Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Wall Street Journal has an article about the latest ID movement tactic of "academic freedom" bills and they correctly identify the goal:
The academic-freedom bills now in circulation vary in detail. Some require teachers to critique evolution. Others let educators choose their approach -- but guarantee they won't be disciplined should they decide to build a case against Darwin.The common goal: To expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution. Most of this material is produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism, the belief that God created man in his present form.
The article points out that these bills are being written and advocated by the same folks who've been trying to get ID into classrooms for years. And I like this quote:
"It shouldn't be a crime for teachers to give the best evidence for evolutionary theory and then, if they want, spend a day saying, 'Some people are raising questions,'" said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
So why single out evolution, John? There is not one single theory in science, no matter how well supported or established, that doesn't have some people "raising questions" about it. Why not have teachers spend a day giving the Christian Science critique of the germ theory of disease? Or the Raelian alternative on human history? Or a day teaching astrology along with astronomy? There's only one reason: because evolution is the theory that the ID movement thinks destroys god and morality and apple pie.
And I love the fact that they pretend that teachers will be presenting scholarly and objective cases against evolution, then present teachers like this guy:
Doug Cowan, a public-school biology teacher, said his colleagues are often afraid to speak out.Mr. Cowan said he tells students: "I'm going to give you the evidence for evolution and the evidence against, and let you decide." For instance, he'll mention Darwin's observation that finches evolve different-shaped beaks to suit different ecosystems. Then he'll add that you don't see a finch changing into another species.
Asked what evidence he presents to bolster evolution, Mr. Cowan paused. "I don't have any," he said.
Mr. Cowan's principal said that teachers are not supposed to veer from the approved textbooks. That's why Mr. Cowan would like a legal guarantee he can teach as he sees fit.
If you're a public school biology teacher and you don't have any evidence to support evolution, you have no business being a public school biology teacher.
Comments
Why isn't church enough for these cocksnacks? Is it really because that want a theocracy?
If they do, why don't they move to Iran?
(Yes, all these are rhetorical.)
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | May 2, 2008 8:37 PM
Jeb, FCD wrote:
Why isn't faith enough? Perhaps this desperate need to believe that science supports creationism is actually a sign that religion is losing its grip, instead of tightening it. The values of the enlightenment are slowly seeping in, so that people today expect that their religious beliefs must be reasonable and solidly supported by the evidence. Otherwise, they'd be wrong. Of course.
There's a saying to the effect that "hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue." Perhaps Creationism is the compliment that religion pays to modern science.
If so, they're going to have trouble maintaining a theocracy over the long run, because they've eaten the apple. And creationism is wrong, and evolution is correct. They're screwed.
The mills of the science gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.
Posted by: Sastra | May 2, 2008 9:01 PM
Sastra:
200 years ago I might've believed this. It seems, though, since 9/11 that religiosity has crept back into the mainstream instead of being relegated to the back water to which it was going.
These fundagelical fuckheads have turn this into a a religious war, instead of one logic and reason vs. religion. Religion will destroy this planet. Only science (or logic) can save it and, unfortunately, there are more religidiots than skeptics.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | May 2, 2008 9:15 PM
There is not one single theory in science, no matter how well supported or established, that doesn't have some people "raising questions" about it.
Not just science. There could be "equal time" for alternate theories in:
History: FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed.
Arts: There are absolute standards for what art must be.
Mathematics: Irrational numbers will drive you insane.
Language Arts: English was good enough for Jesus, so it's good enough for you.
Posted by: Grumpy | May 2, 2008 9:32 PM
Grumpy,
Mathematics: Irrational numbers will drive you insane.
You think you're funny, but you're not.
Posted by: Mithrandir | May 2, 2008 10:07 PM
How'bout we take full advantage of this "academic freedom" bill?
For example in highschool economics classes, demand equal time for Karl Marx alongside Adam Smith. And anarchism in the highschool political science classroom.
And what's this about abstinence-only in sex ed classes? Surely those classes are begging for equal time for whatever theory can be found to support the idea that consenting adults should have lots and lots of sex before they get married, if for no other reason, than to determine if there is sexual compatibility with prospective marriage partners. Not to mention inviting in guest speakers from the Gay Recruiters' League.
Take this to its logical conclusion and the religious extremists will be screaming for it to stop.
Posted by: g347 | May 2, 2008 10:34 PM
Ed, Saw you in the, "Why do people laugh at Creationists - Part 14." I like your presentation style. Are there additional episodes beyond #18? How do you explain the retrograde behavior exhibited by the anti-fluoridation and anti-immunization movements? Do we need another Black Death to remind folks that evolution works especially well for lifeforms with an accelerated mutation rate like viruses?
We need to remind people that it was science that made childhood death the exception rather than the rule.
Oh,and please do more video blogs. Ed, you've got what's called "Presence."
Posted by: BobbyV | May 2, 2008 10:42 PM
Uh, how old *are* you?
Posted by: itchy | May 2, 2008 11:11 PM
So... this "academic freedom" bill - does it also 'require' and allow for criticism and tearing apart of Creationism and ID or just Darwinism?
If criticism of Darwinism is encouraged, doesn't that also imply the permission to teach it - or just permission to debunk it? Ditto Creationism and ID.
And a heads up to "BobbyV", upthread: I know you're trying to flatter Ed into coming to visit you, but, I'm warning you - he's mine. Leave him alone.
>>Oh,and please do more video blogs. Ed, you've got what's called "Presence."
Really, BobbyV, try not to be so transparent.
Posted by: little peanut | May 2, 2008 11:41 PM
If these laws get passed, the only recourse is to rally the Pastafarians to demand equal time to teach Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation in science classes. It would be nice to have teaching materials and a syllabus already put together, carefully matching whatever materials and syllabus the ID creationists offer, but with their Christian paradigm replaced with Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
Posted by: Joe Max | May 3, 2008 1:05 AM
Yes, they go at least to 23. Not all have been put online by the same contributor, though.
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 3, 2008 7:08 AM
Part of it is the same thinking that drives witch hunts and revivals; they believe that if the community isn't pure (i.e. everyone pays lip-service to their beliefs) then god will punish everyone for the sins of the disbelievers. There is definitely a lot of insecurity in it though; after all, what kind of all-loving god smites everyone to get at one or two people?
Posted by: Julian | May 3, 2008 9:09 AM
Little peanut,
I believe you may have misconstrued my comments. I assure you that I had no intentions other than recognizing Ed's thoughtful, well constructed argument against the teaching of ID as science. And what you ascribe to transparency was simply the innocent product of a much enjoyed state of altered consciousness. Does the fact that it's BobbyV (xy) - not BobbieV (xx) change anything? I go in peace.
Posted by: BobbyV | May 3, 2008 11:56 AM
>> . . . have turn this into a a religious war, instead of one logic and reason vs. religion. Religion will destroy this planet. Only science (or logic) can save it and, unfortunately, there are more religidiots than skeptics.
Jeb, looks like your religious bigotry is coming to the surface a bit. I'm curious - what makes you think science is going to save the world when science has made us that much more able to destroy it? Science obviously is not making people more moral, or else our world would have become a much more peaceful place over the past hundred years or so. Our world is just as violent as it always has been despite our amazing scientific advances. Science has given us nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Add that to the fact that our scientific advances have not made us any more moral and I would say that the world is MORE dangerous with the advances of science. Your thoughts? And let's not forget that some of the most violent regimes in the world based themselves on a foundation of science and atheism.
Posted by: mroberts | May 3, 2008 2:24 PM
The proposed "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act" limits this expansion/protection of academic freedom to science teachers and mentions controversial theories (but not by name). It's a "teach the controversy" bill. Apparently there are not any controversial theories in history, government, or physical education that merit protecting teachers against the narrow-mindedness of principals, school boards, state curriculum writers, etc. Sheesh! I'm glad I'm retired!
We fought this same battle in the 1980's; the case was Edwards v. Aguillard, and we won. But the war is never over, is it? These nutjobs just keep coming back, rebranding their idiocy, trying to sneak their religion into the science curriculum. It's like fighting a virus that constantly mutates (oops!).
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 3, 2008 3:22 PM
You heard me, BobbyV; knock it off.
Posted by: little peanut | May 3, 2008 3:28 PM
mroberts:
This:
"Jeb, looks like your religious bigotry is coming to the surface a bit. I'm curious - what makes you think science is going to save the world when science has made us that much more able to destroy it? Science obviously is not making people more moral, or else our world would have become a much more peaceful place over the past hundred years or so. Our world is just as violent as it always has been despite our amazing scientific advances."
is a wonderful strawman, will you be burning it at the stake?
Science is not and does not purport to be a system for inculcating morals in the hearts and minds of its believers. Not to belabor the obvious, but Nu-Q-Lar weppins never trigger themselves. It always takes a man and that man is generally a zealot (Harry Truman seems an odd one, but I digress).
I only took debate for 1 semester in HS but I know a specious argument when I hear or, in the instant case, read one.
Posted by: democommie | May 3, 2008 3:49 PM
A teacher has to leave his personal views at the door and teach the kids to think for themselves. This is not just with religion. Political views seep into cirriculums just as easy.
I have strong views on things and try my best to not let my opinions influence my kids. The Biology teacher needs to teach Biology. If he happens to be a Christian then he or she needs to try that much harder to remain neutral.
I will say though that biased teachers are not limited to just Evangelical Christains. Under the guise of "Alternatives to Violence" a guy has School dollars to teach a class that was designed as part of his Non-Profit. It is actually a credited class during school hours. It is a good class and I like it.
But he gave out a paper on the benefits of Buddhist meditation. I am not sure it that is right or wrong. I am fairly sure that if the Christain did it on Christian Prayer a law suit would have been filed. I think the guy does a great job with the kids so I did not raise the issue with him. But it made me think. Militant atheists can do just as much damage to academic integrity. Lets not ignore that.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 3, 2008 8:01 PM
"teach the kids to think for themselves" ?? What are you KOI, an anarchist, an atheist? They need to be taught right from wrong. The purpose of school is to indoctrinate the kids in 'Merican culture. They don't need to be reinventing the wheel every generation; they need the facts.
Seriously, I do think your school might be a bit over the line, teaching Buddhism as an alternative to violence, on school time, for credit. Of course, maybe Buddhism is just a small part of that course. What are some of the other alternatives? Counting to ten? And is that course an elective or are kids assigned to it based on behavior?
Are you saying that you think the guy is a militant atheist because he was teaching Buddhism, or is there other evidence? I taught a little Buddhism in my World History course once. I also used to give a stunning rendition of Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" when I taught American History and Literature. It's a question of balance, moderation, and touching on many viewpoints, I think, that shows the kids a model of thinking for yourself and being open to new ideas.
Posted by: The Wholly None | May 3, 2008 10:57 PM
King of Ireland:
You sound like a lot of my mostly Cath-O-Lick family (all of whom I genuinely love). We do not EVER discuss religion (and, rarely, talk about politics).
Not to put to fine a point on it, atheists don't teach buddhism.
Posted by: democommie | May 4, 2008 8:18 AM
democommie,
Maybe you took 1 semester of debate in HS, but you apparently missed the reading comprehension part of your English class. You said the following:
"is a wonderful strawman, will you be burning it at the stake?
Science is not and does not purport to be a system for inculcating morals in the hearts and minds of its believers. Not to belabor the obvious, but Nu-Q-Lar weppins never trigger themselves. It always takes a man and that man is generally a zealot (Harry Truman seems an odd one, but I digress)."
Jeb said that "religion will destroy this planet" and that only science can save the world. If it wasn't for science, we wouldn't have "Nu-Q-Lar weppins", biological or chemical weapons, and nobody would have the ability to incinerate 50 million people (or more) with the push of a button. Based on this, I would say that science has probably contributed more to potentially destroying this world than religion has. Between the fact that science is always devising better ways to kill more people more quickly, and the fact that it cannot make a person more moral (and prevent the madman from pushing the button), I would say that Jeb is dead wrong in his statement. And let's not forget that some of the most violent regimes of the last century prided themselves on being atheist and science-based to the exclusion of religion.
Posted by: mroberts | May 5, 2008 11:00 PM
Mrroberts - Yep science created only nuclear & biological weapons, nothing else. How about the thing in front you? You know the electronic computer? Do you you really think relgion created that? Perhaps god leant out of a cloud and *zap* instant computer.
Also take the German Nazi regume (1933-1945). In fact it was hardly atheistic, Hitler himself was a great admirer (and follower) of the Catholic Chursh. Himmler had some kind of weird pseudo-pagan thing going on. All high ranking Nazis seemed to have some kind of belief in the supernatural. Why? I don't have a clue.
Anyway IF the Nazi regime is considered to be "atheistic" the Nazis killed around 7% of thier population (including prisioners).
Stalin's regime (1926-53) probably managed a monsterous 22% of the population (including prisioners).
The thirty-year was (1610-1640), a relgious war (at least intially) was estimated to have killed 33% of the urban population and 50% of the rural population of Germany.
Care to review your idea of "atheists cause bigger wars than relgious types" stance? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 5, 2008 11:32 PM
>> Yep science created only nuclear & biological weapons, nothing else. How about the thing in front you? You know the electronic computer? Do you you really think relgion created that? Perhaps god leant out of a cloud and *zap* instant computer.
Where are you getting that from? Yeah, I totally forgot that science created the computer, that's it. As usual, you guys are completely missing the point here. Jeb asserted that only science can save the world. My point is that science has probably done more to put the world in danger of complete destruction than anything else. Therefore, science is probably more likely to destroy the world than save it? Why? Because science has no answer to the question of morality. It cannot make a person more moral. So, it provides the tools to destroy the world many times over (as in the case of nukes) and cannot provide a way of restraining human evil. Get it now? The idea that science alone will save the world is utterly false. I think the proof is that the purely scientific regimes of the past century were also some of the most violent.
And as for your inference about Hitler being enamored with Christianity, I think it is safer to say that he more closely identified with Darwinism:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26346#continueA
What religion Hitler may have had was more based on the occult than Christianity.
Posted by: mroberts | May 6, 2008 3:24 PM
mroberts, if I understand what you mean by morality, that it is positive action, then I'd have to say science, technology, and reason have done much to contribute to our advancement. They have helped us to overcome such "evils" as slavery, the oppression of women, gladiatorial fights/ executions as entertainment, vassalage, and torture, to name but a few.
These were all widely practiced in history and yes, they still go on. But they are no longer mainstream and are increasingly recognized as deleterious to civilization. Things like psychology, germ theory, the cotton gin, the printing press, the internet, contraception, and renaissance humanism, are but a few examples that have greatly contributed to the advancement of our society, helped us to become more "moral".
I agree that, "only science (or logic) can save [the world]" overstates the case. (Save it from what I wonder.) Science doesn't tell us what's right and what's wrong. But it does let us explore the question from a position of knowledge and help free us from many of the material concerns that contribute to oppressive practices I mentioned earlier.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 6, 2008 5:29 PM
>> Science doesn't tell us what's right and what's wrong. But it does let us explore the question from a position of knowledge and help free us from many of the material concerns that contribute to oppressive practices I mentioned earlier.
You make an interesting statement here Abby, and I appreciate your comments. I'm curious, in an atheistic worldview, from what does one derive their moral standard? How does a person with an atheistic worldview determine that certain things are wrong and certain things are right?
Posted by: mroberts | May 6, 2008 6:55 PM
There are probably as many answers to that question as there are atheists. So I can only speak for myself. As to how broadly my philosophy applies to other atheists, your guess is as good as mine.
I have a lot of trouble with the concept of morality, good and evil, and absolute right and wrong. They really don't make much sense to me. Yet its not uncommon for me to hear I'm one of the nicest, most giving, and/or honest people they know. (Which I find really depressing BTW.) I think your question boils down to, why do I behave the way I do?
The answer to that question is not easy. It's the sum of my experiences and predispositions. But I'll try to explain what I consider my key driving concepts. Chief among them would have to be Enlightened Self-interest. A pretentious name I'll grant you. But I didn't make it up. ;-)
I behave in a manner that is consistent with the type of society in which I would want to live. I support free speech because I want free speech. I give because I want to live in a giving society. I'm honest because it encourages trust, which improves the quality of my life. I behave the way I do because it benefits me.
Plus it feels good, which brings me to conditioning. As surely as Pavlov's dogs drool, I have certain trained behaviors. I've talked before about empathy. When I see someone happy it encourages me to feel happy. When I see someone sad or in pain I feel bad too. These positive and negative feelings drive me to promote happiness and alleviate suffering. Empathy conditions me to care.
I think that's a good starting point. Let me pause here to invite comments or questions.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 6, 2008 10:21 PM
Pleas to please stop babbling will also be considered.
To answer the question, how do I "determine that certain things are wrong and certain things are right?" I very rarely use such language. Unfortunately it can sometime be difficult in English to communicate without using moralistic speech. So when I do I'm trying to say I support or denounce an action.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 6, 2008 10:40 PM
mroberts:
Your premise seems to be that all bad things done by scientists were done by atheistic scientists. I think you're taking that for granted--it's not.
You, like so many folks that believe in the invisible skyboss, think you have some corner on logic, why?
From what does an atheist derive their moral standard? Not from the leaders of organized religion (or most of their sheeple), of that you may be certain. It is so entertaining to watch someone like you tie himself in knots saying that an atheist does this or that while at the same time saying Hitler was not a christian. HE said he was, so he must have thought he was. But, of course, since he was a bloodthirsty megalomanical authoritarian dictator that could not possible be true.
This:
"Why? Because science has no answer to the question of morality. It cannot make a person more moral. So, it provides the tools to destroy the world many times over (as in the case of nukes) and cannot provide a way of restraining human evil. Get it now? The idea that science alone will save the world is utterly false. I think the proof is that the purely scientific regimes of the past century were also some of the most violent."
is bullshit:
Harry Truman, practicing christian, family man and all around good guy (by most accounts) ordered the detonation of not one, but two, thermonuclear weapons. Whether the action was moral or immoral is not the point. No scientist gave the order, flew the plane or released the device into the skies over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Blaming" science for building nuclear bombs is one thing. But the decision to use them was made by a christian.
You
Posted by: democommie | May 6, 2008 11:00 PM
That last "you" is a typo, or a freudian slip, I'm not sure.
Posted by: democommie | May 6, 2008 11:02 PM
mrroberts - I think we missed eachother's point. I assumed (falsely) that you were a luddite, and you you missed the point that relgious wars are usually more destructive then non-relgious ones. Relgious wars are more dangerous (in my opinion) because their cause(s) are irrational, that is they can not be defined, demonstrated or proved. Wars over access to resources at least have some kind of concrete goal that can be measured (eg Did we get control of the oil field? Check.)
As to morality. I tend to use my brain. I think about the likely outcome(s) and see if I get what I want without hurting others. If yes then I act. After the act I evaluate the outcome compared to the projected outcome. If the result was less than sucessfuul then I adjust my theory accordingingly. But that's just me. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 6, 2008 11:10 PM
Since everyone else is double posting... :)
mrroberts perhaps this might be helpful to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Cheers -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 6, 2008 11:17 PM
I'm curious, in an atheistic worldview, from what does one derive their moral standard?
From objective observation and calculation of the consequences of actions. This starts in childhood, when a kid sees some obviously harmful thing being done to another person and thinks "Holy crap, I'd never want that done to me!" And when he sees some helpful thing being done for another and thinks "That was a good thing to do, I hope someone helps me that way if I ever need it!" Then such calculations get more mature as we grow up, becoming a system of ethics that allows us to decide what is "good" or "bad" based on observable consequences.
Oh, and yes, theists do this too, whether or not we admit it. In fact, we tend to choose our Gods based on which set of beliefs best matches our pre-existing calculations of right and wrong.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 6, 2008 11:52 PM
democommie:
>It is so entertaining to watch someone like you tie himself in knots saying that an atheist does this or that while at the same time saying Hitler was not a christian. HE said he was, so he must have thought he was. But, of course, since he was a bloodthirsty megalomanical authoritarian dictator that could not possible be true.
If Hitler said he was a Christian, that doesn't mean he was one anymore than you saying you're a hamburger makes you a Big Mac. A white man can call himself black, but he is still white. A woman can call herself a man, but she is still female. The measure of a Christian is their adherence to the Bible and you will not find anything in Christian theology to support what Hitler did.
>>Harry Truman, practicing christian, family man and all around good guy (by most accounts) ordered the detonation of not one, but two, thermonuclear weapons. Whether the action was moral or immoral is not the point. No scientist gave the order, flew the plane or released the device into the skies over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Blaming" science for building nuclear bombs is one thing. But the decision to use them was made by a christian.
The point was only that science has done more to put the world in danger than any religion by enabling the world to destroy itself with weapons of mass destruction. And I made this point SOLELY to illustrate the absurd statement that science alone can save the world. Great power like nuclear weapons can be used for good or evil, therefore it take morality to restrain the evil part. Science has no answer for morality, therefore a purely scientific world has no provision for restraining evil. That was ALL that I was saying. Yes Truman ordered the dropping of the bomb, and even as a Christian he was perfectly justified. Christians are not required to be pacifists. Christian belief allows ample room for defending your nation against aggressors, particularly if you are responsible for the safety of your people like the President is.
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 1:32 PM
mroberts:
You are fucking delusional. When someone points out an inconsistency in your argument you simply shift the ground. Go back to church, you moron.
Posted by: democommie | May 7, 2008 6:11 PM