Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I came across a reference to a law review note from last year in the Chapman Law Review. The note was by Stephen Trask, then a student at William Mitchell College of Law and, unsurprisingly, a graduate of Liberty University. It was entitled, Evolution, Science, and Ideology: Why the Establishment Clause Requires Neutrality in Science Classes. Since Chapman is Sandefur's alma mater, I emailed him to see if he'd seen it and he said no, but he found it and sent me a copy of it. He described it as a "giant, steaming pile of crap"; he was being generous.
It's simply one of the silliest bits of legal writing I've ever seen. Here's the short version of his argument: evolutionism is a religion, part of the larger religion of secular humanism, and therefore teaching it without also teaching creationism violates the establishment clause requirement of neutrality between religion and non-religion. I presume he wrote such drivel with a straight face, but I'm afraid I didn't read it that way. I especially found this argument amusing (discussing the Edwards v Aguillard decision):
The Court also operated on the assumption that the mere inclusion of creationism with evolutionism in the curriculum is an advancement of religion and an attempt to counterbalance and discredit evolutionary theory at every point. Consider this scenario: A philosophy teacher at a public high school will only teach proofs opposing the existence of God in his philosophy class, and he refuses to teach any proofs supporting the existence of God because he believes that the concept of God is religious and not philosophical. Religious fundamentalist parents at the school express their outrage that this teacher is teaching their students an atheistic belief system that is contrary to the Bible. Because of outrage expressed by the religious parents, the school district passes a policy requiring that teachers give equal time to proofs supporting and opposing the existence of God. How could this policy be constitutional under the Supreme Court's analysis in Edwards? The teacher, after all, was just teaching the students philosophy, and religious parents do not have a right to counterbalance philosophical theories at every point with their personal religious beliefs. The statute lacks a secular purpose since the school only implemented the statute in reaction to outrage expressed by a specific religious sect, and including the proofs for the existence of God would clearly advance the religious viewpoint that there is a God. It is simply incorrect to believe that presenting both sides of an issue is somehow taking sides. Fairly presenting various perspectives on an issue is the essence of neutrality.
But he's missing the absolutely obvious here: no teacher in a public high school could (or should) be teaching anything at all about the philosophical proofs for or against the existence of God. To do so would clearly be a violation of the neutrality requirement of the establishment clause. There is no need for a group of students to demand that the school give equal time to discussing the proofs for God's existence; such a course would be unconstitutional as it was.
I"m sure Trask would respond by arguing that evolution is itself a religion and therefore violates the neutrality clause, but that is only the first clearly false premise of his argument. Evolution is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories, it is discrete; that is, it explains a specific set of data and does not explain or attempt to explain things outside that data set. It is not a "belief system" or a "worldview" or whatever absurd catchphrase is popular these days; it is a discrete scientific theory.
Now, it's certainly true that evolution conflicts with the tenets of some religious faiths, or at least with a subset of those faiths. But if that fact magically transforms evolution into a religion itself then every scientific theory must now be declared a religious view. There is hardly a single scientific theory that does not conflict with someone's religious views. So let's apply Trask's argument that any scientific theory that conflicts with any religious belief is, in and of itself, a religious view and therefore in order to be neutral for establishment clause purposes, the school must "fairly present various perspectives" on each and every one of them.
Many religious groups believe that natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes and floods are sent deliberately by God as punishment for sin. Thus, applying Trask's reasoning consistently, we must conclude that when schools teach about conventional meteorology or seismology they are teaching a religious viewpoint. The materialistic theory that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates, according to Trask's reasoning, must be part of "secular humanism", an arbitrary attempt by the gatekeepers of knowledge to rule out all supernatural causes a priori.
What then must we do? Obviously we have to "fairly present various perspectives" on the issue. The government cannot teach that mainstream seismology is true despite being the only successful means of predicting and explaining earthquakes. Schools must henceforth "fairly present" the idea that earthquakes are sent by God to punish regions of the earth at various times for their sinful behavior. The same with meteorology, of course.
But how exactly does one "fairly present" such a "theory"? There is no actual evidence that could be marshaled in support of it. We can't apply Divine Wrath Theory and use it to predict where or when earthquakes will happen, or tornadoes, or hurricanes. There is no weather report on the 700 Club based on Divine Wrath Theory - "Sodomy is up 14% in the midwest; there's a 40% chance of an earthquake." I can't imagine how one could possibly "fairly present" that idea.
The same is true of even such basic ideas as the germ theory of disease. There are many religious beliefs that conflict with modern medicine, that argue that disease is either sent by God as punishment or by Satan to test our faith (and if the book of Job is to be believed, perhaps by a combination of the two working in concert). For that matter, we have Scientologists who believe that disease is brought on by engrams, Christian Scientists who believe that all disease is spiritual in nature, and so forth. By Trask's reasoning, schools must present all these ideas fairly rather than the one that is actually supported by the evidence. One could go on with such examples all day long. Geocentrism, flat earthism, hollow earthism, pyramidiocy and every other crank religious or pseudo-religious idea would have to be taught alongside mainstream science if one is to apply Trask's argument consistently.
For that matter, if one is actually to follow his argument to its logical conclusion, schools would be forced not to teach anything at all. If he really believes that evolution is a religious belief and teaching it violates the establishment clause, the solution to this is not to have the government teach more religious notions, but to have them stop teaching this one. But since his standard for what constitutes a religious idea is any scientific theory that conflicts with any religious belief, every single scientific theory must also be a religious idea and cannot be taught constitutionally.
But Trask will not apply his argument consistently, I suspect, because he almost certainly does not really believe it. It's a transparent artifice by which he can justify getting his favored religious belief, creationism, into science classrooms. If he tried this argument in a court of law, or in a brief submitted to one, it would provoke little but laughter.
Comments
I didn't know that. I was under the impression that the proofs for and against the existence of God were a usual part of introductions to philosophy. But perhaps that's so only in college introductory courses?
Posted by: JuliaL | July 30, 2007 10:10 AM
But evolutionary theory has an especially invidious way of attacking other religions-- it changes all the time to account for new data. (That's why people call it 'science.') How is a religion that can't contradict a single word of a 2000-4000 year old text supposed to compete with that?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | July 30, 2007 10:41 AM
Phillip Johnson gave a talk at Ohio State several years ago in which he made precisely the same argument. Sometimes I think religious thinking constitutes a learning disability.
Posted by: cserpent | July 30, 2007 10:42 AM
JuliaL wrote:
That would be a college course.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 10:59 AM
...absolutely obvious here: no teacher in a public high school could (or should) be teaching anything at all about the philosophical proofs for or against the existence of God.
Like JuliaL, I find this absolutely un-obvious. I thought it was well established that public schools can teach about religious claims in history classes, literature classes, philosophy classes. In fact I thought the absurdity of Trask's case was in assuming that a statute calling for teachers to include "both sides" would fail in court because it would "lack a secular purpose." There's an obvious secular purpose: exposing students to arguments which have played a significant part in the history of Western philosophy.
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | July 30, 2007 11:07 AM
The Daily Show did a segment awhile back about some guy in Florida complaining about a school showing An Inconvenient Truth without "balance" from the other side. His idea of "balance" was to say that the Earth was getting hotter due to immorality and such, that a "giant bowl of God's anger" was being poured on the sun... it was a classic bit, but I can't find it on the Comedy Central website currently.
I took philosophy in high school, and we most certainly studied theology and proofs for and against the existence of God. It's one thing to discuss St Anselm and Spinoza and Hume, and another to have your philosophy teacher proselytize for his/her beliefs.
Posted by: Daniel Harper | July 30, 2007 11:15 AM
Obviously, lawyerism is a religion and not a science, so it too must be excluded from the government at every level.
OTOH:
Arithmetic, algebra, and calculus are part of the larger religion of secular humanism, therefore teaching them without also teaching numerology violates the establishment clause. Physics and astronomy ... blah-blah-blah ... astrology and palmistry.
(I could go, but I'll stop here. I feel so dirty even writing that crap.)
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | July 30, 2007 11:15 AM
A teacher could probably get away with a very basic overview that merely described such arguments or put them in historical context, like pointing out that Aquinas came up with a list of five proofs and a brief explanation of the structure of the argument. That would be appropriate in a class on "western thought", of the type often taught in high schools. But Trask's question deals not with that sort of thing, but with a philosophy teacher in high school teaching various proofs against the existence of God, presumably teaching them as valid or true, but refusing to teach about their counterparts; this would clearly be just as unconstitutional as doing the opposite.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 11:17 AM
The defense used that line of reasoning in McLean v. Arkansas, and Judge Overton pointed out quite succinctly that the remedy for teaching one religion is to stop doing so, not to try to "balance" it with another. Then there is Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, which took up this issue, too.
The antievolutionists can't seem to generate anything new in their search for another approach to the school classrooms. And, of course, having to actually demonstrate their case to the satisfaction of the scientific community, like all the accountable science concepts presented in classrooms have had to do, is simply not within their capabilities, due to the simple fact that they are pushing untruths.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | July 30, 2007 11:24 AM
I've got to echo Julia's query. How do you go about teaching philosophy if you can't mention, for instance, the First Cause?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 30, 2007 11:28 AM
My impression is that very few public high schools offer philosophy. Mine certainly didn't. As a result, the question of what can be covered probably doesn't come up very often.
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 30, 2007 11:33 AM
In response to Julia and Ginger Yellow, I could easily imagine a very useful sort of philosophy course that didn't cover notions like First Cause. It would deal with analytic philosophy, philosophy of language, and epistemology. Not only would that be a coherent subpart of philosophy, it would arguably be the part that is most successful and most useful in understanding rational enquiry and other subjects.
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 30, 2007 11:38 AM
"I was under the impression that the proofs for and against the existence of God were a usual part of introductions to philosophy."
Not really. As vague as some philosophy is, I think even philosophy there's a real disinterest in most quarters about theology. It's not just that it's a sore subject: there's a real feeling that it's just not a very interesting set of questions or answers. "God" is often just as much an excuse for boring "explain nothing" handwaving in philosophy as it is in intelligent design.
Posted by: plunge | July 30, 2007 11:39 AM
I'm a secular humanist, or at least willing to become one if that's all I have to do get tax-exempt status as a church.
Posted by: Jon | July 30, 2007 11:47 AM
Bear in mind that in a high school intro to philosophy course, they're going to do barely more than a quick historical tour of the various viewpoints. Clearly, Trask's hypothetical involved far more than that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 11:47 AM
I've heard the "evolution is a religion" argument from just about every creo I've argued with. Their logic is that it is "belief" because it can't be proven. Thus, other beliefs should also be taught in school. This logic, of course, gave rise to the FSM.
Never argue with an idiot - they bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Posted by: 2Hulls | July 30, 2007 12:30 PM
There are some who argue the bible says π is 3, so does that have to taught in maths classes to "balance" the other definitions?
Posted by: blf | July 30, 2007 12:52 PM
So I guess this wouldn't be the same Stephen Trask who wrote the songs to Hedwing and the Angry Inch...
Posted by: spondee | July 30, 2007 1:06 PM
FWIW, my high school (Pennsylvania, late 1980s) offered a philosophy course for seniors. IIRC, it included a section on the existence of God. Certainly, we read St. Anselm's formulation of the Ontological argument, as well as Kant's response. We also read some Aquinas and Paley. Basically, all the classic arguments for the existance of God. The class was definitely more than just a "basic overview," as we debated the pros and cons of the arguments in class. I'm a Christian, so I tended to argue the theist postions (though devil's advocate can be fun). The teacher was an objectivist and an atheist -- Yes, we did read some Rand along with the Plato.
OTOH, the biology curriculum at that school was piss poor. To avoid trouble, the teacher just skipped the unit on evolution.
Posted by: Nick | July 30, 2007 1:16 PM
--But he's missing the absolutely obvious here: no teacher in a public high school could (or should) be teaching anything at all about the philosophical proofs for or against the existence of God.--
What if you taught both? I remember when I was in high school we went through both Hume and Descartes. Not really in depth, (I mean, it is high school), but we did cover the ideas.
Posted by: David | July 30, 2007 1:25 PM
This guys premise is false which means everything is derives from his premise is false and useless as well.
If evolution is a religion (it is a scientific fact) then the germ theory of disease, gravity, geology, astronomy, and all the other sciences and theories are also "religions".
The courts have ruled on this over and over. I don't know why he is flogging a dead horse. Hmmm, well actually I do. Those are the only horses they have left.
By his logic "also teaching creationism", science classes would also have to teach the FSM, the scientology version with Zemu, the evil galactic overlord, and the Thetans, and a few dozen other creation mythologies.
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2007 1:38 PM
A lot of people are missing very basic points.
A public school "philosophy" teacher who used his class to teach a disorted or biased curriculum, with the aim of proseletyzing for one religous view, would be in blatant violation of the constitution.
"Balancing" the above with public school proseletyzing for an "exact opposite" religious view would merely compound the situation by introducing a second violation of the constitution. It would make things twice as bad.
None of this is an argument against a level-appropriate introduction to philosophy in a public school, although I think it belongs in college. There's nothing wrong with teaching public school students about Thomas Acquinas, but there is something wrong with telling them that, in the view of the teacher, school, or government, his views are either divinely inspired truth, or satanically inspired papist blasphemy. (If you want to teach one of those views as "official truth", you need merely set up a private school.)
Equally importantly, the analogy of proseletyzing "philosophy" to the teaching of mainstream science is a grotesquely false analogy.
Posted by: harold | July 30, 2007 1:45 PM
Harold,
I agree that Trask's argument about teaching evolution is a heap of steaming dingo's kidneys. I and others were just reacting to Ed's glib aside that "no teacher in a public high school could (or should) be teaching anything at all about the philosophical proofs for or against the existence of God." Ed initially didn't qualify the statement. It makes more sense if he was actually trying to say that no teacher should present a particular philosophical argumnent as truth, but even that isn't as nuanced as I would like. I'd hate to think that a public school teacher can't say 'yeah, I think Kant's argument is pretty devastating here.' If true, that's a good argument for supporting a private school.
I'm still flabbergasted by the "that's for college" response by several commenters, including Ed. A philosophy course can be tremendously exciting to an intellectually curious teenager, and I'm sure that good teachers who can encourage vigorous debate in their classes outnumber the loons who proselytize. If we have to suck the joy out of high school in order to neuter the loons...well, that's not just sad, it's enough to make me want to home school my son when he is old enough.
Posted by: Nick | July 30, 2007 1:59 PM
Couldn't the teacher just note that evolution neither confirms nor denies the existence of God, that evolution answers "How" and not "Why"? It would take ten seconds of her time and would destroy anything resembling an argument Trask has.
Posted by: Brandon | July 30, 2007 2:11 PM
raven wrote
Welcome to post-modernism.
Seriously, I have "liberal" friends who appear to think that multicultural tolerance for all people means that any belief which comes out of a non-western culture and is "deeply held" -- such as the Evil Eye causing disease -- should be credited on the same level as beliefs which "come out of Western science." All views are opinions, and all opinions deserve equal respect. That makes everyone nice, and stops all the arguments.
Wanna bet?
Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2007 2:39 PM
The aforementioned Timothy Sandefur also has an excellent post on this article up at Positive Liberty.
Posted by: alan | July 30, 2007 3:06 PM
i was really hoping to find a creationist view here, because i really wanted to see how one could put up any kind of real argument against this...
Posted by: colin | July 30, 2007 3:46 PM
As a liberal, I can effectively call that bull$@#! I want to be open-minded, not empty minded....
Posted by: gwangung | July 30, 2007 3:46 PM
A recovering lawyer/recovering Catholic says nicely done. I made "arguments" at trial that required substantial energy simply to avoid my own laughter, something I am not particularly proud of, but those arguments pale by comparison to this "giant, steaming pile of crap." Oh, and as for disease, everyone knows it's cooties as cause.
Posted by: Mike | July 30, 2007 4:01 PM
The pomo multicultural argument, as Dawkins has pointed out, stumbles badly when it comes to air travel. "Which would you rather fly . . . ?"
Posted by: Pieter B | July 30, 2007 4:04 PM
I took philosophy in high school, and Anselm's Ontological Proof was part of the course. (As an example of how faulty reasoning can be hard to disprove.)
Does Liberty U prepare its students for entering the real world, where "evolutionism" is not considered a religion, for example? Kids who grow up home-schooled and then get a diploma from a Christian college must be in for a rude awakening when they first encounter others who don't share their premises.
Posted by: Grumpy | July 30, 2007 4:09 PM
I'm also liberal-leaning, but whenever I hear the "all opinions have equal merit" argument, I always respond with the same thing: "If you leave your mind sufficiently open, people will be happy to throw rubbish into it." The "all opinions are equal" attitude is not open-mindedness, it's simple intellectual laziness. If we are not to judge the propositions put before us, how are we to make any progress in knowledge at all? In fact, such an attitude is antithetical to science, period, which is something none of us should accept.
Posted by: Mike K | July 30, 2007 4:28 PM
This guys premise is false which means everything is derives from his premise is false and useless as well.
I should clarify that false premises do not necessarily make a conclusion false, it merely makes it invalid. It could still be shown to be true from a different set of premises (though I seriously doubt it, hehe).
... means that any belief which comes out of a non-western culture and is "deeply held" -- such as the Evil Eye causing disease -- should be credited on the same level as beliefs which "come out of Western science.
Holy crap. That's identical to the sort of "reverse-nihilism" that I see from my New Age associates. They posit facts as merely beliefs (which I can agree to on a superficial level), then hold them all to the same truth value. Paradoxically, they then attempt to argue their position when you disagree with them. When presented with arguments opposing their beliefs, they fall back on this reverse-nihilism. They then, typically, call you closed-minded. They're certainly open-minded, but so much that they have let their brains fall out.
i was really hoping to find a creationist view here, because i really wanted to see how one could put up any kind of real argument against this...
If I was a creationist, I would argue that "Evolutionism" is grounded in science yet oversteps its bounds, thereby becoming a belief. A somewhat similar analog would be the teaching of the Giant Impact Hypothesis (for the formation of the moon) as the truth and completely ignoring others such as the coformation and fission hypotheses.
Of course, all of those are actual scientific hypotheses.. though one might attempt to argue that something like Intelligent Design is also one.
BTW, I'm an agnostic evolutionist.
Posted by: Falkone | July 30, 2007 4:34 PM
Nick -
Of course. It's only when teachers start saying something that disparages or promotes a specific religious view (or set of views) that a line is crossed.
As a skeptical, science loving, human rights valuing liberal, I have a solution to this dilemma.
I am entirely tolerant, but within the context of a society that protects human rights, provides public education grounded in standard, mainstream knowledge, has strong public health and environmental regulations, and holds professions to standards.
If you obey the law, and coincidentally choose, at your own expense and not affecting others, to wear a talisman to ward off the evil eye (which is not a "non-western" belief per se, but anyway...) fine. That's your right. If you ask my opinion or advice, I'll advise you to stop worrying about the evil eye. If you don't, you do your thing and I'll do my thing.
If you harrass others about the evil eye, claim that the evil eye justifies laws to force others to follow your personal moral code (especially if you don't even follow it yourself), try to use evil eye based techniques to practice law or medicine, teach the evil eye as science in a tax-payer funded public school, advocate abandoning current water treatment techniques for an evil eye based regimen, etc, then we have a problem, and I'll defend my rights.
Posted by: harold | July 30, 2007 4:37 PM
The easiest way to get a negative reaction from the supporters of creationism/intelligent design is to offer them a deal.
Creationism will be taught as a parallel science curriculum that includes the creation stories of the various American Indian tribes, Hinduism, and the spells and potions of "Harry Potter".
Posted by: Jerry Mickle | July 30, 2007 4:39 PM
All these posts against something that can't be made fact, yet praising another non-fact (A theory is not fact, and can change at a given moment), is ludicrous. While I for one am not for creationism (I am a Christian, but hold a different belief on the bible than many mainstream religions, and do think the theory of evolution is good), I am not one to just shoot it down.
Personally, I can see why intolerance for religion, including Christians, occurs: We have very little knowledge on how the religion works. I saw an article that stated there should be theology/philosophy courses in high school. I say it should be a mandated class to allow others to listen and learn why a religion is the way it is, so at least we can just get along. If not mandated, then make all but the basic sciences optional.
Posted by: Michael S Lile | July 30, 2007 5:10 PM
The study of philosophy is not science. Science is in fact an offshoot of philosophy, which separated when those who studied the natural world started actually measuring and testing things. Physics was once called "natural philosophy" for this reason.
There is no reason to exclude philosophical discussions regarding religious topics in a philosophy class--it is one of the few places where they actually belong.
The only thing more loony than excluding those discussions would be using the inclusion or exclusion of those discussions as an argument for or against the teaching of scientific evolutionary theory or religious creationism in public high schools.
Posted by: Jim | July 30, 2007 5:24 PM
Since soeone wanted to hear a Creationist POV onthis here goes. I'll try to keep this simple. Definitionally speaking, any statement on the existence/non-existence of a god/God/gods is a religious belief. Therefore, ateism is a religious belief (and, in point of fact, some atheists formalize their beliefs to such a point that they could be accused of going to "church"). Evolution derives from an atheistic POV for explaining the manner by which we developed into modern humans. Almost without exception, that evidence can be used to assert a Creationist view as well (although I will not get into the specifics of that claim here, since this is not the place for it). Evolution is merely a means by which the whole picture is tied together, as is Creationism. We simply assert a different method. Personally speaking, I would embrace evolution whole-heartedly, except for the fact that it seems to have more inconsistencies and contradictions and leaps of faith than the Bible is typically accused of having. All of you would be up in arms if a Christian teacher proselytized to your kids. Why are you so incable of seeing that we are no more keen on having an atheist teacher do the same thing to our kids? Because you have the truth? Beware of claims of the truth. I also find it a bit curious that many liberals want humanist teachers to be able to preach atheism to our kids, while telling us that if we do not like it, we can use private schools, while simultaneously fighting against voucher programs. The net result is that if a Christian wants his child taught his beliefs, he has to pay twice for schools (once for public schools by paying his taxes, and once for private schools by paying tuition). How precisely is there any equity in this system? Lastly, I have been a Christian all of my life, have experienced God first hand, hold 2 undergraduate degrees from Colorado State University, am preparing for post graduate school, have an IQ that places me in the top .15% (not 15%, either) of the population, and understand evolution better than most believers do. Yet I still don't believe it, and have no real grounds to change my beliefs away from Creationism. So how then, does my informed belief quialify as "brain damaged" as stated in an earlier post? Is it just because I don't buy into your belief system? That seem pretty closed minded, but then that would be the punchline to the question many liberals have about why conservatives don't take them seriously. They don't seem to buy their own beliefs.
Posted by: Charles R Everett | July 30, 2007 5:35 PM
I'll try to explain. A theory is a relatively unified idea that explains and predicts many objective observations, for example the theory of relativity. The theory of evolution is a very strong theory.
A theory may "change", but in modern science, if we call it a "theory", that means that it is vanishingly unlikely to be completely overthrown. Instead, it is more likely to be expanded and fine-tuned. In the case of the theory of evolution, we can take it for granted that life reproduces, that when nucleic acid genomes replicate offspring sequences are somewhat different from parent sequences, and that phenotypes may be acted on by natural selection. We can take it for granted that humans and bacteria (and all other life) have substantial biochemical pathways in common. And there is much, much more that will not change under any reasonably foreseeable circumstances, whatever else we discover.
So while the theory of evolution will "change", "change" does not mean that basic, fundamental concepts built up over decades will be abandoned.
I have to differ with you here, although I appreciate your attempt at tolerance.
Both "creationism" and "ID" represent a collection of false statements about science. They may be passively accepted some otherwise decent, honest people who don't know better, but that is what they are.
I personally perceive them to be as motivated by a political agenda as by any sincere belief. It is only because their advocates wish to have them taught in taxpayer-funded public schools as "science" that there is any issue at all.
For me, the correct response to creationism in public schools is to "shoot it down".
As for private belief, that is an individual matter, but I see no benefit whatsoever in rigidly holding to false beliefs about the physical world. The earth is not 6000 years old, and the bacterial flagellum could have evolved.
Posted by: harold | July 30, 2007 5:45 PM
I went to public school, and in World Cultures (a social studies class) we had a significant unit on various world religions, where we studied a range of religious traditions alive in the world. The ones I remember off the top of my head are Baha'i, Santeria, Taoism, and Shinto. I still remember a decent amount of it.
They were generally taught as cultural systems, without any bias in favor or in opposition to any of them, or even with any burden of value judgment. It wasn't desperate radical avoidance, nor conservative circumlocution, and the class upheld a critical distinction of Western culture: that hard sciences should be kept distinct from cultural systems, and that each should be taught on terms that respect it. That's what a good teacher can do in a public school.
In fact, this is why I love public education, and why I love Western Culture. The engine of postmodernity has helped us get past a lot of our misplaced pride and uncritical sense of superiority. Now we can get back to fully implementing the cultural foundations we established during the enlightenment, when a lot of this good stuff appeared.
Posted by: Jesse | July 30, 2007 5:48 PM
Charles R. Everett,
First, for someone in the "top 0.15%" of the population in IQ, you should really take a remedial class or two in grammar and punctuation.
Second, your argument is, factually speaking, ridiculous. Nobody is "preaching atheism" in the public school system, no matter what you see on "The 700 Club" or Bill O'Reilly or whatever. It just isn't so.
Third, the reason why you're "brain damaged" (I would use a more polite, but equivalent phrase) is because you deny basic facts, not because you don't buy into a particular "belief system." To state the very obvious, Ed is a libertarian, not a liberal, so you're wrong even on your ad hominems.
No sensible, non-"brain damaged" person can deny the fact of evolution. You -- with no evidence or other visible support -- simply assert that evolution "...seems to have more inconsistencies and leaps of faith than the Bible is typically accused of having." That's not just a sane viewpoint. If that bothers you, you might want to rethink your beliefs rather than lash out at imaginary liberals.
cheers,
-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2007 5:49 PM
Charles, you are correct that atheism should not be taught in public schools. Evolution, however, is not atheism. Darwin's Theory of Evolution simply states how organisms can change over long periods of time into other organisms. There are only two premises you need to accept to buy into evolution:
1. Offspring share the same traits at their parents, with some variation.
2. Given the environment, some traits are more useful to survival than others.
"There is no God," is not one of these premises.
And seriously, don't even try to assert that Creationism is as valid a science as Evolution. The two major points of Judeo-Christian Creationism, that the world was created 6000 years ago and was created in 6 days, have been beaten to the ground by experimentation. Unless you want to argue that God planted evidence to make the world seem older than it is, any logical examination of the evidence must lead to accepting Evolution.
I don't think you are brain damaged, just uninformed over this issue. Here is some reading material for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Posted by: Brandon | July 30, 2007 5:51 PM
Charles R. Everett wrote:
Nope, your very first premise is false. "I don't know if Zeus exists" is not a religious belief; it can't possibly be.
Your second premise is also false. This isn't starting out well. It's a cliche, I know, but it's true - if not believing in God is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Your third premise is the most absurd one yet. No, evolution does not derive from an atheistic point of view, no more than meteorology or medicine is. Evolution is a scientific theory; like all scientific theories, it says absolutely nothing about the existence of any gods. It is nothing but an explanation for a given set of data, an explanation that works very well and has been repeatedly confirmed over the course of the last 150 years. One can accept evolution and be a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu or any other religion.
Oh no, this is the perfect place for it, and if you're going to make assertions like that you're certainly going to be challenged to support it. Please tell me how the successional order of appearance of the various types of life on earth can be "used to assert" a creationist view; I submit that the most a creationist can do is attempt to explain it away.
Beware of claims of truth? What the hell does that mean? You're making claims that, one assumes, you believe to be true. Should we beware of them too? This is meaningless nonsense. And how many atheist teachers do you know? I know a great many teachers, having worked with countless schools and teacher's groups over the years; I can count the number of atheists among them on two hands.
I don't want teachers teaching anything about religion at all, either pro or con. And again, the vast, vast majority of teachers are good Christian folk just like you. And I'm in favor of voucher programs. But that has nothing to do with the issue. Schools teach evolution because it's true. The fact that it happens to conflict with your religious views is as irrelevant as the fact that heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, the spherical nature of the earth or the reality of the holocaust conflicts with other people's religious views.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 6:04 PM
The way I see it,
I don't come teaching evolution in your church,
don't come preaching creationism in our School.
Posted by: R Slade | July 30, 2007 6:15 PM
Andrew, to be clear, I have a whole host of reasons that I do not believe evolution. I do love how you have leapt from theory to fact. Also, I was accusing anybody of being a liberal. I simply see several liberal slants in the replies. So, for all of our sakes, please do not add in your assumptions about my meaning, intent, or anything else. Also, I don't watch O reilly, or the 700 club, or anything like that. What would you call it if I tell me child one set of beliefs and he goes to school and his teacher tells him a different set of beliefs, tells him mine are completely incorrect, falsely inflates his own position? If not preaching, at the very least that sounds like an attempt at conversion (which is fine if an atheist does it to a Christian, but not the other way round). Brandon, the simple issue is that Darwin's theory of evolution is not based on as much science as the evolutionist would like us to believe. I have zero issue with germ theory, with speciation, with genetics, with even natural selection. All of that is clearly observable science. Just as I have no issue with chemisty, (most) physics, or anything else that is demonstrable. As far as I can tell, there has never been an experiment wherein one species has changed completely to a different species. If there is one, I'd love to see it. The problem that most evolutionists have is that they equate adaptation and speciation to evolution, and that just isn't correct. For example, how many people do you know that claim that evolution is proven by the mutation of flu strains? They are still flu strains. They simply suffer a mutation that changes their characteristics, thus negating our immunity to the original strain. Science is full of examples like that. Even your own post, with the two points that you cite, only supports speciation and natural selection. It is a long leap to go from that to natural selection creates a new species. Also, for what it's worth, I do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. I've read my Bible cover to cover, and it doesn't say that anywhere in there (it also doesn't say that the the Earth is flat, either). Once again, we suffer from the less-than-informed promoting themselves to the status of knowledgable. As a last point, read some evolutionist literature. It amuses me that on more than a few occasions the things evolutionists write seem to imply an underlying intelligence. Oh, and if you want a good read, go check out www.livescience.com for some good reading on how vestigal organs are not quite so useless after all. That is my other issue with evolution. It is based on a great body of evidence, but a fair amount of that evidence has been discounted. At what point do you stop and ask yourself if it might not be time to stop claiming new "evidence" supports a theory whose basis is more than a little tattered. As a last point, Brandon, I appreciate the fact that your reply was well written, as opposed to Andrew who seems to be jump up and down and shout and call names form of argumentation.
Charles
Posted by: Charles R Everett | July 30, 2007 6:17 PM
That's 'cause evolution is both.
Posted by: Skemono | July 30, 2007 6:23 PM
'But evolutionary theory has an especially invidious way of attacking other religions-- it changes all the time to account for new data. (That's why people call it 'science.') How is a religion that can't contradict a single word of a 2000-4000 year old text supposed to compete with that?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | July 30, 2007 10:41 AM"
The reason you can't just adjust a religious text with new data, REGARDLESS of it's age, is that is supposed to be the WORD OF GOD (gods, or whatever deity), and therefore undeniably true.
Religion is about absolute beliefs - it's purpose is to define the unknown and give it reason. How can a book or series of texts, etc) claim to be the word of god, but then need "updating and revision"... uh that's like saying the all-knowing creator of a universe and everything in it can't keep his shit together for a couple thousand friggin years...
Welcome to Reality, Service Pack 2
Posted by: Davison | July 30, 2007 6:29 PM
Ed, just to clear up a few points. Saying that you don't know if Zeus exists is not the same as saying Zeus does not exist. One is a question of fact, the other is a question of knowledge. If you said the former, you are an agnostic, if the latter, and atheist. Arguments by analogy are also poor. There is a world of difference between a hobby and a belief. When I said beware of claims of truth, it means exactly waht it says. If a teacher is teaching the "truth" of evolution, without recourse to a rebuttal, it is inappropriate. Any time someone tells you that they have the truth, you should be leary, at best, and downright suspicious at worst. And yes, that goes for me telling you that evolution isn't true, or that the Bible is. As for proof, like I said, I'm not getting into it here. There are many well thought out anti-evolutionist books and discussions out there, but they are the sames ones over and over again (since most evolutionists do not do well with completely destroying a counter-point, they just call it non-scientific and move on). As for evolutionist teachers, I would say that most of them that I have seen put their faith in science (you know, that great force that gave us such wonders as repressed memories during the 80's, and top-soil erosion concerns in the 50's, the health benefits of adding radiation to everything in the early 1900's, and any number of other things). If a teacher is teaching my child a belief that detracts from a core aspect of our God, then they are teaching a religious view. Whether they want my child to become an atheist is immaterial. The fact that they are doing it is all that is of consequence.
Charles
Posted by: Charles R Everett | July 30, 2007 6:30 PM
Charles Everett wrote:
I call it reality. Some parents teach their kids that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe, that disease is caused by demons, that the holocaust never happened and that hurricanes result from sin. Their kids are going to be taught that those things are false. Should they get equal time for those beliefs too? If not, why not and why are yours special?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 6:34 PM
Charles observed:
>>I have zero issue with germ theory, with speciation, with genetics, with even natural selection.>>
We can all go home now. Anything more, and you're only self-flagellating. ;)
But then Charles adds, contradictorily:
>>As far as I can tell, there has never been an experiment wherein one species has changed completely to a different species. If there is one, I'd love to see it.>>
First, how can you reconcile this statement with the bolded language above? Does "zero" not mean "zero" to you? Second, before anybody provides you with examples of observed speciation, please answer this question:
What would you do if you were shown such an example? Change your mind? Admit you were wrong?
Posted by: Joe McFaul | July 30, 2007 6:38 PM
Charles, here is your example, from that site I linked you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Posted by: Brandon | July 30, 2007 6:48 PM
Joe, that's the point. Speciation is not evolution (as it is taught). Evolution teaches that eventually you have a mutation that creates a whole NEW species, that is better adapted, and that thrives and reproduces ond off it goes. In speciation, it is still the same species. If a dog is isolated on an island, and after 100 generations of offspring shows different physical characteristics, as the result of mutation (so, for example, its offspring give rise to offspring with different coloured eyes), it is still a dog. If they could do an experiment (and don't give me that "it's impossible because it takes too much time" cop out) where the dog becomes something else entirely, then great, you have incontrovertable truth that evolution between species exists, and I'll be right there beside you telling how great it is. As it stands now, it is a leap of faith, and I have already made my leap of faith into the other camp. As for Ed, the examples you sight are fallacious, because what you claim can be proven false by science. We know the earth is round if, for no other more scientific reason, than we can take pictures of it from space, which shows it is round. As stated above, if incontrovertable proof exists that species can evolve into different species, the theory would be fine to teach and there is no reason to cave to radicals who want to argue against the prima facie evidence for your POV. Again, unless there has been something I have missed (and I try to stay up on the sciences), I fail to see that level of evidence.
Charles
Posted by: Charles R Everett | July 30, 2007 6:50 PM
Charles Everett wrote:
First of all, you said:
"I don't know" is a statement on the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. If you wish to backpeddle to a different statement now, feel free but you're still wrong. Most atheists do not, in fact, say "there is no god." Rather, they say "I don't see compelling evidence for that claim." Philosophers often call this "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", but most atheists are of the weak variety. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in gods. Someone who does not believe in god, whether they do so out of doubt or certainty, is an atheist. An agnostic, one who has no positive belief in god, is an atheist. A lack of a given belief is not a belief. I do not believe in unicorns, which makes me an "a-unicornist" - one who lacks a belief in unicorns.
They are? Why, because you say so? Some analogies are good, some are bad. They aren't bad by definition, they are in fact quite useful.
Why? When a science teacher tells kids that the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun, should we be leery and suspicious of that as well? When they teach that the planets are kept in their orbits by gravitation "without recourse to a rebuttal" from those who think they are pushed around by angels, is this also unfair? If not, why not? Every single scientific theory in history has conflicted with someone's religious views. By your reasoning, every single scientific theory, no matter how mundane, successful or well accepted, must be balanced by equal time for a rebuttal from those whose religions say otherwise. Education would be impossible. But you do not apply your reasoning consistently, I suspect; you only think that your religious views should be given rebuttal time, rather than the views of the Christian Science church, the Raelians or the flat earthers.
Completely irrelevant. Your claim was that we all want "atheist teachers" to teach "secular humanism" to kids and that is utter bullshit. There are precious few atheist teachers in any school in this country, in science or any other field. The fact is that you need to foster this myth in order to prop up the absurd argument that evolution is "derived from atheism." But as I said, and you ignored, evolution is just a scientific theory. It explains a discrete set of data and that's all it explains. It neither attempts to explain the existence of god nor does it make any statement at all on the subject. Evolution is no more atheistic than the germ theory of disease or the kinetic theory of gasses.
Nonsense. By that criteria, every single scientific theory is a "religious view" because it conflicts with someone's religious views. It's the same ridiculous claim that Trask made and it's already been debunked. It is no more rational or defensible when you repeat it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 6:51 PM
Brandon, great link. IT is still speciation, though. A mosquito can speciate into any number of mosquitos, but they are still mosquitos. FOr evolution to work, they would need to develop something else, like maybe the ability for females to lay eggs without the protein boost from blood, so they lose the beak that they have, and then they end up needing different wings because of some environmental pressure, and so on and so forth until they lose the ability to interbreed and become somnething completely dissimilar to a mosquito.
Charles
Posted by: Charles R Everett | July 30, 2007 6:58 PM
Charles Everett wrote:
Okay Charles, despite your allegedly high IQ and your claim to understand evolution well, you are actually proving to be a typically ignorant creationist. The definition of speciation is the creation of a new species. If speciation has taken place it is not the same species - by definition. And no, evolution does not teach that "a mutation" creates a whole new species; that would be macro-mutation, something akin to Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" hypothesis that was discredited well over 50 years ago.
In other words, when a scientific theory conflicts with your religious beliefs, then that scientific theory is, itself, a religious belief. When a scientific theory conflicts with someone else's religious beliefs, then it's a genuine scientific theory. And the difference is that your religious beliefs are true while those other people's religious beliefs are false. And of course, the kicker: you keep claiming that evolution can be "proven false", yet you refuse to actually discuss the scientific evidence. You're looking more and more foolish and dishonest with each post, Charles; I suggest quitting while you're behind.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 6:58 PM
Charles, who claims to "understand evolution better than most believers do", seems to think that mosquitos are a species. That is entirely false. They are, in fact, a sub-family (Culicinae) with 41 genera and hundreds, probably thousands, of separate species.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 7:03 PM
And as a follow-up to Joe's question:
What would you do if you became convinced that evolution did in fact occur? Change how you understand God and Christianity (and become a theistic evolutionist)? Or admit to yourself that there is no God, and Christianity is false?
I'm an atheist, and can say honestly that the theory of evolution does not start out with the assumption that there is no God. It does not conclude that there is no God. Neither does it start out assuming there is a God, or concluding there is. It's neutral, in that sense.
However, I do think that, if you take it seriously enough to follow it all the way down -- and if you formulate the concept of God as a testable hypothesis -- the theory of evolution does support nontheism over theism. Which is why most apologetics concentrate with might and main on why you should not follow a science theory "all the way down" and why you should not formulate the concept of God as a testable hypothesis.
Are you more committed to the conclusion -- or are you more committed to the method? How you answer my original question above might reveal more than you think.
Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2007 7:14 PM
Brandon, great link. IT is still speciation, though. A mosquito can speciate into any number of mosquitos, but they are still mosquitos.
This is the endless problem with creationists; their goalposts move every time they open their mouths. They say evidence for such a thing doesn't exist; when you provide it, they say they really meant something else.
This makes debates about evolution very difficult, because science advocates use words to mean one generally-uniform and well-defined set of things, whereas creationists use the exact same words to mean... well, it varies. Here we have Charles apparently trying to say that "speciation" and "changing into a different species" are different things.
Charles, earlier in this thread you said:
As far as I can tell, there has never been an experiment wherein one species has changed completely to a different species.
Charles, can you please explain: Exactly what is it that you think a "species" is? It is difficult, you see, to respond to your comments about "species" or "speciation" unless we have some agreement as to what these words mean.
Posted by: Coin | July 30, 2007 7:24 PM
spondee -
So I guess this wouldn't be the same Stephen Trask who wrote the songs to Hedwing and the Angry Inch...
Damn, I didn't make that connection until you mentioned it - should have, as I helped a friend writing a stage adaptation, with the music - mainly creating a spectacular and exciting medley for the ending. Unfortunately, she is having trouble finding a theater to produce it. I'm hopeful though, we are in Portland, OR. I even helped rough the choreography for the ending (I am the stereotypical white boy who can't dance - at all - what's not to love, a bunch of queens as showgirls, lights and even pyrotechnics.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 30, 2007 7:39 PM
Charles, for all our sakes:
Make the paragraph the unit of composition: one paragraph to each topic.
Unless, of course, you feel that English composition is "just a theory" also.
Posted by: markbt73 | July 30, 2007 7:40 PM
Somebody once told me that a person beginning a conversation with something to the effect of "I am very smart" is similar to a person walking up to you and saying, "I am very tall." If it's true, it would have been obvious without pointing it out, and if it's false, he just looks dumb.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 30, 2007 8:01 PM
There is something to be said about receiving English pointers on a message board, while I am in the middle of a work of apologetics. Oh well, just realize that this is just that, a message board, and not a carefully written, highly polished work of literature. Anyways, this is the last I will say on this issue, since this is just turning into a bunch of name calling and whatnot. If you were near, I would gladly engage you in a real discourse on the issue, in person. I refuse to do it on here. It would take a very long time. That said, you're not even listening to what I am saying. All that is being done is you're looking for little parts of what I say to pull apart, under the presumption that that nulls out anything I might say. There seems to be zero comprehension here (for example, I tell you that if there is sufficient evidence for something, I will stand beside you in agreement, but then you go off on some diatribe about my beliefs being ok, but no one else's religious beliefs are, when that isn't remotely clsoe to what I said, hell it wasn't even implied). I'm sure you'll have a field day with this post, as well, so have fun. Be content in your knowledge that you all have all of the answers, and I will retire to my ignorance, content that maybe I don't care enough to make sure I am referencing a species properly (for those of you that just cann't take an example in a simple form), but at least I have divined the answers to two of the greatest questions man has ever asked. Of course, they are moral questions, and unless you are willing to acknowledge a higher source for morality, you're not allowed to assume that such a concept exists (yeah, there you go, attack me because I said you all practice social Darwinism). If you don,t however, you are lieing to yourself. You can't claim survival of the fittest as nature's intent and then come back and say we are all valuable. Have a great life, all of you.
Charles
Posted by: Charles R Everett | July 30, 2007 8:07 PM
Charles Everett wrote:
It takes as much time to post a bunch of unsupported claims as it does to support them; interesting that you had time to do the first but not the second.
Nonsense. Every single argument I made was in direct response to claims that you made; I even quoted the precise claim I was responding to. How that equates to "not even listening" is beyond me.
More nonsense. You said quite clearly that any scientific theory that is in conflict with a religious belief is, itself, a religious belief. You further said quite clearly that it is unfair to teach a scientific theory that conflicts with someone's religious beliefs without allowing all sides to be heard. But when it is pointed out that every scientific theory, including those that you presumably accept as true, conflicts with someone's religious beliefs, you suddenly change your argument. Magically, it is no longer true that any scientific theory that conflicts with a religious belief is a religious belief that must be balanced with the belief that opposes it and your justification for not applying your reasoning consistently is that evolution is different because your religious belief against evolution is true (and thus, evolution is false). But of course, you refuse to even attempt to defend that assertion. This is hardly a compelling argument.
I love the fact that you pretend that your confusion on this point is just a piddling little misstatement. But it makes clear that despite your self-delusion that you understand evolution, you clearly don't know the first thing about it. You repeated several times that speciation is not evolution, but you don't even know what speciation means. You don't know the difference between a species and a higher level taxa. Yet you want us to be convinced by your self-asserted high IQ and understanding of evolution that you know what you're talking about. The fact is that, like nearly all creationists, you don't have the first clue what evolution actually says. And that's why you're bailing out rather than defend and support your previous claims.
No one claims that survival of the fittest is "nature's intent." Nature has no "intent" because it is not sentient and possesses no will. People act with intent; nature does not. You are anthropomorphizing quite badly.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2007 8:27 PM
Translation: I'm going to get my butt whipped, so I'm bugging out.
For someone who claims no one is listening to them, you are doing a very poor job of listening yourself. And you are proving remarkably ignorant about the basics of evolution---and you refuse to take instruction from people who are objectively more learned, more experienced and have actually worked WITHIN the subject in question (not just read about it).
Dunno about you, but that's not the mark of an intelligent person.
Have a nice life.
Posted by: gwangung | July 30, 2007 8:28 PM
Ed writes:
I have a theory on that. I think it's practically impossible to understand evolution and the evidence for it and yet still reject it. The theory is so elegant and the evidence so overwhealming and obvious, that it can hardly be done. There is simply no scientific rationale to do it.
Creationists of course have mastered the art of willfull ignorance in this regard. They have convinced themselves for example that they just have a different model for the same data or that attacking evolution is the same as supporting creationism.
Even the super-high IQ ones.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 30, 2007 8:47 PM
Be that as it may, if you can't get any of the details right about something you're arguing about, why SHOULD you be listened to?
Posted by: gwangung | July 30, 2007 8:57 PM
"Be that as it may, if you can't get any of the details right about something you're arguing about, why SHOULD you be listened to?"
Simple answer, neighbor: you shouldnt. Unfortunatly that doesnt stop people from talking or expecting to be taken seriously.
Posted by: jba | July 30, 2007 9:13 PM
Ed Brayton pointed out "Charles, who claims to "understand evolution better than most believers do", seems to think that mosquitos are a species. That is entirely false. They are, in fact, a sub-family (Culicinae) with 41 genera and hundreds, probably thousands, of separate species."
I wonder how many of those species were on Noah's Ark? (Just kidding!)
I once asked some creationists if there were two of each leprosy / gonorrhea / syphilis / tuberculosis / cholera / typhoid / et cetera ad nauseum human pathogenic organisms on board Noah's Ark. One response was there was just one kind of disease in the humans on the ark, and it was in remission... Another time I asked how many species of beetles were on the ark, and was huffily told there was only one "kind" of beetle.
Creationists used to be more careful to use "kind" rather than "species" - not that they understand either term at all. When I tell them this means speciation was occurring after the flood - not at the speed of sound but at the speed of light - they just don't understand.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 30, 2007 9:45 PM
Sastra,
This seems to be saying that you see a way to formulate the concept of God as a testable hypothesis. How would you test "God exists"? Or were you thinking of something else?
Posted by: JuliaL | July 30, 2007 10:41 PM
Creationism will be taught as a parallel science curriculum that includes the creation stories of the various American Indian tribes, Hinduism, and the spells and potions of "Harry Potter".
Don't wrap Potter up with all this other stuff. In the Potterverse, magic is effectively a science (Clarke's 3rd law, any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic) - results are reproducible; spells are not set in stone, but can be improved; new discoveries are constantly being made; Harry's world has its share of cranks too. And if it were real, I don't think there's a single wizard or witch in it who would have a problem with either evolution or old-universe big-bang cosmology.
Ultimately, I think "Intelligent Design" does deserve some air-time in high-school science classes on evolution, and should have at least one homework assignment given over to it. I can suggest one right here and now.
"The basis of scientific theories is the concept of a testable hypothesis, which can be supported or falsified by accumulated evidence. The concept of 'Intelligent Design' has recently been offered as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. To what extent do these world-views make claims or predictions that can be tested, and what accumulated evidence can you find for each?"
Posted by: Justin Moretti | July 30, 2007 10:50 PM
Wait a minute! I'm pretty sure ol' Pat predicted a few years back that hurricanes would hit parts of Florida (talk about sticking your neck out!) for being insufficiently nasty to gays.
What I want to know is where were the editors of the law review while someone was writing drivel into their publication that could get any lawyer sanctioned in Federal court for frivolous conduct.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 30, 2007 11:18 PM
A verbal conversation is unlikely to be a "real" discourse; there wouldn't be enough time. There are good reasons so much communication is in written form in science, indeed in any intellectual discipline I can think of off hand. A discourse here would indeed take a very long time, but there are things you could do to speed the process up. Like defining your terms if you're using them in non-standard ways. And anticipating likely responses to your assertions. If you're having trouble with the latter, try hitting http://www.talkorigins.org/ , odds are our responses will be quite similar to what you'll find there.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | July 30, 2007 11:19 PM
Oh man, that was fun to watch. Charles you should come back tomorrow and this time I will make some popcorn.
Ignorant and arrogant, what a treat.
Posted by: Don | July 30, 2007 11:24 PM
Yes. And in a hypothetical universe in which God did create the world six millenia ago, I see no a-priori reason science could not be applied to biology, geology, etc. to good effect. This is not that universe. This may be the universe of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with an actively deceptive deity, but even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster did in fact create the world a few thousands years ago Pastafarianism would still not be scientific. Or perhaps the diety is laissez-faire in approach, and his/her interventions are too subtle to (yet?) have been detected as such by scientific inquiry. Personally I don't believe this to be the case, but if the evidence for some God were compelling I'd be willing to modify my beliefs.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | July 31, 2007 12:02 AM
Forgive the length of this post, but this exchange with Charles was one that can serve as a template for the creationist playbook. Watch him go though all the standard ploys:
Anyways, this is the last I will say on this issue, since this is just turning into a bunch of name calling and whatnot.
The "Ad Hominem Gambit", pretending that all insults are ad hominems. You might say "2 + 2 isn't 5 you moron" but all they hear is "bla bla bla bla bla you moron", and conveniently dismiss the fact that the insult was in addition to addressing their argument, rather than a substitute for doing so.
If you were near, I would gladly engage you in a real discourse on the issue, in person. I refuse to do it on here. It would take a very long time.
Ah, the old "let's take it private" ploy. Notice they never do this at the beginning of the discussion. It only crops up after they start getting their ass whupped. It's no different than those whiney kids we all knew growing up who suddenly would get tired of playing at the exact moment they started losing the game.
There is an additional element to this one. One shoud never debate a creationist in private, because it is a waste of your time. Your target of persuasion isn't the creationist - you know they are lost. Your target is the casual observer who maybe hasn't made up their mind on the issue.
That said, you're not even listening to what I am saying.
Another throwback to childhood days, where "you're not listening" is synonymous with "you won't agree with me". It's just a convenient way to dodge criticisms of one's position.
All that is being done is you're looking for little parts of what I say to pull apart, under the presumption that that nulls out anything I might say.
Cue the "pathetic level of detail" quote from Dr. Dembski. What this reveals is the backwards nature of the creationist mindset. They don't work from data to conclusion, but rather from conclusion to cherry-picked data. To their mindset, the data isn't important, because they are just examples anyway. He says so later in his post. It's only The Truth (tm) that matters.
I'm sure you'll have a field day with this post, as well, so have fun.
Thank you, at least you got one thing right.
Be content in your knowledge that you all have all of the answers
This is the old "you think you know everything" ploy, something one rarely hears anyone with any intellect say, because we all know how foolish it is. No one thinks they know everything. Well, except true believers like Charles. See, when it comes to divine revelation, he DOES think he knows everything. So if anyone claims to know more than him, well then logically, they must think they have "all the answers".
I will retire to my ignorance
The sarcastic reference to their own ignorance comes from an egalitarianism about knowledge. To them, we are all equally able to understand the truth, as is protestant tradition. Claiming your scientific credentials and fancy language demonstrates superior knowledge only conveys to them that you are an arrogant elitist.
These are standard ploys, that show up every day in debates like this, and we should nailed them for it every time.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 31, 2007 12:21 AM
Jon said: "I'm a secular humanist, or at least willing to become one if that's all I have to do get tax-exempt status as a church."
That's what I thought, too, but it didn't work out. I live in Norway and my taxes support the State Church by default. If I were a member of another "life-view" organization, my tax money would go there. The Unitarian Church wasn't on the list, so I checked out "The Humanist-Ethical Union". The brochures they sent (pre-internet) were really appealing, so I joined. At first I didn't mind all the anti-State-Church stuff in their publications; separation of church and state is fine with me and I'd like to see Christianity out of the schools. But that was just a veneer - they are really anti-religion and I don't want to waste time on that. I finally quit, not wanting any part of an organization which offers almost only negatives.
So, Jon, you have a nice Norwegian sounding name. Come here and we can start a humanist organization which thinks positive, okay?
Posted by: nbm | July 31, 2007 1:38 AM
But he's missing the absolutely obvious here
Not so, as is clear from the fact that a lot of people here don't find it obvious. Your off-the-mark response supports Trask's position, that arguments for and against the existence of God are just like arguments for and against the ToE. But science isn't philosophy, and the contents of science classes aren't arbitrary, they are constrained to conform to the results of the scientific method. Scientific arguments against the ToE are ok in science classes, but religious arguments aren't scientific and thus don't belong there.
Posted by: tm | July 31, 2007 2:43 AM
Creationists will always insist there is no proof and 'simply cannot see how' one species can become another, while most will admit to micro-evolution, where the characteristics of a species can change, it still remains that species and cannot undergo a macro change (jump to a new species). They can't understand this, and it will never be directly observed, because they refuse to add the time factor involved. If you take enough small changes, add enough of the ever so rare mutations that end up working out and being passed on, and over enough time you'll have something that looks nothing like it once was. This is a very easy concept really. And indirect proof does exist to support creatures occasionally gain a drastically new or different feature. The problem is christians have it in their head that the universe is only a few thousand years old. (and will try and argue dating methods like carbon dating are wrong).
I've disproven all of their silly arguments about dating methods and not even going to go into it here.(they only have a few arguments, from a few sources , and all use deceptive 'proof' by only using outstanding figures and thus skewing how the actual data is used)
Worse they will try and forget the entire universe exists. Which is hundreds of billions of years old, in fact every time we think we found the edge of existence, we build a bigger better telescope and find there is a bunch more after that, and older than we thought. SO I can't really even put an exact age of just how amazingly old it is. Once you start playing the figures of extreme time, with extreme amounts of interactions going on, (figure in all the planets, instead of just looking at ours, each like a slot machine playing out a virtually unlimited variations of environments, in which each undergoes trillions of various degrees of interactions going on at any given time)... Untill some have ideal conditions. Suddenly what ever hugely so called unlikely figure of life evolving being 'impossibly improbable', turns to an in-fact not only probable but an almost inevitable figure. Study the science of emergence (patterns and even intelligence that will emerge given a large enough set of simple interactions going on, such as bee hives and ant colony's). The same theory applies to things like fractals, and guess what, we live in a fractal universe. Can't get order out of dis-order? BS. That only applies to a closed system. Snow flake.. Next..
But if your going to cram it all into a few thousand years, well. You have problems with not many solutions. But simple minded people like to stick with simple minded Idea's.
Posted by: MasterXF | July 31, 2007 2:52 AM
Of course, they are moral questions, and unless you are willing to acknowledge a higher source for morality, you're not allowed to assume that such a concept exists
Why, because some arrogant ignorant fool says so? No one needs to assume that the concept of morality exists -- the fact that we have a word for it establishes that it does. As for morality itself, it exists in somewhat the same way that banality exists -- yours certainly doesn't require "a higher source". I daresay though that there is considerably broader agreement on what is banal than on what is moral -- the former comes much closer to an absolute.
Posted by: tm | July 31, 2007 3:11 AM
You can't claim survival of the fittest as nature's intent and then come back and say we are all valuable.
Why do people say such transparently stupid stuff? Even if I did claim the nonsensical drivel that Charles wishes to put in my mouth, why can't I say we are all valuable and mean it? Would Charles claim that children born of accidental, even unwanted, pregnancies can't be valued? Just because the parents don't value the child doesn't mean I can't. Just because nature (lacking a brain or any other prerequisite) doesn't value human beings doesn't mean I can't. Hell, even someone like Charles is worth something at least as menial labor and spare organs.
Posted by: tm | July 31, 2007 3:27 AM
Charles R Everett may be beyond hope. I don't think a new species appearing in, say, 18 months would impress him. If the entire sub-family of mosquitos is just 'the mosquito kind,' it would have to be a complete, new family.
But I would like to correct his history. Evolution did not 'derive from an atheistic POV.' In fact, it came directly out of a Christian tradition called natural theology. Charles Darwin, after all, was training to be a minister when he started delving seriously into science. If he and others (the geologist Charles Lyell, for instance) had found confirmation for Genesis, they would happily have proclaimed it. It just didn't happen. And they had a strong enough moral code-- Christian or otherwise-- to tell the truth about what they did see.
As far as morality goes, that, IMO, puts them head and shoulders above bible-thumping 'scientific' creationists, who use lies, distortions and outright slander to push their POV.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | July 31, 2007 4:08 AM
As for Ed, the examples you sight are fallacious
Another word you can't spell and another word you don't know the meaning of, genius.
because what you claim can be proven false by science
As can your silly claims.
We know the earth is round if, for no other more scientific reason, than we can take pictures of it from space, which shows it is round
Uh, so science is the taking of pictures? Sorry, genius, but we knew that the earth was round long before we were able to take pictures of it.
As stated above, if incontrovertable proof exists that species can evolve into different species, the theory would be fine to teach
You can state it -- and misspell it -- all you want, genius, but that's not the epistemological standard of science.
Again, unless there has been something I have missed (and I try to stay up on the sciences), I fail to see that level of evidence.
You have no idea how foolish that claim is in light of what you have said about science, and biology in particular, genius.
Saying that you don't know if Zeus exists is not the same as saying Zeus does not exist.
Duh. However, I don't know of anyone who doesn't know whether Zeus exists, although there are people who would claim that for the sake of pedantry during a philosophical argument. But it's on a par with claiming that they don't know whether the Earth is round -- after all, they haven't been into space, and even then they could be looking at computer-generated images.
One is a question of fact, the other is a question of knowledge.
No, genius, one is a claim about one's mental state and the other is a claim about Zeus. But all claims are implicitly claims about one's mental states -- "P and I don't believe P" is clearly contradictory (but Leibniz's Law doesn't apply; "P and he doesn't believe P" doesn't mean the same thing even when "he" refers to someone who made the previous claim).
If you said the former, you are an agnostic, if the latter, and atheist.
No, genius, an agnostic about Zeus is someone who claims that it's impossible to know whether Zeus exists. Unfortunately the word has been warped in a very loaded way to create an incorrect contrast with "atheist". But an atheist about Zeus is anyone lacking a positive belief that Zeus exists. Even those with a strong belief that Zeus does not exist do not need to have a moral certainty that Zeus does not exist in order to be an azeusist.
Arguments by analogy are also poor.
You wish. There are two kinds of arguments from analogy:
The bad kind: because X is like Y in respect P (undisputed),
X must be like Y in respect Q (the claim in dispute).
The good kind: If one accepts that Q follows from P based on logical argument A, one must also accept that Q' follows from P' if it can be derived using A.
The bad kind is fallacious. OTOH, rejection of the good kind is also fallacious, genius.
Posted by: tm | July 31, 2007 4:15 AM
I am in the middle of a work of apologetics
Apologetics is just a term for a particular sort of intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: tm | July 31, 2007 4:19 AM
There are many well thought out anti-evolutionist books and discussions out there, but they are the sames ones over and over again (since most evolutionists do not do well with completely destroying a counter-point, they just call it non-scientific and move on).
Why is it that every single creationist is so sickeningly hypocritical?
Posted by: tm | July 31, 2007 4:24 AM
I [...] have experienced God first hand
Category mistake.
Posted by: tm | July 31, 2007 4:35 AM
I find it really funny how there are actual laws in america against any kind of religion in schools, and still all this kerfuffle goes on. I went to a strongly christian school in wales where we started every day with prayers and hymns, and said grace before lunch, and yet none of my teachers had any problem with teaching about evolution.
I wonder what the difference is? christians can believe just as strongly wherever they are in the world, why is it that americans need to defend their faith so much harder than anywhere else?
Posted by: nye | July 31, 2007 7:42 AM
Sastra:
JuliaL:
This is coming in at the end of a rather long thread so I probably shouldn't, but yes, I do think the basic concept of God can be defined and formulated into a hypothesis which has testable consequences in the natural world (and this is basically the theme of God Delusion and several other recent and not-so-recent books.) Bottom line, the various versions of supernaturalism (which include the various versions of god) all assume a top-down universe where morals, meaning, consciousness, and/or mind precede and act on matter, and these human-like qualities are special and central. You can make predictions from that (for example, in such a universe, one might expect ESP and PK would be real and testable.)
If you can clearly define the difference between naturalism and supernaturalism, naturalism as a theory is falsifiable. That entails that it goes both ways.
Anyone can think up numerous hypothetical scenarios where supernatural phenomena of all kinds are testable and tested, provable and proven. Coming in after the results are in and then insisting that both its failure to be scientifically demonstrated and its serious disconnect from the current network of understanding means that no, it wasn't testable after all, is disingenuous.
When it comes to God, of course, it's special pleading as an art form.
Posted by: Sastra | July 31, 2007 8:10 AM
1st of all there are no proofs of God's existence. There are indeed some extremely thought provoking conjectures but none of them rise to the level of proof. As for secularism being a religion... God I hope so! Anyone who has any doubts on why secularism ought to be considered a religion needs to read "The Real Frank Zappa Book". You will understand why and I wont attempt a feeble reproduction of Zappas masterful comments.
Posted by: Cletus | July 31, 2007 8:53 AM
Just going to go out on a limb here... Haven't we found bones in the earth that are 65 million years older than the bible? WHy didn't God just start out with humans? Have we had the same species on Earth for all existence? Or did God choose to create new and better adapted species? So when you argue that the bible is all-knowing you are denying millions and millions of years of the past.
I believe I have a pet minotaur!! ROAR!! Prove to me that I do not have a minotaur as a pet and I will prove to you that you do not have a god. Will that make you adverse to testing my belief in minotaurs (who also have some nice story books written about them)?
Posted by: Rob | July 31, 2007 9:55 AM
They posit facts as merely beliefs ..., then hold them all to the same truth value. Paradoxically, they then attempt to argue their position when you disagree with them. When presented with arguments opposing their beliefs, they fall back on this reverse-nihilism.
Didn't you know that logic is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy?
Posted by: John Krehbiel | July 31, 2007 10:57 AM
Ed:
"I don't know" is a statement on the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.
I'm sorry friend, but that is statement on whether or not one knows something or does not. Not about if something is true or isn't.
I.E. "I don't know if that ball is red or green."
That statement makes the ball no less red if it really is red, or green if it is green. However, it communicates that I simply don't know.
Posted by: Joe | July 31, 2007 11:38 AM
Sorry to nitpick, but...
How can you discuss Descarte without addressing the basis of his philosophy: the existence of God?
Posted by: Retodd | July 31, 2007 11:40 AM
"Evolution teaches that eventually you have a mutation that creates a whole NEW species, that is better adapted, and that thrives and reproduces ond off it goes."
One more data point for my claim that I have never met a creationist who understands evolution.
The basic misunderstanding seems to be that evolution is one kind of organism transforming into another kind of organism by means of mutation. This implies:
1. that all of the organisms in a population change in the same way, hence the "Why are there still monkeys?" silliness.
2. the idiotic "I'll believe in evolution when I see a cat turn into a dog."
3. that evolution is entirely driven by mutation.
And BTW, if all beliefs about God are a form of religion, than all beliefs about the supernatural must be forms of supernaturalism, which makes disbelief in the supernatural a form of supernaturalism.
Perhaps you can see the absurdity of this, but I have little hope.
Evolution is not atheistic, in that it does not say there is no god; it is materialistic in that, as science, it cannot use the supernatural as an explanatory mechanism.
Posted by: John Krehbiel | July 31, 2007 11:42 AM
heh heh, idiots are always good for a laugh, that's why I love liberals and evolutionists, they're so cute when they try to be smart!
Posted by: Kal | July 31, 2007 12:16 PM
So by his argument... scientist, biologist etc. should get the same tax considerations as a representative of the catholic state i.e. pastor, priest, pedophile?
Posted by: springman | July 31, 2007 12:19 PM
Sastra,
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I was thinking you might mean, that one must make assumptions about the universe (based on assumptions about the nature of God) and test those rather than directly testing "God exists." I'm not sure why the existence of God might lead one to predict that human beings have ESP. Nor am I entirely sure why you apparently identify morals, meaning, consciousness and/or mind as qualities that are specifically human-like (and therefore, I suppose, not qualities of other primates, etc. or possibly life elsewhere in the universe). But, never mind, still I think I follow your examples.
Posted by: JuliaL | July 31, 2007 12:28 PM
Which is why we're laughing at you, Kal....
Posted by: G Barnett | July 31, 2007 12:40 PM
Not to mention that as long as we can laugh at idiots, we are self-entertaining.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 31, 2007 1:15 PM
Charles R Everett:
Get your money back.
Posted by: secondclass | July 31, 2007 3:45 PM
Charles
Though I am sure you have long given up on reading these posts by now, as some of the last couple have been equally as ridiculous as yours, you did make a point that is just completely obscene.
"As far as I can tell, there has never been an experiment wherein one species has changed completely to a different species."
"If a dog is isolated on an island, and after 100 generations of offspring shows different physical characteristics, as the result of mutation (so, for example, its offspring give rise to offspring with different coloured eyes), it is still a dog. If they could do an experiment (and don't give me that "it's impossible because it takes too much time" cop out) where the dog becomes something else entirely, then great, you have incontrovertable truth that evolution between species exists, and I'll be right there beside you telling how great it is."
There has been evidence based on observation of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands that tends to refute your claims. Over the years, there has developed significant difference between different sets of finches on different islands, which leads us to believe that, over time (which is not a cop-out, I will get to this in a minute), there will be distinct new species. However, this brings us to another point, just where do YOU draw the line at what is a new species? If the differences between the dogs after 100 generations were so significant that a third party could not tell they were related, would it be a new species? Are elephants and pigs, after thousands and thousands of generations and genetic "mutations" (though, mutation has a stigma associated with outside influence upon the genes, whereas genetic variations often occur naturally as a product of environmental natural selection), still the same species?
Your idea that too much time is a "cop-out" is completely insane. By calling it a cop out you are yourself copping out! The basic concept of macro-evolution is that it takes TIME! Billions of years if I am not mistaken! We do have fossil evidence of the "missing links" between various different species today, which would essentially be the proof you are looking for, we just cant do it in a laboratory in 5 or 10 years, as that would, necessarily, negate the entire theory of evolution. The experiment you are looking for is in fact ruled out by evolution itself! This is why your claims seem to point to you being "brain-damaged". You want to have your cake and eat it to. Not fair (when playing by any set of rules, at least, which is why its so damn hard to argue with creationists, as their rules are always changing.)
Now, this isn't to say that science is perfect. It is experimental, and we don't always know what we are playing with. Hence, radiation experiments on Marines in the 50s, LSD tests on citizens in the 50/60s and the numerous other incidents throughout history. These examples, however, do not "refute" science, they merely tell us that as we evolve, culturally at least, we must be careful with what we play with and not be so cavalier with our knowledge. Evolution is a theory, which, again, means that though it is generally verifiable, we do not know enough about our physical world to "prove" it, though, among both scientists and creationists, the definition of proof is changeable at best. However, creationism is myth, a story. It ignores facts (fossil evidence) and asks for proof that cannot possibly exist (experiments to create new species in a short time). I have no problem with people believing it, but it just cannot hold up to the scrutiny that evolution has held up to, regardless of how many "holes" creationists believe they can poke in it.
I respect your somewhat well thought out arguments and refutations on this board, but you are simply asking for something that cannot be done in order to convince you of the truth of evolution. If that is how you want to lead your life, fine by me, just please don't go around telling anyone your ideas!
-RH
Posted by: Ryan H | July 31, 2007 3:56 PM
If a teacher is teaching my child a belief that detracts from a core aspect of our God, then they are teaching a religious view.
A fact is a fact, whether or not your religion (or anyone else's) has anything to say about it. Calling a fact-claim such as "The Earth is flat" a "belief" does not exempt it from objective scrutiny; and if your religion makes a fact-claim that is later proven false, then your religion -- or that part of it at least -- is just plain wrong. And if that contreadiction causes your kid to become an atheist, that's your own fault -- you force-fed your kid a stupid belief that didn't hold up in the real world.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 31, 2007 4:53 PM
I don't get this whole debate. To me, there is a time and place for everything. Teaching religion in school is like teaching science in church. Perhaps if the religious organizations want to try to force public schools to teach both sides of the debate on whether gods exist or not, then the government should require churches to do the same.
Wait! What did you say? The government CAN'T force a church to teach certain beliefs? You say that the reason they can't is because of a separation of church and state?
OH! I see. It's a double standard. The church can attempt to influence the government but the government can't influence the church.
Imagine THAT!
Posted by: Chris Hopson | July 31, 2007 4:55 PM
Well, I don't know where to start. Firstly, I am a poor speller...so don't beat up on me for that please. I teach middle school math and science (special ed, but I give them the highest level they can handle). I teach some evolution. I am an atheist. (I just don't see how there could be any all good, all knowing, all powerful entity creating or maintaining this. And that is ok with me.
I never let my students know my personal beliefs. If someone asks me about evolution, I say it is what science believes (has come to the conclusion for). I do not ram it down anyone's throats. I have not heard of any teachers trying to persuade their students on their personal beliefs.
(the state of Arizona does interfere in a couple of ways with some teachers. Teachers, if they teach on the subject of pregnancy, sex, etc, must teach that abstinence is the ONLY way. Also, teachers may not say anything good about the gay lifestyle. They can say neutral things, or negative things, but nothing positive. Anyway, that is a bit off topic.
Of course science and science only should be taught in a science class. Theories like ID and creationism are not theories at all, not science at all, and should be taught in perhaps world culture, if there are deemed important enough.
Creationists are puzzling. It must take a lot of work to avoid the truth like that.
Anyway, thought you might like a view from down in the trenches. (Most students like the theory. I have hope for them.)
The only thing i want to do for them is to teach them to think. Then they will be fine and immunized against any diseases of the mind. :)
Posted by: justsomebody | August 1, 2007 12:40 AM
Justsomebody -
Thanks.
Charles -
I know you ran away, but I had a question about that super-high IQ of yours. Of course, even if you reported a legitimate IQ result, it would be irrelevant, since IQ tests don't have any questions about evolution, and your posts reveal a profound ignorance of spelling, grammar, and science.
But I'm not so sure you were entirely honest. Perhaps you exaggerated.
1) When was your IQ tested?
2) Where?
3) Who administered the test?
4) Precisely which test, and which version of the test, was used?
5) Why was your IQ tested?
6) How old were you at the time?
Posted by: harold | August 1, 2007 4:42 PM
That's not teaching religion. That's looking at philosophical arguments made in regards to religion. Which are inherently secular in nature even though the subject to which the secular arguments are being applied is a supernatural subject.
The rule of thumb I live by is that you can "Teach ABOUT religion, but not teach the religion itself." For example, a course taught (strictly) as "The Bible as Literature," is fine. If it turns into to "The Bible, Christians (my particular sect) are Right so STFU and Get on Your Knees Heretic/Pagan" we've got a problem.
Posted by: Moses | August 2, 2007 9:05 AM
"I've heard the "evolution is a religion" argument from just about every creo I've argued with. Their logic is that it is "belief" because it can't be proven. Thus, other beliefs should also be taught in school. This logic, of course, gave rise to the FSM.
Never argue with an idiot - they bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
Posted by: 2Hulls | July 30, 2007 12:30 PM
I won't comment on this statement personally, but I will give you a quote from Zoologist and Evolutionist Richard Lewontin:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
This is from the January 9, 1997 edition of the New York Review. It is Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's book "The Demon Haunted World". Of course, perhaps Lewontin is only speaking for himself, and not the scientific community at large. His language however, seems to assume a consensus of his peers.
P.S. If you can't for some reason see the connection between the whole "Evolution is a religion" thing, and Lewontin's quote, I suggest you research what the definition of materialism is as used in scientific terms.
Posted by: King | August 3, 2007 12:40 PM
I am constantly amazed at how intelligent individuals can become so animated by the confusion of terms. On both sides of this issue I observe the same conundrum in that one confuses observable science with theory and religious belief with a world view. First, in science and philosophy the point is to start with an observable or known point and to observe how it interaction with points around it. Second, is to make logical presuppositions as to how it may react to other items it comes in contact with. The second is a 'theory.' Theory's can be proved correct or incorrect at which point they become Proofs. To confuse a theory with a proof takes either an incredible act of ignorance or an intentional subterfuge. I will not venture as to which is present here as I believe it is patently evident.
As to religious belief vs world view. Anyone who claims any knowledge of philosophy I am sure understands what a world view is; an individual's beliefs and life experiences by which they evaluate the world about them. Religious belief is most definitely part of a person's world view but not the converse and to exclude it for whatever reason would be tantamount to a fraud. That being said the systematic apologetics being adopted by many in the 'anti-creation' community is equally as dogmatic and must also qualify as part of a current world view especially in today's society. Again, to do otherwise would be tantamount to a fraud. Does that mean that creation should be given 'equal time' in the class room? Well from a completely neutral point of view, if we were to only present 'scientific fact' in the class room than evolution could not be taught as it has never been conclusively proofed. Equally, neither creationism nor intelligent design would meet the criteria. What we would be left with would be a limited discussion of the facts which would have to be discussed and evaluated by each student thru the lens of their unique world view. This would open the discussion to many ideas, some good some not so good (i.e. FSM) but it would be a legitimate discourse forcing thought and the use of reasoning skills. The teacher becomes a facilitator in a scientifically based rational debate helping students evaluate the credibility and validity of the evidence for each point of view. (Isn't teaching our children to think and reason what schools are supposed to be doing?) Regardless of your individual viewpoint you would have to admit this is neutral. How many people would be happy with this approach to learning? There would be the possibility that your child could make a reasoned decision that differed from your own or that your child began to believe in a philosophy that you would not support. With that being said how many of us are truly neutral when it comes to any decision? All decisions are made with a bias that is determined by the world view we start from. Just as a creationist who is dedicated to their cause and believes that he can find reasonable scientific facts to prove it so are the evolutionists who are dedicated to the same ideal.
It would be nice to see a thread that allowed a true open discourse with the free exchange of ideas. As someone who found the position I once held untenable due to the intellectual dishonesty, I am very distressed by what I see on the site. The old adage is true: you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. So when someone asks for a specific explanation do not lambaste them if you are unable to answer them to their satisfaction but help them by trying to understand the true nature of their question. That way we understand each other better and more arguments are won rather than started.
Posted by: Chris | August 8, 2007 5:12 PM
No, they don't.
I leave the irony as an exercise for the student.
Posted by: gwangung | August 8, 2007 5:53 PM
Chris wrote:
This is nonsense. Math has proofs; science does not. A theory never becomes anything but a theory. The theory of relativity, no matter how well established, does not magically transform into the "proof of relativity." A theory is just an explanation; a well validated explanation still remains an explanation.
Even more nonsense. Evolution is not a "worldview", it is a scientific theory. Whether religious belief is part of someone's "worldview" is absolutely irrelevant.
And yet more nonsense. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact", there are just facts. Science is a method for explaining those facts. We do not just present a list of facts in science classrooms, we present scientific explanations for those facts. We don't just say "apples fall to the ground", we teach the explanation for why that happens, the theory of gravity. We don't just dryly list the facts of biogeography, paleontology or comparative anatomy in a biology class, we also teach the theory that explains why those facts are the way they are, the theory of evolution. We do not teach creationism in any form because they don't explain the facts at all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 8, 2007 6:09 PM
After a public debate featuring Michael Ruse and Bill Dembski a couple years ago, I asked Mr. Ruse in front of the whole audience if he would agree that evolution is a religion. He agreed that yes, evolution is a religion.
Why would he say that in front of the whole debate audience? Let's look at the definition of religion - "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs".
Accept it, guys, evolution is your religion, and its fate is sealed.
Posted by: Tom | August 15, 2007 6:59 PM
Of course! Some guy I've never heard of (and looking him up I find he's a philosopher, not even a scientist) said it--it must be so!
Well, let's look at the definition of religion you so kindly provided:
Well, I suppose evolution could be called a set of beliefs, so... sure. Let's give you this one.
Oooh, not so good. Evolution doesn't concern itself with the cause of the universe--that's Big Bang theory. It doesn't state that there's any "purpose" at all. And it only describes the nature of a certain portion of the universe. You're not doing so good here.
Well, there are no superhuman agencies involved in evolution.
Again, nothing that has to do with evolution.
Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive, so... nope, no moral code to govern the conduct of human affairs.
Looks like you're completely wrong, eh?
Posted by: Skemono | August 15, 2007 7:25 PM
Tom wrote:
Yes, Ruse has been known to say some odd things. You don't believe him on much else, why suddenly do you believe him when he says that?
Except the very definition you offered shows that Ruse was wrong and so are you. Evolution contains none of those things. It has nothing to do with supernatural agencies, it says nothing at all about the purpose of the universe, it has no devolutional or ritual observances and it has no moral code. So much for that argument.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 15, 2007 7:34 PM
Tom seems to be under some sort of apprehension that the mere fact Michael Ruse said something gives it inherent weight. I'm not sure how Ruse is supposed to have attained this sort of status. Someone who might hold a similar status, however, would be U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton, who wrote in the decision for the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education case Wesley mentioned above:
While something doesn't become scientifically or philosophically true just because a judge said it in a ruling, it does to an extent become legally true because it qualifies as legal precedent. So this might not be relevant to, for example, Chris's philosophical musings above, but it quite well is relevant to anyone who's discussing Mr. Trask's opinions on law which opened this thread.
I don't know how Mr. Trask approached this, but it continually seems odd to me that anti-evolutionists try to push the "evolution=religion" thing in a legal-issues-related setting without stopping to explain how it is they're going to overturn decades of very solid legal precedent showing the courts do not consider evolution a religion despite repeated attempts to convince them it is one.
Posted by: Coin | August 15, 2007 9:07 PM
Overton's arguments were to prove that teaching 'creation-science' was a violation of the Separation clause, not that "evolution is not a religion". His "common sense" notwithstanding, can you give examples where evolution is not a religion is "clearly established in the case law"?
But even more important, Overton hits the nail on the head in his comment immediately preceding the one you quote. "Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it."
Good debate...
Posted by: Tom | August 15, 2007 10:26 PM
Um... Overton did, in the quote that Coin provided.
Posted by: Skemono | August 15, 2007 10:33 PM
I realize that I am coming in quite late, but I thought another point of view might be helpful. I was the editor-in-chief of the Chapman Law Review, which published the paper that set off this cheery debate. One of the reasons we chose the article for publication is that it presented the vexing epistemological problem posited by Hume and Kant, and weaved it into the current debate on ID and the religion clauses. In hindsight, I would tread much more lightly into such hotly debated areas. Like any controversial work, some of the criticism is valid, and some is simply reactionary.
I took the author's key premise to be that both science and religion require the adoption of some fundamental premises that are not subject to observation. This was the key problem submitted by Hume and which endures to this day. Trask argues in his paper that the problem basically puts science and religion on the same epistemological footing. The rest of his arguments take off from there. Love or hate that argument, it is a legitimate philosophical quandary. Ayn Rand and her followers have made light of the problem, but have done little to solve it, other than to set forth their own amalgamation of transcendental, empirically unjustifiable premises. Mixed with vitriol and indignation for good measure.
Most of the article's critics seem to take the pragmatic approach. As I understand it, pragmatism basically takes the different systems of belief, including religious and scientific, and examines which is most practically useful. It then validates the one that provides the most useful information--which, of course, is science. Pragmatism, however, is not really epistemology, but a substitute for it. It simply redefines the term "truth." Truth is no longer defined in the classical sense, as a logically necessary conclusion of undeniable premises. It is instead merely defined in terms of utility, and thus "truth" is recast as that which is most useful.
I doubt anyone will deny the utility of science. And that is not the subject of the paper. Recasting "truth" does not an epistemology make. Many serious philosophers are still concerned with the classical epistemological problems set off by Hume. Many folks are not, and are content with assuming the premises necessary to make science possible and proceeding with a utility-based definition of truth. So to those folks, this paper is, quite literally, written in a different language, and simply does not concern them. Ed Brayton, for example, says that "there is no such thing as a 'scientific fact', there are just facts." This simply misunderstands (or ignores) the epistemic problem. A scientific worldview makes certain epistemic assumptions, such as whether impressions correspond with a physical reality, whether causal relationships exist and can be understood, whether we can expect the future to resemble the past, etc. Such premises, necessary to establishing "truth" and "knowledge," are simply not observable, and thus cannot be explained other than by transcendental argumentation--that to make sense of anything, we must assume certain things to be true.
I do not mean to subject anyone to the convolutions of epistemological arguments. My point is that most of the criticisms against the article completely miss the point, because they fail to go toe to toe at the epistemological level. (Incidentally, I do not mean here to suggest any allegiance on my own part for or against the article or its arguments.) The criticisms instead simply assume the primacy of the scientific method for ascertaining knowledge, and then proceed to argue on the basis of that worldview. This is akin to arguing that Joe is lousy at baseball because Bob throws more touchdowns. Even the terms we use are meaningless until we are talking about the same game.
At bottom, whether or not you agree with the article, or find it persuasive, it was published because it made arguments that would stimulate thought on an important area of intellectual life. Despite Tim Sandefur's suggestion that my colleagues and I should be "ashamed" for publishing the piece, I believe that the apparent failure to understand and confront directly the key epistemological issues it raised suggest the very reason that such articles must be published.
Sincerely,
Tim Kowal
Editor-in-Chief, 2006-2007
Chapman Law Review
Posted by: Tim Kowal | September 9, 2007 1:27 PM