is failing anyway so none of that nonsense will stick. Right? ;)

It's a public school. It's a reflection of the community and government where it resides. Show me where this is a minority making these decisions in AK and I'll consider revamping my statement.

TimmyBerry

26th March 2006, 03:56 PM

Yup. :) This country is messed up!

Red Siegfried

27th March 2006, 09:30 AM

brodski

27th March 2006, 09:34 AM

There are a few pockets of this modern nonsense but nothing of significance. It is certainly not a mainstream political issue.
not yet anyway. The indication seems to be that creationism is a growing force in the UK. And none of this ID nonsense, full on 6 day creationism.

Red Siegfried

27th March 2006, 09:35 AM

It's a public school. It's a reflection of the community and government where it resides. Show me where this is a minority making these decisions in AK and I'll consider revamping my statement.

Consider that the abbreviation for Arkansas is AR, not AK.

Consider that you're painting with a broad brush.

Consider that you're prejudiced, but then again, aren't we all in some way.

Consider that you don't seem to think that's a bad thing.

Consider that I have you on ignore; I don't have time for bigots.

And no, I'm from Wisconsin, not Arkansas.

Hagrok

27th March 2006, 09:58 AM

Hmm, I grew up in small town Arkansas, and I don't recall talking about Evolution in Biology in highschool. But, I had a Student Teacher for half the year and didn't learn a damned thing.

WTF the point of that was, I have no idea. I would have much rather been taught Biology, rather then teach a student teacher.

strathmeyer

27th March 2006, 10:06 AM

Just because you're a skeptic and an atheist doesn't mean you're better than other people, it just means you know something that they don't. But it's always easier to ridicule and group people than it is to try to change them, isn't it?

It's not my job to try and change people, sorry. I'm busy trying to change myself.

Red Siegfried

27th March 2006, 10:34 AM

It's not my job to try and change people, sorry. I'm busy trying to change myself.

Fair answer. You are not obligated to change anyone, not to mention the fact that many people don't want to be "changed."

tsg

27th March 2006, 10:38 AM

Perhaps you would like to correct your statement by saying that the Arkansas EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, or those who run it, is/are more backwards than you thought. ;)

Perhaps you would like to correct your statement by saying that the Arkansas educational system is just responding to the pressure being put on it by the people of Arkansas.

Perhaps you might also like to hear what the Governor of Arkansas, elected by the people of Arkansas, has to say about evolution:

I’m not familiar that they’re dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people. But it’s not the only view that’s held. And any time you teach one thing as that it’s the only thing, then I think that has a real problem to it. [source] (http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91)

Be careful about pigeonholing all those people.

Are all the people of Arkansas are backwards? No, of course not. But apparently, based on the views of their elected officials and the amount of pressure being put on the educational system to not even mention the word "evolution" in science classes, the brush they're being painted with isn't quite as broad as you'd like to have us believe. And, as a result of this pressure, the children of Arkansas are getting a vastly inferior education with regards to evolution, so this situation is going to get worse, not better. So, even if this brush is rather broad now, it won't be in the future.

CFLarsen

27th March 2006, 10:40 AM

There are a few pockets of this modern nonsense but nothing of significance. It is certainly not a mainstream political issue.
Concur.

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th March 2006, 12:30 PM

Perhaps you would like to correct your statement by saying that the Arkansas educational system is just responding to the pressure being put on it by the people of Arkansas.

Perhaps you might also like to hear what the Governor of Arkansas, elected by the people of Arkansas, has to say about evolution:

Are all the people of Arkansas are backwards? No, of course not. But apparently, based on the views of their elected officials and the amount of pressure being put on the educational system to not even mention the word "evolution" in science classes, the brush they're being painted with isn't quite as broad as you'd like to have us believe. And, as a result of this pressure, the children of Arkansas are getting a vastly inferior education with regards to evolution, so this situation is going to get worse, not better. So, even if this brush is rather broad now, it won't be in the future.

That's the crux of the issue. We can't really get a very good idea of the political climate there from the news article. It certainly implies, given that those being hushed aren't bypassing the school officials and going higher up the education administration foodchain, that the issue is wider spread than a given school system.

I'd certainly like to think that Darat is correct in that this is not a mainstream standing in that state, but the cynic in me has its doubts.

Were my statements broadsweeping and biased? Sure, it was a rant, not an editorial for the paper, or a letter to someone in the school system in an effort to elicit change. Were there typographical/semantical errors? Sure, again it's a forum, not a published paper, and a typo is hardly equivalent to poor public policy.

Then again, someone will have to let me know if Sieg says anything worthwhile in reponse as I thought he did have a good idea, in adding him to my ignore list. (at least Huntster will have some company now)

tsg

27th March 2006, 12:52 PM

That's the crux of the issue. We can't really get a very good idea of the political climate there from the news article. It certainly implies, given that those being hushed aren't bypassing the school officials and going higher up the education administration foodchain, that the issue is wider spread than a given school system.

I'd certainly like to think that Darat is correct in that this is not a mainstream standing in that state, but the cynic in me has its doubts.

It's apparently mainstream enough that the voters in Arkansas elected a governor who either a) believes the same thing, or b) knows that enough people believe the same thing to warrant pretending that he does also; and that the teachers aren't even allowed to say "evolution" or state the age of the earth in real numbers for fear of backlash from the community. This is more than just a vocal minority. If this isn't the mainstream view in Arkansas, then the mainstream ought to get off their collective asses and do something about it. If the stereotype bothers them, they should stop living up to it.

brodski

27th March 2006, 12:55 PM

I'd certainly like to think that Darat is correct in that this is not a mainstream standing in that state, but the cynic in me has its doubts.

Um, Darat was saying that creationism was not widespread in Europe. I don't think he was offering much hope for USAians.

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th March 2006, 12:57 PM

Um, Darat was saying that creationism was not widespread in Europe. I don't think he was offering much hope for USAians.

Hrm, quite true.

Red Siegfried

27th March 2006, 04:50 PM

Concur.

Strongly concur, but also regarding the US. This is a relatively small problem and people who get all paranoid about the new imminent religious police state brought about by creation science in textbooks in some states need to put their tinfoil hats away.

Anyone have any stats on what percentage of children in the US are taught as a matter of curriculum in public schools that God created the world in seven days (or any form of creationism)? And how many of those kids believe it, and believe it for a significant period of time?

I just think that the whole religion in public schools debate is just another wedge issue created by politicians for the purpose of carving out some extra votes and that it is of no large and lasting consequence, atheist apocalyptic hyperbole on the state of education notwithstanding.

I mean, we have kids that graduate functionally illiterate, can't balance a checkbook, don't know a thing about computers and can't even begin to speak a foreign language but we're concerned about whether or not they can pray in school on their own time or whether they hear about creation science or 5 paragraphs about it appears in textbooks.

Bigger fish to fry, people. Bigger fish.

tsg

27th March 2006, 08:19 PM

Anyone have any stats on what percentage of children in the US are taught as a matter of curriculum in public schools that God created the world in seven days (or any form of creationism)? And how many of those kids believe it, and believe it for a significant period of time?

Completely and utterly missing the point. Promoting religion (and therefore creationism) in public schools is in direct violation of the US Constitution. End of story. There is no question here. The First Amendment was created not only to keep government out of religion, but religion out of government.

I mean, we have kids that graduate functionally illiterate, can't balance a checkbook, don't know a thing about computers and can't even begin to speak a foreign language

and haven't learned anything about US History, apparently.

Bigger fish to fry, people. Bigger fish.

It's the very first idea in the first freaking amendment. There ain't no bigger fish.

CFLarsen

28th March 2006, 12:34 AM

Strongly concur, but also regarding the US. This is a relatively small problem and people who get all paranoid about the new imminent religious police state brought about by creation science in textbooks in some states need to put their tinfoil hats away.

Not only is it a case of a constitutional violation as tsg pointed out, it is a question of whether or not science should form the basis of how we see the world, or it should be a specific religion's dogma.

If you don't need science to explain how species came to be, then you don't need any science at all. Biology cannot be explained without evolution. If you can substitute biology text books with the Bible, you have to substitute all other textbooks on any science subject.

We do not give equal time to religious dogma in a science class. It's that simple.

Anyone have any stats on what percentage of children in the US are taught as a matter of curriculum in public schools that God created the world in seven days (or any form of creationism)? And how many of those kids believe it, and believe it for a significant period of time?

Don't you think you should have found that data, before you announce that this is a "relatively small problem"?

I just think that the whole religion in public schools debate is just another wedge issue created by politicians for the purpose of carving out some extra votes and that it is of no large and lasting consequence, atheist apocalyptic hyperbole on the state of education notwithstanding.

I just think that you need to wake up and learn a bit about how Creationists have tried to enforce their own religious views on all Americans. This is not something that is created by politicians, but by religious fundamentalists.

Try this introduction. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp)

I mean, we have kids that graduate functionally illiterate, can't balance a checkbook, don't know a thing about computers and can't even begin to speak a foreign language but we're concerned about whether or not they can pray in school on their own time or whether they hear about creation science or 5 paragraphs about it appears in textbooks.

Bigger fish to fry, people. Bigger fish.

You think being able to balance a checkbook is more important than knowing how the Universe works? Really?

valis

28th March 2006, 03:32 AM

It's apparently mainstream enough that the voters in Arkansas elected a governor who either a) believes the same thing, or b) knows that enough people believe the same thing to warrant pretending that he does also; and that the teachers aren't even allowed to say "evolution" or state the age of the earth in real numbers for fear of backlash from the community. This is more than just a vocal minority. If this isn't the mainstream view in Arkansas, then the mainstream ought to get off their collective asses and do something about it. If the stereotype bothers them, they should stop living up to it.

And the American people twice voted a Arkansas Governor President. And much of the educated superior world loved him.

And don't forget, Wal Mart has made it possible for Everyone Everywhere to shop at a dingy Arkansas five and dime.

hurdygurdy

28th March 2006, 03:46 AM

Just out of curiosity, is the evolution an issue in any European countries?

Not here in Spain, where (catholic) religion is taught in schools but also evolution. ID and creationism are viewed here, and probably in the rest of Europe too, as something hilarious.

Red Siegfried

28th March 2006, 10:49 AM

Completely and utterly missing the point. Promoting religion (and therefore creationism) in public schools is in direct violation of the US Constitution.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that but you are missing MY point. You're reading what I'm writing but hearing what you're thinking. Keep reading.

End of story. There is no question here. The First Amendment was created not only to keep government out of religion, but religion out of government.

No, the first amendment was created to keep government from establishing a religion, not to keep religion out of the government. The fact that you think this tells me you've done very little study on the Constitution and the founding fathers.

and haven't learned anything about US History, apparently.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe you should read Jefferson and Madison.

It's the very first idea in the first freaking amendment. There ain't no bigger fish.

You're trying to equate some kids in some states reading textbooks that have "creation science" in them with the loss of the entire First Amendment. I suggest you relax. The fact that you are getting all worked up about this just goes to prove my contention that this is a wedge issue. You think there's no bigger issue in the US today? How about preventing attacks from foreign terrorists in US territory. I consider that one pretty important too, and so do a lot of other people.

My point is that there are bigger issues, not only in our education policy, but in our politics in general. You seem to think there aren't. I think that's tunnel vision. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Don't forget, I'm on your side here, I just think there are bigger problems to deal with.

Red Siegfried

28th March 2006, 10:57 AM

Not only is it a case of a constitutional violation as tsg pointed out, it is a question of whether or not science should form the basis of how we see the world, or it should be a specific religion's dogma.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. My contention is you have to choose the hill you want to die on and this is not on the top of my list of hills.

If you don't need science to explain how species came to be, then you don't need any science at all. Biology cannot be explained without evolution. If you can substitute biology text books with the Bible, you have to substitute all other textbooks on any science subject.

We do not give equal time to religious dogma in a science class. It's that simple.

I understand that. You're preaching to the choir and you're patronizing me. Don't do it.

Don't you think you should have found that data, before you announce that this is a "relatively small problem"?

Don't you think you should find some data before you start saying that it's not a small problem? Now you're playing debate tactics here, and debates don't reach conclusions.

I just think that you need to wake up and learn a bit about how Creationists have tried to enforce their own religious views on all Americans. This is not something that is created by politicians, but by religious fundamentalists.

Try this introduction. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp)

You think being able to balance a checkbook is more important than knowing how the Universe works? Really?

Did I say it was more important? No, of course I didn't, and you're trying to reduce my argument to absurdity by quoting my out of context. Stop it.

My point was that the educational system in this country has more serious problems than whether or not there are some paragraphs in a science textbook that talk about ID or creation science, balanced with the scientific truth of evolution, when only a relatively small number of kids in some states will even read it, let alone believe it.

You're welcome to "die on this hill" so to speak, and I think we'll win this one eventually, but my priorities are different for education. The hill I'm going to die on is making sure kids are not functionally illiterate when they graduate. Also, I'm not going to fall into the trap of demonizing the other side of this issue like some people on this board have done in the past, sounding like a bunch of fascists themselves (if you've done this, you know who you are). It's unproductive and IMO, this is just another in a long line of wedge issues to get folks to vote for certain people that they would not vote for ordinarily. That's important to me too. I'm not going to end up voting for certain people who want to keep this sort of nonsense out of our science classes when many of their other policies in other areas are harmful, IMO.

Big picture.

Anyway, I'm done defending what my priorities are for a better country when in reality, we are in agreement here, just in disagreement as to the degree of importance we place on it.

tsg

28th March 2006, 11:30 AM

No, the first amendment was created to keep government from establishing a religion, not to keep religion out of the government. The fact that you think this tells me you've done very little study on the Constitution and the founding fathers.

Absolutely, flat out, and unquestionably wrong. The founding fathers were well aware what happens when religion gets involved in government. Why do you think it's the very first thing listed in the Bill of Rights?

You're trying to equate some kids in some states reading textbooks that have "creation science" in them with the loss of the entire First Amendment.

I'm saying that government sponsored promotion of religion in a public school science class is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agrees with me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v_Aguillard). That it isn't the entire First Amendment that's at risk doesn't make it not important.

I suggest you relax.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson.

The fact that you are getting all worked up about this just goes to prove my contention that this is a wedge issue. You think there's no bigger issue in the US today? How about preventing attacks from foreign terrorists in US territory. I consider that one pretty important too, and so do a lot of other people.

We are talking about government sponsored promotion of religion in a public school science class in direct opposition of the ideals this country was founded upon. These ideals are what make this country a place I want to live and worth protecting. Otherwise, I'd just move somewhere that wasn't under attack. I mean, really, exactly what is it we're trying to protect from terrorism? Lives? We could save lots of lives by just giving in to their demands.

Don't forget, I'm on your side here, I just think there are bigger problems to deal with.

If we're not concerned with protecting our freedoms from predators in our own country, there's no point of protecting them from foreign invaders.

aggle-rithm

28th March 2006, 12:06 PM

You know, the pseudointellectual elitism on this board is really starting to get to me.

Just because you're a skeptic and an atheist doesn't mean you're better than other people, it just means you know something that they don't. But it's always easier to ridicule and group people than it is to try to change them, isn't it?

The level of discussion here has really gone down hill in the last year, IMO. I don't know, maybe I need to just start putting more of the skeptical bigots on ignore and take the bad with the good.

And there is a lot of good here.

Making fun of believers could be a reaction to the feeling of extreme helplessness and despair that we feel when reading about problems like the one described in the article. Sure, it doesn't help to ridicule others. But, what else is there to be done? There are already people out there, trying to educate the ignorant, but they repeatedly thwarted by those they are trying to help. At least humor, however malicious and misguided it might be, provides an outlet for the frustration we all feel.

juryjone

28th March 2006, 12:44 PM

IMO, this is just another in a long line of wedge issues to get folks to vote for certain people that they would not vote for ordinarily. That's important to me too. I'm not going to end up voting for certain people who want to keep this sort of nonsense out of our science classes when many of their other policies in other areas are harmful, IMO.

I'm beginning to agree that we shouldn't keep this nonsense out of science classes. Kids should be taught what science is - reproducible, predictive, evidentiary. Intelligent design is the anti-science, an example of something that purports to be science, but is not.

But the article listed in the OP is not about Arkansas forcing ID to be taught. It's about censoring real science - evolution. It's about the failure of elected officials to take a stand one way or the other, to stand for science or against it. Instead we limit what's taught and bar our children from knowledge that is as certain as the sun rising and setting.

It doesn't stop at evolution, either. It has already included geology, and will soon include astronomy, chemistry, etc. I don't want to be accused of seeing the slippery slope, but where does it all end? When will our science classes be reduced to only the simplest concepts that don't have any way of offending some fringe group?

I also want to say that this issue is one thing that frustrates me about local governance of schools. This issue is a hydra - once you cut one head off, as was done in Dover, then it springs up again, in identical fashion, in many other places. And does this cause people to stand up and vote against those local school boards? Not until you have an expensive suit brought against the board, as happened in Dover. It may be my cynicism, but I think in Dover more people voted with their pocketbook than with their love of science.

Red Siegfried

28th March 2006, 03:04 PM

Making fun of believers could be a reaction to the feeling of extreme helplessness and despair that we feel when reading about problems like the one described in the article. Sure, it doesn't help to ridicule others. But, what else is there to be done? There are already people out there, trying to educate the ignorant, but they repeatedly thwarted by those they are trying to help. At least humor, however malicious and misguided it might be, provides an outlet for the frustration we all feel.

I can see where you're coming from there. I plead guilty of doing the same thing on occasion. It's just that sometimes it seems that it gets downright vicious and I find that sad. I happen to think Americans have a lot more in common and a lot more common interest than we do things that make us different or things that we are at odds on.

Red Siegfried

28th March 2006, 03:13 PM

I'm beginning to agree that we shouldn't keep this nonsense out of science classes. Kids should be taught what science is - reproducible, predictive, evidentiary. Intelligent design is the anti-science, an example of something that purports to be science, but is not.

That's a good idea. If they want to discuss ID, let's discuss ID and then also discuss evolution and then, more importantly, talk about the difference between pseudoscientific dogma and real science. After all, the fundies are just demanding equal time, right? They never said anything about the context we have to put it in, which means that we can discuss ID and keep them happy while explaining how wrong it is. Maybe it would be a good object lesson.

But I just don't know if that would work. Ideally, I don't think the discussion of ANY topic should be verbotten in public school, but the problem with that is that different people have different ideas on the definition of "discussion" and "indoctrination" as well as having different agendas that will determine into which context they will put these discussions. So then we get back to square one, some people teaching creationism and some teaching evolution, which is not what we want here. The goal is to make sure kids aren't being taught scientific falsehoods as truth.

Clarification: I said DISCUSS ID, not teach it as fact.

Further clarification to my last post: When I said "this sort of nonsense" I was referring to ID and creation science. Just wanted to be clear there.

Red Siegfried

28th March 2006, 03:16 PM

I also want to say that this issue is one thing that frustrates me about local governance of schools. This issue is a hydra - once you cut one head off, as was done in Dover, then it springs up again, in identical fashion, in many other places. And does this cause people to stand up and vote against those local school boards? Not until you have an expensive suit brought against the board, as happened in Dover. It may be my cynicism, but I think in Dover more people voted with their pocketbook than with their love of science.

And who gets rich over these lawsuits? Not the evolutionists, not the scientists, just the lawyers. You see why I keep harping on about "wedge issues?" I think this issue is exploited, not only by lawyers, but by politicians as well. And I just don't want to play it because I think there are more important problems that we need to solve first as a country.

Figuring out a way to make the legal system a level playing field for rich and poor alike without impeding anyone's rights is one of those issues. Now, pardon me while I ride off to tilt at windmills. :)

But that's my opinion. For those who consider the school battle to be more important than I do, I will respectfully disagree, but more power to you if you can make a positive change on this front.

emperorchaos

28th March 2006, 06:28 PM

Can I ask you, Red, where you attended school?

Red Siegfried

28th March 2006, 06:48 PM

Both highschool and college in Wisconsin in the public school system. All things considered, I turned out okay (I hope). And in case you were wondering, yes, creationism (that was before they called in creation science) was discussed in advanced biology, but it was part of a unit on the scientific method and the history of science for about a week at the beginning of the semester, if I remember correctly. Our teacher had no problem saying he thought it was bunk, but we were free to believe what we wanted as long as we remembered the class was about science and not the Bible. Also, if I remember right, our textbook mentioned creationism too but only as a passing mention "Some people believe but the scope of this textbook is scientific theory ...." or something like that.

I kind of wish that's how it would be discussed everywhere.

At that point in my life I was Christian, and believed in God, but I didn't think that the world was created by God in seven days. I figured evolution made too much sense to discount so I just assumed that not everything in the Bible was true and maybe evolution was the way God made life the way it is today. Pretty much everyone I know personally who is Christian and whose thoughts I know on this topic kind of thinks that (pretty much, the in-laws are still very much Bible literalists). Now I'm definitely atheist and don't buy into anything other than well tested naturalistic explanations on how the universe works, or at the very minimum a really reasonable hypothesis on how those things work.

emperorchaos

28th March 2006, 06:54 PM

Wow, my school didn't have any mention of Creationism in it. But we conveniently skip over the chapter on evolution.

That aside, I did go to a really good school for my area. We were #1 in the state for standardized testing of public schools 11 years running when I graduated.

I was mostly just curious. It seems to me that ID has mostly become a southern issue, particularly in the bible belt. This was the case a few years back in a small city near Atlanta, GA.

The one thing I know I like about Wisconsin (the one time I visited the state as I drove through to Minnesota) is the fact they have milk product vending machines at the interstate rest stops. If there is some local belief that you shouldn't drink the milk from them, don't tell me. I enjoyed my chocolate milk.

valis

28th March 2006, 07:24 PM

Making fun of believers could be a reaction to the feeling of extreme helplessness and despair that we feel when reading about problems like the one described in the article. Sure, it doesn't help to ridicule others. But, what else is there to be done? There are already people out there, trying to educate the ignorant, but they repeatedly thwarted by those they are trying to help. At least humor, however malicious and misguided it might be, provides an outlet for the frustration we all feel.

Please don't worry yourself. We deserve to be ridiculed. After all you are 'Bright' and we are 'Dim'.

valis

28th March 2006, 07:28 PM

Absolutely, flat out, and unquestionably wrong. The founding fathers were well aware what happens when religion gets involved in government. Why do you think it's the very first thing listed in the Bill of Rights?

I am honestly curious about this. Could you point me to an example of where our Founding Fathers fought to keep religion out of government. For example where they protested prayer before public meetings or religion in school etc?

I less than three logic

28th March 2006, 08:06 PM

Please don't worry yourself. We deserve to be ridiculed. After all you are 'Bright' and we are 'Dim'.
Some skeptics are atheists. Some skeptics are Brights. Some atheists are Brights. Most atheists are skeptics. Most Brights are skeptics. Now, following this logic answer the following questions.

1. Are all skeptics atheists?
2. Are all skeptics Brights?
3. Are all atheists skeptics?
4. Are all atheists Brights?
5. Are all Brights atheists?
6. Are all Brights skeptics?

Not all of us identify ourselves as Brights, even though I agree with them and their cause for the most part. IMO it may have been a poor name to choose for exactly the reason you’ve illustrated here for us.

westphalia

28th March 2006, 08:28 PM

I couldn't agree more with Red Siegfried. I should note that I, too, was educated in Ohio via public schools (high school and college). My father is still practicing as a Southern Baptist minister, so I share some semblance of his Christian background.

Our high school (Gahanna, just outside Columbus) touched on "creationism" during our biology class, and it was discussed for approximately three or four minutes. We then went on with the rest of our textbook. No harm, no foul.

I don't see this ID debate as the harbinger of a vast, right-wing fundamentalist takeover of the country and its educational system. In places where folks have tried to insert ID into the science curriculum, it's generally been defeated. In places where it hasn't, so what? Honestly, how much time can a science teacher - even one dedicated to ID (which most science teachers aren't) - spend on creationism? There isn't any scientific evidence for it to sift through, or test; there isn't any agreement between ID proponents on how it should be presented. Save for a few privately-funded schools (where folks have a right to do what they want, largely), creationism doesn't have textbooks, or access to books that so much as treat ID seriously. How many times can you read Genesis before you've exhausted the subject? Most folks who want ID taught are coming from a Christian paradigm, so they aren't asking that September be used to cover Genesis, October the Koran, and November, Ganesh.

I often wonder if atheists and agnostics aren't making a grievous mistake by not welcoming the teaching of ID into the schools. Let's get it out into the open, and discuss it. When a student looks at the evidence for evolution, and compares it to the complete lack of evidence for creationism, he will draw his own, correct conclusion. These things should be allowed to rise or fall on their own merit. Not allowing creationism to hang itself on the scientific gallows may well be a mistake, and makes us look like we have something to hide, or something to fear. (And yes, I understand that creationism and evolution can't really be compared, since one is a science and the other a faith, but that distinction doesn't matter in the public forum. Let them come to grips.)

Scopes allowed science and religion to wage war in a public forum. Rationality lost the battle there, and resoundingly won the war. Let science battle religion every single day in classrooms all across the country, and I'm confident that reason and science will win every time, just as it did in Tennessee.

The condescension with which the anti-religious folks handle the faithful (or "professed" faithful, since most Christians I've talked to - even fundamentalists - have a hard time believing the world was snapped into being within six days) is hurting, not helping, their cause. These people should be engaged, not ridiculed. They should be treated with respect, since the views of the religious folks are in the majority.

A little graciousness may well change that balance.

tsg

28th March 2006, 09:50 PM

I am honestly curious about this. Could you point me to an example of where our Founding Fathers fought to keep religion out of government. For example where they protested prayer before public meetings or religion in school etc?

There is some information here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment). Both Jefferson and Madsion spoke of a wall or line of separation between church and state. A wall, to me anyway, would suggest that one stay on one side and the other on the other. Not simply a one-way restriction, but a division which neither shall cross.

The whole point of the establishment clause is to prevent there being an official religion of the US. This doesn't just mean prohibiting outright proclamations of "We are a [Christian|Muslim|Jewish|Pastafarian] nation", but also actions which favor or support one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. The reason for this is that religion, by definition, is belief without evidence and this country was founded on the principles of freedom and that if the government is going to restrict that freedom it had better have damned good reasons for doing so. The idea being that if the people are going to have their freedoms restricted, it should be for the good of the people as a whole and not solely because it might anger some deity.

The free excercise clause guarantees that every American is free to worship (or not) as he so chooses. The fear of prosecution is not the only weapon of a government wishing to encourage a certain belief system. Propaganda is another and very often more effective. Those who don't conform can be pressured and ostracized by their neighbors. All the government need do is encourage the belief that dissenters are not good citizens. Start the indoctrination when children are young and impressionable and it will take a very firm hold.

Public schools weren't even prevalent until the 19th century, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out they hadn't considered the issue of promoting religion in public schools. But if I had to guess, I'd say they would be against it. The Supreme Court has said, on more than one occasion, that the government's actions must have a valid secular purpose and not have the primary effect of promoting or inhibitiing religion or they violate the First Amendment. Note that both conditions must be true. It doesn't necessarily have to infringe on anyone's rights as an individual to be unconstitutional. It must also have a valid secular purpose. This seems pretty clear to me to be a statment that religion be kept out of government.

tsg

29th March 2006, 07:33 AM

I don't see this ID debate as the harbinger of a vast, right-wing fundamentalist takeover of the country and its educational system.

Read this (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) and tell me if you still think that.

When a student looks at the evidence for evolution, and compares it to the complete lack of evidence for creationism, he will draw his own, correct conclusion.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that high school students have the knowledge and skill set necessary to properly evaluate the arguments made by evolution and Intelligent Design. They don't. That's why they're in a biology class to begin with. Of Pandas and People is the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design textbook. It is filled from cover to cover with logical fallacies and scientific falsehoods that would sound reasonable to someone with less than a PhD in biology. Unless the teacher is also going to point out these fallacies and errors, you're only going to confuse the students.

If you want to discuss ID as an example of how not to do science, I have no problem with that. If you want to discuss creationism as a belief held by some people, I have no problem with that. If you want to present either on equal footing alongside evolution, that I have a problem with.

Let's not forget that the OP was not about presenting ID or creationism in the classroom, it was about the Board of Education, an agent of the government, prohibiting the teaching of evolution (to the point that they can't even mention the word) due to religious pressure. This is not a secular purpose. This is religion getting involved in government. It's wrong.

Complexity

29th March 2006, 07:52 AM

drkitten

29th March 2006, 09:08 AM

And who gets rich over these lawsuits? Not the evolutionists, not the scientists, just the lawyers.

Except that the lawyers for the winning side took a loss on the case (they ended up charging Dover their expenses, but not the legal fees).

The only people who really made money on that particular case were the express mail services and the local copy shop.

Similarly, the lawyers for the losing side were operating pro bono as well.

This isn't about the money -- at least not directly.

westphalia

29th March 2006, 10:46 AM

I must disagree, especially with what I have bolded.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong (repetition added in an attempt to get through that thick skull).

I don't have an overly thick skull. It's probably no thicker than yours.

Too bad folks can't just be civil.

Complexity

29th March 2006, 11:40 AM

I don't have an overly thick skull. It's probably no thicker than yours.

Too bad folks can't just be civil.
Too bad folks can't just be intelligent.

Too bad folks can't just be skeptical.

Too bad folks can't just be right.

I less than three logic

29th March 2006, 01:05 PM

The condescension with which the anti-religious folks handle the faithful (or "professed" faithful, since most Christians I've talked to - even fundamentalists - have a hard time believing the world was snapped into being within six days) is hurting, not helping, their cause. These people should be engaged, not ridiculed. They should be treated with respect, since the views of the religious folks are in the majority.

A little graciousness may well change that balance.
I’d have to agree with Complexity here, your statement is just wrong. For the most part we are not condescending towards religious views. We merely want science classes to teach science. Without any facts to support it, the creationist version is not science in anyway. As such, it does not belong in a science class, not even as an example of bad science. The problem is that simply disagreeing with the religious appears as arrogance to them.

Also, merely belonging to the majority does not make a view right, nor worthy of respect. Restricting the education of children, especially for those that do not share your particular faith, for no other reason then it contradicts your religious views is wrong. E. B. White said, “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time.” This is one of the times where more then half the people are wrong.

westphalia

29th March 2006, 01:55 PM

Too bad folks can't just be intelligent.

Too bad folks can't just be skeptical.

Too bad folks can't just be right.

That's it? That's the best you can offer? Per my assertion that too many fellow skeptics lose any good will on the part of their audience with their smarmy and condescending manner - point made.

I'm not sure how I'm not being either "intelligent" (a misuse of the spirit of the word, really) or "skeptical." I'm a skeptic. I don't agree with creationism, and I'd rather not have it taught in schools. But if creationists want to fight evolution on the battlefield of science - let's have that battle. I know creationism isn't a science; I never stated it was. I understand it has no place in a science curriculum. Unfortunately, a growing number of people are going to insist it be placed there. You don't have to respect the views of the majority (you should, to be polite), but you do have to respect the power that majority has to wreak changes in school curricula, overriding the voices of "America's most hated minority."

One of the best advantages a general can confer on his troops is selection of the ground upon which they will fight. I'm only suggesting that creationism will not stand up against evolution in a science classroom - it can't, because it isn't science, and it has no evidence. We should insist that evolution be taught completely, and that ID folks get their say, too. Let them break out the Bibles and show the kids the evidence they have for their point of view, then give us our turn to display rocks, fossils, organisms, adaptations, etc. Let the chips fall where they may. Science will win out - it always has, historically speaking. Whenever science and religion have clashed in an open forum, science has always won the war. Always.

And I totally understand the argument that our kids are too uneducated to discern between creationist tomfoolery and science. But our kids should be challenged to learn the difference. Let them see both sides. Let them engage their critical minds and develop them. I have a strong belief that our kids are smarter than we give them credit for, particularly if we challenge them with all the evidence science and evolution can muster. They certainly aren't getting any smarter under the current science curricula. Let's allow the creationists to fight their battle in our arena, and stir up our kids.

I don't mind disagreement between all of us, but I don't appreciate being called unintelligent and unskeptical, when I am neither of those things. I'd rather disagree as gentlemen than resort to juvenile name-calling.

juryjone

29th March 2006, 02:38 PM

Except that the lawyers for the winning side took a loss on the case (they ended up charging Dover their expenses, but not the legal fees).

The only people who really made money on that particular case were the express mail services and the local copy shop.

Similarly, the lawyers for the losing side were operating pro bono as well.

This isn't about the money -- at least not directly.

That's interesting about the lawyers not receiving any money. I was under the impression the Dover school board was spending a lot of money to try this case.

When you say that it isn't directly about the money - how do you think it might be indirectly about the money? I ask because I still believe that the school board was voted out because of the lawsuit. If no lawsuit had been brought I don't see it becoming much of an issue in the election.

drkitten

30th March 2006, 08:02 AM

That's interesting about the lawyers not receiving any money. I was under the impression the Dover school board was spending a lot of money to try this case.

When you say that it isn't directly about the money - how do you think it might be indirectly about the money? I ask because I still believe that the school board was voted out because of the lawsuit. If no lawsuit had been brought I don't see it becoming much of an issue in the election.

Sorry about the delay in response, but I wrote a rather long response that got eaten when my browser decided to have a sudden total existence failure, just before I had to go give a test.

Any political issue can be indirectly about the money if a politician can use it to gather money, publicity, and/or votes. Heck, I'm no politician, and even I can see the financial advantages that would accrue to me if I were to write a grubby little pamphlet describing an alternative theory to evolution and persuade the Discovery Institute schills to hawk it for ten beans a copy or thereabouts. And if I later decided to run for governor of a red state somewhere, that would probably enhance my candidacy. For a real-life example of this sort of "indirectly about money," look at ex-Chief Justice of the Alabama Roy Moore. He was censured by the Alabama judiciary for putting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. He used that publicity to get elected Chief Justice, and was promptly impeached for doing the same thing in the Supreme Court of Alabama. Today he's running for Governor of Alabama.

I suspect that you're right that most people don't care much about issues as arcane as whether or not a monument is in front of a courtroom, or a two-paragraph statement read in class. But by the same token, there are enough extremist, single-issue voters in the United States, and the overall voter turnout is low enough, that a solid group of hot-button voters can and do swing many elections, especially at local levels (school boards and such). That's how the evangelical right got to be such a potent force to begin with in US politics. Back in the 70s and thereabouts, most of the political machines were breaking down at the local level; there was enough public dissatisfaction with politicians and politics in general that there simply weren't enough candidates or public interest for "real" elections. The religious right saw an opportunity and started to mobilize for all the minor offices -- county coroner, school board, dogcatcher, whatever. But now, thirty years later, the people with the experience with the election system and the set of contacts are overpopulated by the veterans of these "campaigns" in the boonies.

NobbyNobbs

3rd April 2006, 12:58 PM

I am honestly curious about this. Could you point me to an example of where our Founding Fathers fought to keep religion out of government. For example where they protested prayer before public meetings or religion in school etc?

I have a referral for you, but I can't post URLs yet. Hope the following doesn't get me banned.

Go to cbsnews.com, slash stories, slash 2005, slash 02, slash 04, slash opinion, slash main671823.shtml

tsg

3rd April 2006, 01:04 PM

I have a referral for you, but I can't post URLs yet. Hope the following doesn't get me banned.

Go to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml

Linkified.

Major Billy

12th July 2006, 12:15 PM

Just out of curiosity, is the evolution an issue in any European countries?In England, creationism is taught in public (state-funded) schools:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/aslevels/story/0,,740377,00.html

brodski

12th July 2006, 12:46 PM

In England, creationism is taught in public (state-funded) schools:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/aslevels/story/0,,740377,00.html
A slightly misleading claim, as far as I know only 1 State funded school in England teaches Creationism, England has a National Curriculum which all state schools must follow (except of "city academies"- see below), creationism isn't on the Curriculum so it doesn't get taught.
However there are "city academies" which are mostly state funded, but private "sponsors" get the right to set curricula, hire and fire staff and basically run the school in return for paying a proportion of the running costs either in cash or via payments in kind. A fundamentalist Christian has sponsored a "city academy" in the north east of England which teaches creationism, evolution is also taught as it is still on Te exam syllabus.
ID doesn't get a look in, probably because ID arose a response to US legal rulings, creationists in the UK don't have to hide behind an unnamed designer.

Almo

12th July 2006, 02:48 PM

Bigger fish to fry, people. Bigger fish.

I wouldn't say "bigger." There are other fish just as big. What's the sense in having 100% literacy if 50% believe the earth was created 6000 years ago? Modern life is based upon science and engineering; our cities could not exist without them. If the children are brought up to disbelieve basic things like radio-carbon dating and radio-isotope half-life dating, what other things based on empircal evidence will they disbelieve? A population crippled by using a knowledge base that's millenia out of date is not going to be a successful one.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. If this society kills itself off through its own stupid beliefs, then so be it. A better-adapted society will eventually take its place.

EDIT: had 6 days instead of 6000 years.