Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This time from Pastor Neal Ganzel from this unfortunate Presbyterian church (unfortunate because they surely deserve a better educated minister than the one they have). I'm moving this comment up from a much earlier thread so it doesn't get lost. Ganzel wrote:
When exactly did the word "evolution" come to MEAN "science"? It is a fact that the Florida's Sunshine State Standards for education now treat "evolution" as meaning "science." If you study science in k-12, you are studying "evolution." If you graduate from High School and believe you want to be a scientist, that will mean you want to be an neo-darwinian evolutionist.
Utter nonsense. Florida has finally decided to add one of the half dozen most well established theories in science as being exactly what it is. Evolution is one theory in science, it is not science itself nor does anyone treat it as such.
So if a student or teacher or parent rejects the current "assured findings" of the science associated wih the evolutionary viewpoint (not to mention the metaphysical/moral/sociological/psychological/etc. implications regularly and passionately drawn and taught from this viewpoint) he or she will now be be running afoul of the clearly stated intentions of State Government.
Yes, just like if they reject the reality of the holocaust they will be "running afoul" of what is taught in the curriculum. And just like if they reject the germ theory of disease they will be "running afoul" of what is taught in the curriculum. Those ideas, like evolution, are part of the curriculum because they are supported by the evidence.
So the teacher will be required to teach both macro and micro evolution in order to be employed as a "science" teacher; the student will have to describe science in only evolutionary terms in order to pass "science" tests.
Yes, just like the teachers have long been required to teach big bang cosmology, the germ theory of disease, the kinetic theory of gasses, heliocentricity and many other well supported theories, and just like students have to show on the tests that they understand those concepts in scientific terms even if their religion happens to conflict with them. I notice that you only seem to object to the ones that you don't happen to like, not to the same reality about those theories that don't conflict with your religious views.
Importantly, the parent will be required to pay taxes into a system which dogmatically catechizes all children under its governmental influence in only macro and micro evolutionary dogma, and which also advances in its life sciences curricula the various implications of this viewpoint touching every part of the both the human condition and its academy.
Funny, you don't seem to be bothered by geocentrist parents paying taxes into a system that "dogmatically catechizes all children under its governmental influence" in only "heliocentric dogma." You might wanna check with some of your fellow Christians, who are just as convinced (and just as wrong) that heliocentricity is a hoax perpetrated on Christianity as you that evolution is. You don't seem to be bothered that parents who reject the reality of the holocaust are required to pay taxes into a system that "dogmatically catechizes" kids into believing that the holocaust happened. Or that disease is caused by microorganisms.
The schools teach hundreds of ideas as being true and you don't complain about them "dogmatically catechizing" about those ideas; you only portray it that way when it's an idea you don't personally believe in. So your argument really collapses down to "I think evolution is wrong and shouldn't be taught." But you don't advance a single argument in your ignorant screed for why that might be the case.
I predict that the evolutionary establishment will get the textbooks, curriculum, grant monies, tenured professorships, endowed chairs, and withall the state coersion they evidently so desparately need for the success of their enterprise, i.e. their academic establishment. But they will also provoke a reaction in the State and Federal courts which will quickly slap their avaricious hands.
You think the courts are going to stop the state of Florida from teaching one of the most basic and well accepted scientific theories in science class because it might offend the religious beliefs of the ignorant? Yeah, good luck with that. That argument has never gotten past a motion to dismiss in any court in this country and it's not gonna start working now.
It will now be time for the evolutionary establshment to be legally beaten back from forcing their viewpoint (dare say "religion"?)upon everyone. Someone will secure for dissenting teachers, parents and students the rights of conscience and freedom of religion which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Such an idiotic argument. If it was true that teaching evolution in public schools violates your freedom of religion because you disagree with it, then anything taught in any school that was in conflict with any parental belief would have to violate the constitution. What would be left to teach? Even the fact that the earth is a sphere is disputed by some religious groups. Even the germ theory of disease, the basis of most of modern medicine, could not be taught. There is virtually nothing that could be taught in schools by this silly standard. Freedom of religion does not mean no one ever gets to tell you you're wrong.
Comments
At the request of a friend, I attended a PCA church a few times. I strongly do not recommend anyone else doing it.
Posted by: Royale | March 4, 2008 9:38 AM
Posted by: llDayo | March 4, 2008 9:42 AM
Funny, you don't seem to be bothered by geocentrist parents paying taxes into a system that "dogmatically catechizes all children under its governmental influence" in only "heliocentric dogma." ...
Actually, he and his parishoners might well be "bothered" by all of the things you mention -- just like a certain other science-denialist (and Holocaust-denialist) we all know so well.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 9:48 AM
That, and a neo-Newtonian gravitationalist, a neo-Pasteurian germist, a neo-Maxwellian electromagnetist, etc., etc...
Posted by: DaveL | March 4, 2008 10:12 AM
Yes, important to note that this is a PCA as opposed to PCUSA. Very different, though I have met some PCUSA types who would probably be more comfortable at PCA.
Posted by: Eric | March 4, 2008 10:13 AM
Yet more projection from the evangelist crowd. Someone needs to explain to him that, just because he wants to use the schools to force his viewpoint down the throats of children, doesn't mean that everything taught in school is similar propaganda.
Posted by: Julian | March 4, 2008 10:22 AM
How old was the thread in which Ganzel commented? It's starting to look like some creationist trolls are Googling for evolutionist sites, pasting their talking-points and running without even looking to see how recent the thread is, and -- in all likelihood -- not coming back to flesh out their arguments or respond to ours.
I guess they're just desperate to keep the "controversy" alive...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 10:28 AM
That's already out in some states. "Too dangerous" my ass. They're f-ing nerf balls.
Posted by: FishyFred | March 4, 2008 10:35 AM
False Premises?
"When exactly did the word "evolution" come to MEAN "science"?"
Check.
Is=Ought Fallacy?
"(not to mention the metaphysical/moral/sociological/psychological/etc. implications regularly and passionately drawn and taught from this viewpoint)"
Check.
Paranoia?
"he or she will now be be running afoul of the clearly stated intentions of State Government."
Check.
Scare quotes?
""science" teacher"
Check.
Gross misunderstanding of the role of the courts and/or the facts that would come to bear in such a case?
"But they will also provoke a reaction in the State and Federal courts which will quickly slap their avaricious hands."
Check.
BINGO! I've got a full row across on my creationist nonsense bingo card!
Projection?
"forcing their viewpoint (dare say "religion"?)upon everyone."
Check.
Posted by: Jason Failes | March 4, 2008 11:14 AM
"What about dodgeball?"
Sorry, I don't think that the Quakers would go along with that.
Posted by: NJ Osprey | March 4, 2008 11:17 AM
Ildayo wrote:
Sorry. Some parents object to Newtonian physics. So that's gone, too.
Posted by: Dan | March 4, 2008 11:21 AM
Without dodgeball, there is no hope.
Posted by: llDayo | March 4, 2008 11:26 AM
Just to emphasize the difference between PCA (relatively small) and PCUSA (larger) - PCUSA has passed resolutions stating that they find no conflict with evolution. Statements of the PCUSA and other mainline churches can be found on the NCSE web site.
Posted by: vhutchison | March 4, 2008 11:29 AM
"they evidently so desparately need"
Can't take someone seriously if they can't spell. That's my stance.
"That's already out in some states. "Too dangerous" my ass. They're f-ing nerf balls."
Nerf balls? How old are you? Back in MY day we played with those red balls and they definitely left a mark.
I loved dodgeball.
Posted by: Andrea | March 4, 2008 11:35 AM
When exactly did the word "evolution" come to MEAN "science"?
Does he think it isn't science or something? What the heck is that guy saying? I'll bet he thinks it isn't scientific. He probably thinks it's religious.
Posted by: 386sx | March 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Even if there were a shred of merit to the "evolution as religion" argument, the religious bigotry of this jackass would still be glaring.
"Don't teach their religion, teach MY religion."
I'd bet the good pastor would not be so enthusiastic about various African or Hindu creation myths being taught instead of Christian creation myths.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | March 4, 2008 12:35 PM
As someone who spent the bulk of his elementary school days with the word "Voit" tattooed across the side of his face from dodgeball bullies, I object. Plus, no one called it dodgeball in those days; it was "smear the queer."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 12:37 PM
I am trying to think what would be the case in 100 or 200 years when (hopefully) science will have pushed God and his/her religious organizations into a corner.
That is of course assuming that religious freaks would not have destroyed the world by then and that they won't have won the evolution/creationism battle and bring science to a standstill! "Mob rules" you know...
Posted by: stavros | March 4, 2008 12:39 PM
I remember reading an article in Newsweek this Summer about global warming. It had come to the conclusion that it was a fact and human induced. It cited all the people out there who did not believe that and vilified them. So much so that one of their own at Newsweek wrote and article the next month criticizing his editor for being so one sided.
In the first article the author wondered if 20 years from now he would have to eat his words like the Magazine did many years before when it said another Ice Age was coming or something like that. In other words, they had been wrong. The point of the second article was that there were legimate people with legitimate questions about whether global warming was a fact. He was saying they needed to be heard so people could make up their own minds.
With that said, I wanted to read more about this whole subject because I was tired of listening to Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives about how it was a hoax. I had based my opinion for years on what the Conservative pundits were saying. So I went to a college and asked a guy who had studied it to recommend something. I wanted both sides. He gave me something and I read part of it and still have not really made up my mind.
My point is that there are people out there with some serious problems with certain aspects of evolution. If I was a parent I would want my child getting both sides. Even if it is presented as, "This is what most experts would say and the others are in the minority or how ever you want to put it." If for no other reason I would want my child to be able to debunk the other side and if they do not understand the argument they cannot.
I would liken it to teaching about Government. I taught democracy vs. dictatorship years ago. I presented both sides. I presented democracy as the better option because: 1. This is true 2. This is what the cirriculum stated 3. It is what I believed. The students were told when I believed something personally and that they did not have to. But to not teach about dictatorship and those who think it is a good idea and why is criminal. Why? because we are not equipping the next generation to defend their ideas.
I disagree with much of what Karl Marx stood for and wrote. I still read him. I want to learn why he felt the way he did. Where did his ideas come from? It is when we contrast him with men like Jefferson, Locke, and others that we see how great they were.
It seems to me that to not state that some Scientists have a problem with some aspects of Evolution is not good education. Ed why do you bother learning the Bible, case law, and read World Net Daily? You want to be informed about what your opponents are saying. Why deprive students of the same? I would for sure teach about people who say that the Holocaust did not exist. Why? Because if we do not know that there are people out there who still think the way Hitler did we will fall asleep.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 12:48 PM
"It seems to me that to not state that some Scientists have a problem with some aspects of Evolution is not good education. "
The thing is, every "some scientists" (why the capitalisation?) have problems with every single scientific theory known to man. Some scientists don't accept quantum mechanics. Some don't accept relativity. Some don't even believe in heliocentrism. Why single out evolution?
The difference between anthrophogenic climate change and evolution is that the evidence for evolution is exponentially more solid and widespread, and has been for over a century. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change has only really become conclusive in the last decade, and there's still a small amount of room for uncertainty. For evolution to turn out to be wrong (in the general sense, rather than specific aspects) would involve overturning mountains of evidence that point to common descent with natural selection as a primary mechanism, and coming up with an entirely new explanation that fits the data better. Nobody has come close to doing that, which is why we don't need to hedge it when we teach science to schoolkids.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 4, 2008 1:02 PM
My point is that there are people out there with some serious problems with certain aspects of evolution.
Who, exactly, are those people, and what, exactly, are their problems? Given the total lack of any peer-reviewed papers or other serious scientific work disproving evolution, or supporting any alternative hypothesis, I'd venture to say these "problems" are irrelevant to the objective reality as honest people, theist and atheist alike, observe it.
If I was a parent I would want my child getting both sides.
That only makes sense in cases where there's more than one side. That's not the case in evolution: there is one -- count it, one -- valid and tested theory explaining the observed diversity of life on Earth; no other hypothesis is supported by the evidence; and all of the objections to the prevailing theory have repeatedly been shown to be based on ignorance at best, shameless dishonesty and bigotry at worst. That's the truth, and I want children to be taught the truth.
I would liken it to teaching about Government...
That's an extermely bad analogy: scientific theories are based on unchanging physical laws, the most complicated of which are childishly simple when compared to human political interaction -- which involves extremely complex and everchanging interactions of people, groups, needs, means, priorities, and environments. In political/historical controversies, there's plenty of room for opinions and discussions because there are many different points from which different people have viewed the same events. In science, the Earth is round, the sky is blue, and E=mc^2, regardless of your background or beliefs.
It seems to me that to not state that some Scientists have a problem with some aspects of Evolution is not good education.
No, pretending there's a "controversy" when there clearly is none, is "not good education." More specifically, it's a flat-out lie. Who are these "some scientists?" And where are the peer-reviewed papers they wrote to disprove evolution? Again, your failure to name names proves your case is based on empty assertions and uninformed, lazily-repeated opinions.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 1:09 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
Believe it or not, this stance is even more controversial -- and more likely to upset the IDCreationists -- than teaching evolution alone. Why? Because you allowed that the side with the overwhelming support would be presented as the better option, and the other side would be "debunked."
Scientists would have no problem with that. It's an excellent idea.
In fact, a number of public school teachers do it that way -- and sometimes catch flack for it. They are directly and specifically bringing the subject of religious creationism into the classroom, and saying why it's wrong. Why your church is wrong; why your parents are wrong. And leading kids to the conclusion. From the parents' point of view, it's a lot less upsetting if the teacher just says "I won't address that" instead of shredding their arguments.
Debunking? No way. ID Creationists want both sides presented like a live controversy, with scientists on both sides, so you make up your own mind. But ID isn't like global warming. It's a "theory" with no positive content -- no method, no predictions, no mechanism. Global warming deniers still retain some scientific credibility, because they're approaching the topic in a legitimate way. They're not rejecting a major unifying tenet of all biology. And the issue doesn't have "religion" all over it.
Posted by: Sastra | March 4, 2008 1:10 PM
I've seen and heard this comment in varying forms. I don't know why, but for some reason, this question finally popped into my head: What other side? What is the proposed alternative to evolution? Both sides of the global warming dispute use scientific data to back their claims. Even geocentrists and young earthers use (seriously flawed) science to support their stances. But what's the scientific alternative to evolution? Would presenting both sides really be "Here's this mountain of evidence that most scientists agree supports the theory of evolution. The rest think some supernatural sky fairy made everything, and just put all that evidence there to fuck with us."?
Posted by: Jason I. | March 4, 2008 1:13 PM
"If I was a parent I would want my child getting both sides."
The 'other side' should be taught in the way intellectual history is taught. Flogeston, alchemy, bleeding people with leeches, geocentric orbits, and literal Genesis theories all belong in public schools, just in their proper places.
Posted by: Royale | March 4, 2008 1:28 PM
If there were a history or social studies class teaching the about the conflict, I'd have no problem with that. That would be an appropriate context for this dispute. However, in a science classroom they should teach science and there is no scientific alternative to evolution to be taught. Creationism, creation science, and ID cannot be tested via the scientific method and are therefore not science.
The fact that a few quacks managed to get PhD at the end of their name and still doubt evolution does not qualify as a significant scientific dispute. There are researchers looking into supposed psychic phenomena. But we do not include ESP and precognition into psychology/neurology courses. Nor do we include Big Foot and Nessie in biology just because a couple of doctors believe in them.
Newtonian, relativistic and string theories of gravity would be an example of a legitimate scientific debate. The existence or properties of dark matter is a legitimate scientific debate. Debate does exist in science. But this isn't it.
Science demands proof. No proof outside of evolution has withstood five minutes of scrutiny. If you want to push for creationism in history class, feel free. But the science classroom is not an appropriate venue for social studies.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 1:31 PM
Must be a regional thing. "Smear the queer" was an alternate description for what was usually known around upstate New York as "kill the carrier." Someone throws you a football and you run until the rest of the group tackles you to the ground. Repeat with a different carrier. I never liked that game particularly having broke my collarbone playing it once.
Ahh, the halcyon days before litigious parents......
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 4, 2008 1:52 PM
Ahhh, who would've thought it would get elevated from a playground game to part of the Republican party platform?
Posted by: Jason I. | March 4, 2008 1:55 PM
My version of "smear the queer" aligns with that of carlsonjok. I have, at great personal risk, played it with our church's youth group within the past few years. Of course there we have a more politically correct name: "slaughter ball."
I grew up in the city (Pittsburgh) and in high school we had a particularly virulent version of dodge ball: in and around the high school swimming pool--with "no rules" as the gym teacher would be off somewhere. This scenario still gives me the chills: some PCP-addled mutant gets the ball near you (on the pool deck) while you are in the pool treading water. He feigns a toss and you go under to protect yourself, only to realize that he didn't throw it, and is just waiting for the inevitable--and quite willing to toss it to the nearest strategically located fellow mutant if you try to get away by swiming under water... Arggh.
Posted by: heddle | March 4, 2008 2:02 PM
Same here in the south, carlsonjok. Dodgeball and "smear-the-queer" were two very different, uh, games? Ah, good old fashioned bigotry in the form of a chrildren's game.
Funny, I looked it up on wikipedia, and it redirects to "tag". Yeah, if "tag" means getting your face piledrived into the ground by 20 other kids. Good times.
Posted by: Deepsix | March 4, 2008 2:11 PM
Two points KoI:
First, is that you *can* present the other side to your children *outside of school*. There's no one stopping you from doing this. The only thing most people on this board are concerned with is that you recognize that ID is not science and because of that it should not be taught in science class. That's it.
Second, this is *high school* science class we are talking about, right? Even if there were a real controversy, High school science is not the place to teach it. That would be in college. High school is the place for fundamentals. Kids have to understand that before they get to more complex stuff. For example, we still teach high school kids Netonian physics knowing perfectly well that it doesn't accurately describe the universe. But, kids must understand that before they move on to relativity.
Having a class in college that presents both sides makes much more sense. The problem is, ID proponents don't seem to want a college course. I wonder why that is?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 4, 2008 2:13 PM
We played that (minus the PCP) when I was on the swim team and called it something like monster ball. Water polo with no rules, essentially, so you had to actually be IN the water at all times. It tests your lung power, and mine was substantial, to say the least. Closest I've ever come to blacking out.
Our on-the-ground alternative to dodge ball was bombardment. I think that one was standing against a wall and one was an in the gym free for all.
Posted by: Andrea | March 4, 2008 2:27 PM
"Having a class in college that presents both sides makes much more sense. The problem is, ID proponents don't seem to want a college course. I wonder why that is?"
Assuming that this is true that they do not want this I would have to say after much reading about this debate and the History of it that goes back Centuries that it is because they want to use to to prove there is a god and then go from there to contruct a world view that flows from that.
I would also assume that those who believe there is no God or that He has no interest in the workings of nature(deists) would want to use evolution to prove that there is no god or at least get that discussion taken out the classroom and then go from there to construct a world view that flows from that.
Now this is simplistic but despite some variations like Theistic Evolution the camps have been alive for a long time. The debate is more about what is Science and what methodology should be used. It essentially comes down to a debate among materialists and anti-materialists. Materialists are the vast majority of Scientists today so they have most of the say. If the anti-materialists make a come back they will have most of the say.
As honest as I can be(this can only be found when one is in the majority and has the upper hand) I think both should be taught. Are some Christians trying to disquise their intent with language and jargon? Yes and if they are doing that it is wrong. Christians have a Theology of one God and a philosophy of supernaturalism. Humanists seem to have a Theology of no god or I am not sure and a philosophy of naturalism or materialism.
Theology seems to be a social studies topic if treated fairly like comparative religions or things like that where there is secular value. To take the question of Does God Exist? and Who is God? that has been part of academic debate for years out is wrong to me. The materialism vs. non-materialist or supernaturalist is more complicated. It is more about who gets to define what Science is?
The shame is what one dude quoted in Time magazine in an artcile about this: when he stated more or less that it is a shame we are spending more time arguing about this than doing research that can help the world and are falling behind other countries. This is a legitimate argument and one that most dogmatic Christians overlook. Most of Science has no beef among Christians. It is Biology and Geology and most specifically evolution.
I go back and forth about what to do about this. Evolution is not just in a vacuum though. It influences the other disciplines just as much as ID or creationism would. One thing we cannot get away from it that whether we believe in God or not and what we believe about him does cloud our world view. Some would say that it is the lynch pin of our world view.
I depart from most Conservative Christians that seek to legislate morality to to assert their world view. But I do think world view is an important topic in education. If for no other reason than to prepare kids for the global nature of the world where they are going to have to deal with and understand other world views. In the cosmopolitian cities that is happening some but most other cultures come here and assimiliate. When we go there on their turf it is really different.
My gut tells me, and I might regret saying this, that the guys in Seattle are trying to do the same thing my boss at a mission agency was trying to do. He wanted state monies for our base. They would give it for secular purposes. We(I) were dealing with some former gang kids in our mission schools. He said that we could call it "Character Education" and try to get a grant. Wise or lying? He thought it was wise and that it was taking from the wicked to do God's work more or less. I was troubled.
More troubled when I was told we did not want kids like that that often. They were messing up the good kids. Since I was a little older I got a pass but in the end they thought I was messing up their kids by telling them the truth that in essence they were "virulently ignorant" and had no idea what they believed and why and would get slaughtered if questioned in the real world. I was asked to leave.
The Discovery Institute could be in the same vain. If we have to win by cheating I say lose. Even if the other side does it. With that said, I think there is some validity in pursuing this centuries old debate and how it affects the Public Schools. What I am not sure of and have thought about for months is how to go about it and not help promote the Religious Right cause.
I would be interested in how better to discuss this on a forum like this where legitimate debate can take place without fear that caving on Science standards will one day allow tyrants that hate gays to run the country. I see the agenda too and believe it not would fight it just as vigorously as you would. Even in its most mild moralistic nature. Why? Religion has killed more people than anything.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 3:28 PM
I object to Ed's obvious attempt to falsify his history! If he had truly been badgered by dodgeball bullies, the tattoo across his face would have been "TIOV"!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | March 4, 2008 4:15 PM
Well, to anyone else it would've been TIOV, but when Ed looks in a mirror, it would still say VOIT. Kind of like those weird vehicles with sirens that say ECNALUBMA on the front.
Posted by: Jason I. | March 4, 2008 4:18 PM
"But what's the scientific alternative to evolution? Would presenting both sides really be "Here's this mountain of evidence that most scientists agree supports the theory of evolution. The rest think some supernatural sky fairy made everything, and just put all that evidence there to fuck with us."?'
False dilema. Their are people who see problems with Darwin's thoery. A simple look at Wikidpedia shows this. Why do they have these problems? Many of them are Scientists. The argument of, "Their quacks so we will not give them the time of day" argument will not float in mainstream America. Right or wrong when this movie(Ben Stein) comes out and if it gets popular you guys are going to have a fight on your hands. These kids nowadays do not handle because I told you so real well even if you are obviously right. Things are a changin!
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 4:24 PM
Christians have a Theology of one God and a philosophy of supernaturalism. Humanists seem to have a Theology of no god or I am not sure and a philosophy of naturalism or materialism.
Wow, false dichotomies AND non-sequiturs! And you wonder why your ideas don't get taken seriously as "science?"
First, the "philosophies" you ascribe (wrongly and simplistically) to Christians and "humanists" have nothing to do with the methodologies we apply to various issues. Even a Christian with what you (vaguely) label a "supernaturalist" "philosophy" can still apply a "materialist" methodology to material issues, such as CSI, accounting, astronomy, or the behavior of living things. Your dichotomy is both false and hoplessly muddled.
Second, many Christians -- and Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Shintoists, Taoists, Voudounists, etc. -- accept evolution, without reservation, despite believing in God(s) and other supernatural beings or phemonena. See, in particular, explicit statements to this effect in the official doctrines of the Catholics and Lutherans, among others.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 4:27 PM
Thats simply because mainstream America is comprised of people who see scientist and think 'smart' without taking into consideration what that individual may be saying is removed from his field of understanding. Likewise they are unaware of the many scientists in that field who disagree with the very few who make names for themselves by being different. It's kinda like the news, it's news because it's so outside the norm.
As if the forces of reason have never had a fight with the forces of unreason and superstition. Won't change a thing.
Posted by: JimC | March 4, 2008 4:32 PM
KoI,
Others here can correct me if some of my details are wrong, but science itself makes no claims about whether or not there is a god. Science, simply stated, is searching for the best solution to a problem. Unfortunately, resorting to a supernatural explanation is not the optimal way to find a resolution to a problem, since the supernatural explanation is easily produced. Even though the DI tries to produce nuanced explanations, all of them so far boil down to "Godidit". Using the flagella as an example, Behe's simple explanation was "Godidit", but he had no science to back it up. And of course, a few years down the road, real active scientists did enough research to put a large hole in that assertion.
I would say in general, the biggest problem with "Godidit" is that it in effect stops you from thinking about the problem any longer, and pushing the limits of our knowledge a little farther out. It is a way of saying "I don't want to do any more work to understand this", rather than saying "Hmm.., that is a neat problem, how much detail can I add to this model through experimentation to better understand how it works".
Posted by: BGT | March 4, 2008 4:43 PM
No, it's not.
That's the very essense of science--to look for explanations THAT WORK BETTER. If there's not one, then you're not engaging in science.
Guess what. ALL theories have problems. They ALL have holes. But they don't get replaced until there's a better explanation.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 4:44 PM
No, we don't. For one, we understand that you can't prove a negative, so using evolution to "prove that there is no god" simply doesn't make sense. For two, many of us support the separation of church and state (it's very beneficial to us) and oppose religious indoctrination in class--including areligious indoctrination (if that's a word).
Maybe, but I doubt it. As you point out later in your post, "Most of Science has no beef among Christians. It is Biology and Geology and most specifically evolution." So it can't be that they dislike science in specific. Dismantling all of science would be simply ludicrous--look at everything it's done for us! Hell, we are having this discussion from completely different areas of the country via the miracle of science!
It is more as you said: people accept science up until it comes to a conclusion that contradicts their preconceived fantasies. So maybe you should ask yourself this: why are you content to accept the answers science gives you on every subject except evolution?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Remember a while back when people were trying to tell you the difference between philosophical materialism and practical materialism? There are many, many scientists out there who are religious and hence are not philosophical materialists. However, allowing the supernatural into science renders it completely useless. Science must start with the assumption that the laws of the universe are not subject to being changed on a whim by gods or fairies or anything else--otherwise, all its results become suspect. This is practical materialism, and without it science simply doesn't work.
Teach what? Theism versus materialism? Fine, but put it in a comparative religion course or something. It has nothing to do with science.
Again, if you want to try teaching children about religion, go ahead. I don't know anyone who would stop you--I myself took numerous courses in college about varying religions, despite being an atheist. However, we are adamantly opposed to teaching that one religion is correct, which is what IDists and creationists want.
And science is already well-defined. Why on earth would you want to change it?
Posted by: Skemono | March 4, 2008 4:46 PM
We had a version of dodgeball on the playground for those times when all the balls were in use for 4-square. We used dirt clods. If you're unfamiliar with the dirt clod, it's what happens when dirt gets dried out and cracks to about an inch deep. A kid can pull these up and have a fairly solid chunk of earth, a little bigger than a fist, perfect for winging at your target.
For the most part these dirt clods would disintegrate when the hit something solid, like a person. But every once in a while you get one that contained a rock. Lets just say my ability to judge trajectories and my reaction time remains unusually well honed to this day.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 4:47 PM
In my Suburb of Los Angeles, Dodgeball was called "Socko", and "smear the queer" was a completely different game it was pretty much like the earlier poster described in his Upstate New York version. We also had a painful and humiliating game called "butts up" anyone partake in or hear of that one?
My daughter is currently in 5th grade and they have NO recess in which they can play anything. I find it appalling, my best years of playing games such as dodgeball and "smear the queer" where in 5th and 6th grade it seems to be a shame that as parents we don't allow our children time to "play" like we did. There is a good deal of social learning from play that is being missed and I think it is more vital socially than my daughter being forced to learn about a half-baked theory that doesn't belong in science.
Posted by: JoH | March 4, 2008 4:48 PM
That, and the fact that even they know they have no scientific case to make so there's no point in even trying to convince the scientific community or those about to enter that community. It's the same reason they publish nothing...because they have nothing to publish. They have no theory from which to draw testable hypotheses and so can do no tests. They've even started their own journals, but those tend to die out for lack of anything to say except for repeating the same old Creationist arguments for the unpteenth time.
Can't they use every single science to do that? They are all just as 'materialistic' as evolution is.
The facts aren't decided by voting. If someone can come up with a testable reliable non-material way of knowing about nature, let them put up or shut up.
The facts aren't decided by voting for them. And there is no "both". There is only one scientific theory as to the diversity of life. That's evolution. How absurd is it to teach both....do you want kids to learn that matter is made of atoms one day and then the next that it's NOT made of atoms? What a recipe for disaster. Better not to teach them at all.
A science as it stands currently can be practiced equally as well by the Christian as by the Humanist. Including evolution.
You can call a cupcake 'science', but that doesn't mean you can use it to find out about nature.
[METHODOLOGICAL] Materialism covers ALL sciences, not just evolution. Be consistant.
My disbelief in God no more illuminates my 'worldview' than does your disbelief in Thor or the Easter Bunny.
It helps nobody's "world view" (whatever that means) to teach nonsense as valid science just for the sake of exposing them to more "views".
ID serves no secular purpose. It is useless except as narrow sectarian doctrine. In fact, it damages science by putting everything it touches forever outside our understanding. It's worse than useless...its harmful.
Posted by: Dave S. | March 4, 2008 4:50 PM
"And science is already well-defined. Why on earth would you want to change it?"
For most of Science I have no such desire. When people use it(even on here) as a means of proving there is no go and then say well it does not give an opinion about it is just a dishonest as you guys are accusing the ID people of being.
I hate to go here again but Priya and the whole gay rights thing is an example. I stated months ago that there is a part of the homosexual agenda that seeks to limit free speech. People went nuts and denied it. When she spouted off exactly what I was talking about people shut up. Maybe some do not know it was out there and many did argue vigorously against her. But it came out when pushed.
I am sure if pushed(just like the Colonel in "A Few Good Men") that many of the ID people would say when asked if this is being used to get certain aspects of religion back into Public Schools: God damn right I am! You all see it and I acknowledge it looks fishy to me without knowing them or reading them that much. When it is turned around and a "neutral" scientist gets pissed it comes out. God does not exist and I am using my Science background to tell you why. It is dishonest.
Now I am sure that people will deny, deny, deny. Sooner or later it will come out if pressed. It already has. I hope it is a minority but my experience has been that it is not. It is a worldview that goes far beyond the Science classroom. This site is proof of it in that it cross sects many issues. I applaud Ed for doing it that way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:01 PM
King of Ireland, how would science work using methodological supernaturalism? I can't quite work that one out, but I'm sure you will enlighten me.
Posted by: MH | March 4, 2008 5:09 PM
Then your beef is with PEOPLE, not science.
Trying to blame science and its methods for what people do IS dishonest.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 5:17 PM
Those atheist scientists who use science as an argument against the existence of God do NOT say that evolution (or the theory of relativity or the laws of thermodynamics) "proves" there's no God. It does no such thing. What they say is that if you follow the findings of modern science all the way down, there is no indication that complex things like minds and intelligence came before simple matter and energy -- or exist apart from it. Treated as a science hypothesis, God falls short.
Which it does. So science-friendly religious apologists generally spend a lot of their time explaining why one should not follow science "all the way down" when you come to deciding whether God exists or not. That's a different magisteria. God should not be treated like a science hypothesis, but like ... well, something else. Hope or love or a special relationship or something.
And neither they -- nor the atheist scientists -- want the topic of God discussed and debated in science classes in public schools. Separation of church and state means the schools must be secular -- neutral between views. Neither Christian nor atheist.
Sam Harris looked at the idea of God and the theory of evolution and said that whether they fit together depends on whether you are looking for "consistent with" or "indicative of." The existence of God -- and the truth of Christianity -- is consistent with evolution having happened. And vice versa. But neither one indicates or leads to the other.
Posted by: Sastra | March 4, 2008 5:32 PM
Take this statement from Pope Benedict as an example of why no conflict need exist.
King, I think your head may be drifting assways again. Of course science take no stance on the existence of god. God is a concept beyond the testable. The objection to evolution is that it contradicts a specific part of the bible and many who put their faith in that book therefore feel like it's attacking them. But it's simply a declaration of reality.
The basics of the scientific method have existed for a thousand years. It's fairly well defined. One of the fundamentals is to create a testable hypothesis. If your hypothesis cannot be shown false through testing it is not science, it's a big game of "wouldn't this be neat." This applies materialists and non-materialists, science doesn't care. If you want to do science you must follow the scientific method. I hope you can understand why.
This is what separates evolution from the creator-based ideas. It is the only idea that has done this. How can one test against an undefined creator?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 5:38 PM
'Trying to blame science and its methods for what people do IS dishonest"
Trying to blame God and the Bible for what some people do with it is dishonest too but it does not stop a bunch of people on here from doing it?
" King of Ireland, how would science work using methodological supernaturalism? I can't quite work that one out, but I'm sure you will enlighten me.'
Let me give an example of what I am talking about. When my son was about 2 I wondered if he knew I was his Father when he had other males around him more than me. One day I pulled up and he saw me and came running to me. He knew. I cannot scientifically test or prove it. It is subjective what I am saying but he knew. Now I was an atheist at the time and this really made me wonder why this was.
Years later as I thought about this inate sense that we must be born with it made more sense to me when I began to study the Bible and believe in God. Can I explain it? No. But I can question where it comes from. This is not an isolated instance where I have observed this. Many circumstances were different and all kinds of variables. I am sure you could even study it some scientifically if you wanted. But I look more to where this inate sense comes from. The one that makes people go looking for Mom or Dad later in life even though they have never seen them and it makes no sense.
It seems to me to be God given. If this is true I think it could and should be studied and see if patterns exist or what different variables tell us. But only to a point because at some point it becomes subjective and we have to make a decision. Is this Science? No. Is it legitimate inquiry and helpful to human endeavors? Yes.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:43 PM
You may not be concerned with Stein's or any other contrarian's being "right or wrong", but that is, in fact, what actually matters.
Posted by: Alexandra | March 4, 2008 5:47 PM
In addition to what gwangung said, I now have to ask: if you are so upset that some scientists are using the results of science to argue there is no god (and I do not deny that there are, but I would point out that science itself has nothing to say on that matter and--again--it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something), why do you think the correct response would be to redefine science to say that there is a god? Why do you consider it wrong to use science to push one theological idea onto other people, but think it's perfectly fine to radically alter the very idea of what science is to push your theological ideas onto people?
Also, when you say "For most of Science I have no such desire", you're again displaying your hypocrisy on this matter. Science is a method of learning about the world. There is no one science that is used to learn about electronics and another that is used to learn about animals. Saying you only want to redefine science in the case of evolution makes no sense at all--the entirety of science relies on the same methodical materialism that you object to when it supports the theory of evolution, but are apparently perfectly fine with when it comes to everything else. How does that work? Does god interfere with the natural workings of the universe or does he not?
Posted by: Skemono | March 4, 2008 5:51 PM
'You may not be concerned with Stein's or any other contrarian's being "right or wrong", but that is, in fact, what actually matters."
Never said that. Was making a point that to sit in an ivory tower and say, "I am an expert you must listen" while the train of post modern though comes by and takes the next generation away is not wise. I seriously think it will hurt the 99.9% of Science that relgious people have no problem with anyway. I am saying this will hurt your own cause, most of which I agree with by the way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:56 PM
'Does god interfere with the natural workings of the universe or does he not?'
I believe He does. I am not sure how to go about trying to explain exactly how that works. Like I have said, to just say, "The Bible says so" and stay in my ivory tower is not working for my side either in the post modern world. If we had a point by point discussion of the Bible and the history and all that goes into proving it is true that would be one thing. It does not work in societies where there is no concept of God. Slowly but surely American is becoming one of those societies. I am totally confident that what I believe is true. The avenues in society to share that are changing.
I guess I would say this: (I may change my mind as I read more and learn all these terms) can one prove through the five senses that God exists for sure. No one cannot. Can one look at nature and see complexity, order, and beauty and wonder where it comes from and seek answers in religion or holy books or outerspace? Yes for sure I think. It seems like Modern Science says if you cannot prove it and test it forget it. What about the person who think they heard the voice of God? Is this testable? Can you prove it false? No you cannot but you say to me you cannot prove it true. Then how can we say that we know?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 6:08 PM
Now I'm thoroughly confused. Are you using an example of something you admit is not science to illustrate why another non-scientific idea should be taught in science class? Can you please clarify your objective in this discussion?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 6:12 PM
So, in response to what you consider evil, you return evil? And to people who are not displaying that evil behavior?
That's dishonest and hypocritical behavior.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 6:20 PM
That's dishonest and hypocritical behavior.
I was being sarcastic. Sorry I am weary of this for today and need to let this rest.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 6:25 PM
I asked: "King of Ireland, how would science work using methodological supernaturalism? I can't quite work that one out, but I'm sure you will enlighten me."
King of Ireland replied: "It seems to me to be God given. If this is true I think it could and should be studied and see if patterns exist or what different variables tell us. But only to a point because at some point it becomes subjective and we have to make a decision. Is this Science? No. Is it legitimate inquiry and helpful to human endeavors? Yes."
So basically, no, methodological supernaturalism is not science. So why do you want science altered?
I think this is relevant: Should Science Pursue Methodological Supernaturalism? You should read it.
Posted by: MH | March 4, 2008 6:41 PM
No, modern science says that if you cannot prove it and test it, then it's not science. It never says that things that are not science don't exist. In fact, if you include mathematics into science (itself a questionable act for some people), then Godel's Theorem proves that any logical system is by necessity incomplete.
That is, science itself provides a testable proof that science can never be a complete description of the world.
No it's not. It's also not science. And that's fine - science doesn't have to describe everything.
Why do you want to change science to include that which isn't science? Scientists are fine with the idea that not everything is describable by science (no scientist has ever argued that the English Literature department should be absorbed into the sciences, for example), so why aren't you happy with this?
Posted by: Alex | March 4, 2008 6:45 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
And virtually all of them object to evolution because of their religious views. If they actually had valid arguments to make, they would be taken seriously, but they don't. They recycle the same old debunked arguments full of ridiculous probability arguments. What difference does it make that scientists like Behe and Axe say they disagree with evolution? They haven't produced a single piece of research that supports their argument. In fact, both of them have produced scientific research that, despite their highly dishonest claims about the results, actually supports evolution and not ID (I've explained this in great detail in regard to Axe's work on perturbation rates in enzymes and Behe and Snoke's paper on binding site evolution - both papers strongly support evolution despite the absurd claims of the authors).
But who makes that argument? I have written tens of thousands of words explicitly debunking their claims in great detail, and in a manner that a layman can understand. My colleagues have written articles and books by the dozens doing the same thing to every single claim made by the ID movement. You're attacking a straw man here.
You say that as though the question of whether the claims in the movie are right or wrong just don't matter. Do you really not care that it will be based on lies and distortions? I have already published a thorough and detailed debunking of the claims in the movie about Richard Sternberg, a debunking that the ID crowd has never bothered to reply to. The Sternberg martyrdom claims are absolutely false and based on lies. Is that okay with you? We've always had a fight on our hands, and the other side has always used lies and distortions. Rational people can still examine the evidence and know who's got the stronger arguments.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 7:23 PM
I think dodgeball is what we called murderball. Truth in advertising and all that.
Posted by: Graculus | March 4, 2008 8:12 PM
'And virtually all of them object to evolution because of their religious views"
Does not mean they are wrong but good point. I worked for an mission organization that was 80% women. The guy who headed wrote a book about why women should be allowed to be pastors or whatever. Never read it. Why? Have to consider teh source and why he would right it. Read another one by a guy who left the organization and had some problems with it. He said the same thing from what I heard. I agreed with most it. Why did I read one and not the other? Based on who wrote it and why? Point conceded.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 8:24 PM
"You say that as though the question of whether the claims in the movie are right or wrong just don't matter. Do you really not care that it will be based on lies and distortions? I have already published a thorough