…and this is a 
Kentucky does good
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 11, 2007 10:14 AM, by PZ Myers
One of the most vocal pro-creationist governors in the country, Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky (home of Ken Ham's infamous creationist "museum") has had his re-election bid go down in flames. This is fabulous news. Revere sees it as one more sign of the impending demise of the religious right — I can't be quite so optimistic, since they always seem to resurrect themselves. Greg Laden is also pleased with the result. He also takes exception to the claim that creationism is properly taught in social studies and comparative religion classes — and to that, I'd add the frequent suggestion that it belongs in philosophy classes. It does a disservice to all of those disciplines. At best, it ought t be mentioned in abnormal psychology classes, as an example of the madness of crowds or of religious hysteria.
Politics
Comments
I got news for you, PZ -- we don't want it either...
Posted by: Dave Munger | November 11, 2007 10:30 AM
Axis II, no doubt.
Posted by: danley | November 11, 2007 10:31 AM
I am not sure that creationism deserves any kind of special mention in comparative religion or social science classes, other than to note in passing than the scientific consensus is that it is not scientific and that theologians generally consider it bad theology, at least at school level.
The issue as why people insist on believing in things for which not only there is no evidence but an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence is something I find of interest. What is about creationists that is different ? I have seen a number of suggestions. Ignorance is certainly a factor but cannot be the only one. I sometimes wonder is there is something different about the way creationist minds work that differs from rational people.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 10:32 AM
Poor ID creationism. The lunacy without a home.
Except in the churches, of course. But some of us would like to see those razed, boarded up, or converted into chicken coops or something, too.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 11, 2007 10:32 AM
PZ,
Here in the UK many rural churches are being put up for sale as they no longer have the numbers of worshippers to support them. There is one in the village where I live that has just been sold. Most are turned into rather nice homes. The builders may have been religious but they did have an eye for architectural detail in many cases.
Of course I imagine in the US the architectural merit of churches may be somewhat lower.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 10:39 AM
The study of Intelligent Design is a marvelous exercise in the theory of knowledge, and properly belongs in science class, where knowledge is useful.
=================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:43 AM
Oh dear, here come the trolls :(
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 10:48 AM
The same phenomenon is going on in the rural midwest, largely because of depopulation. Some of what we're losing is actually quite fine: these beautiful old 19th century stave churches that were built by immigrant farm communities. Unfortunately, what's happening is that people are moving away from traditional small towns into the big cities, where they fall into the ghastly abominations of the megachurches.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 11, 2007 10:48 AM
Count on creationists to point out where evolutionists depend on faith, that is on the elucidation of the mechanism of the development of the so-called 'irreducible complexities'.
======================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:48 AM
Kim,
Theory of Knowledge is not a scientific theory but a philosophical one most commonly associated with Bertrand Russell.
It has no relevance to creationism/ID which rely on distortion and outright lying to make their case.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 10:49 AM
I see nothing wrong with teaching about religious beliefs (i.e. creationism) in a class about comparative religion (as long as it isn't presented as more "true" than anything else covered in the class. It would be a poor religion class that didn't cover something as interesting and important to religious belief as the creation story.
Of course, teaching it as truth is just as wrong in social studies/comparative religion as it is in science.
Posted by: Antimatter Spork | November 11, 2007 10:49 AM
My point in #9, Onias, belongs in science class. Or would you prefer budding scientists be blind to their own blindness?
========================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:51 AM
Alright, I'll bite.
Kim, you do realise that Behe's definition of science (you know, the definition that allows Intelligent Design to be qualified as science) does not exclude astrology? Is astrology a "marvellous exercise in the theory of knowledge"?
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 10:52 AM
Cycles. Ascendant. Descendant. Ascendant. Descendant. Cycle after cycle the peak ascendants don't reach the strengths of the previous. Each trough descendant is deeper and broader than the one preceding.
There's actually a law, named after some historian or sociologist, that describes this phenomenon. Can't remember the name as I learned it 30+ years ago while hiding out in the High School library.
The rule goes: Societies surge back-and-forth to polar opposites with, over-time, the center of the population moving to a more liberal stance as things that weren't acceptable, become routine. Anyway, I've been watching it for 30 years and it seems to hold true in its general principle.
Posted by: Moses | November 11, 2007 10:52 AM
Opening the door to valuable science classtime discussion being wasted on discussion of creationism/"intelligent design" is the reason that I am not mentioning PBS' "Judgment Day" to my students nor am I showing any of that website's clips, because those clips include valid criticisms of ID.
The schismatic ID thinking would be a valuable topic in sociology and philosophy only if all alternative views are examined.
Would love it if my students viewed it on their own, to stimulate their thinking. But I just do not want to waste their limited classtimes on non-science: want to focus them on science.
If classtime were allotted for discussion of the peculiar case of ID, I think (from previous attempts) that the fundamentalist students would not budge from their petrified thinking. And that those students who do currently apply critical thinking skills would not experience any enhancement of those skills (although they probably would
realize a decreased respect for some of their classmates' thinking processes).
Posted by: cyan | November 11, 2007 10:52 AM
And so, Matt, science is the only route to knowledge?
===============================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:53 AM
What belongs in a science class is science and how science is done.
Since creationism/ID have at their core a rejection of the very foundations of how science works they do not belong as either part of science or how science works. They may have a role in other parts of the curiculum as examples of how people can believe stupid things despite the evidence.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 10:55 AM
Kim,
Correct. Science is the only route we have to knowing HOW the universe works.
Well done, you finally got it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 10:56 AM
II think the Bible answers that for us quite well: "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell."
In short, since science, indirectly, questions and attacks faith, ID is the metaphorical "plucking out the eye." And, as we know, a blind scientist can't observe.
Posted by: Moses | November 11, 2007 10:57 AM
Cyan,
I rather suspect you are right. Whilst creationism/ID may in someways be good example of bad science/theology they probably carry to much baggage to make them useful as such.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 10:58 AM
You make the mistake of thinking I'm a creationist. I'm certain they underestimate the survival value of some of the 'irreducible complexities', for instance the clotting mechanism leads to the integrity of the internal milieu, and flagellae confer mobility. Can you imagine life without homeostass or mobility? I suspect they give an inadequate role to the immense amount of time during which these evolutionary advantages could be expressed.
I'm merely arguing that the 'faith' of evolutionists that the mechanism of development of the 'irreducible complexities' will ultimately be shown to be naturalistic is a good teaching point, one which it would be useful for scientists to understand.
You seem to want to have a lot of other arguments with me. Why is that?
=======================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:01 AM
Well, I have an aesthetic appreciation for creation myths but, then again, I'm not sure kids would share my enthusiasm.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:02 AM
Well, Matt, what I finally got is that you have meager expectations for human knowledge.
======================================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:03 AM
To clarify post 22: I was talking about comparative religion, I'm too trigger-happy with the post button :)
To Kim: It's not faith at all. It's reasonable to assume that "irreducible complexity" will be explained away because every single other instance has already been explained away.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:06 AM
There are none so blind, Onias, as those who will not see. I'm not talking about creationist myths, I'm talking about a useful bit of understanding about the philosophy of science. You illustrate my point quite ingenuously, and blindly.
=================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:08 AM
The question is (I think) really about time and editing-- I don't treat 20th century creationism in my history of science class anymore, because there's so much more important material to convey. Creation does come up earlier, just as intelligent design comes up in the 18th/early 19th century material. Even then scientists recognized the emptiness of 'Goddidit'-- this was only ever a 'what else can we say' result, and the search for informative accounts in terms of secondary causes was seen as essential to any real scientific theory. The utter emptiness of 'SomeunspecifiedIntelligentDesignerdidit' (who knows its motives/purposes/ etc.) would have startled (and even frightened) Paley, who certainly had at least the goodness of God in mind as a real constraint on the process (the harshness of the natural world is still more dodged than recognized, despite Darwin's clear recognition of the facts, and his limited effort to palliate them in terms of the general lack of fear and the swiftness of death in most cases). Sad to see the pygmies of intelligent design today, pursuing tattered remnants of an idea whose proponents were so much braver and more honest. It's time to let this once-proud idea rest in peace, rather than artificially re-animating it and sending it out to totter around like a mindless theoretical zombie.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | November 11, 2007 11:08 AM
Kim,
Meagre expectations ?
Is knowing the size of the universe meagre ?
Is knowing how to eradicate smallpox meagre ?
Is knowing the structure of the atom meagre ?
Is being able to cure many diseases meagre ?
Is increasing human longevity meagre ?
Is the sense of wonder we get from knowing and doing these thing meagre ?
I would point out that religion or belief in god has never once cured a life threatening infection. Science has, millions of times. If I was to become ill tomorrow with a life threatening illness is not to priests or shaman I would look, it is to doctors and nurses, and the scientists and technicians who back them up.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:08 AM
Ah, yes, Onias, you are quite explicit with your faith; you even call it reasonable.
==========================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:09 AM
And you believe the 'how' is the only province for human knowledge, Matt?
========================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:10 AM
Kim, I'm confused. You seem to be advocating a definition of science that includes a host of very unscientific methods of enquiry, yet you seem to be rebuking Matt for his positivism. If, by your definition, everything qualifies as science, does this not suggest that science is the only valid activity, just like Matt?
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:12 AM
Kim,
No. But then I never said I did.
However science remain the only method we have for understanding how the universe works, despite your stupid claims otherwise. We tried using god to explain how in the past. It did not work. Invoking god explains nothing, but leaves even more to be explained. If the universe is hard to explain then how much harder is a god going to be to explain ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:13 AM
And you, Bryson Brown, might find that if you brought ID into the classroom you might have an active discussion on your hands, that you might not otherwise have, and from which it is even conceivable you might learn something, never mind the kids. Try it, you might like it.
=======================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:14 AM
Kim, if I twist the door knob of my house with the expectation of it opening, is my expectation based on faith? No it's not, it's based on prior experience. There's absolutely nothing irrational or faithful about rational expectation.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:15 AM
What are my 'stupid claims', Matt?
Now, ironically, I must be off. Continue in my absence.
============================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:16 AM
Onias,
A slight correction. I am not claiming science is the only way of knowing, but am claiming science is the only way of knowing the how. How the universe works is something that only science seems able to explain. No other methodology seems to work, especially "goddidit". There are many issues science does not explain, or at least only in a small part. That humans are moral creatures can be explained by science but science only has an informative role in helping us decide what is moral.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:16 AM
Kim,
That creationism/ID are science ?
That would seem to meet the criteria of being stupid to me.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:18 AM
Bryson,
#26
succinct and appreciated
Posted by: cyan | November 11, 2007 11:20 AM
My apologies Matt.
And, of course, the creationist insults us, then leaves without addressing any of our rebuttals. Shit, I could have been doing something useful. I ALWAYS get baited by trolls.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:20 AM
Onias,
No problem.
As for Kim, he just following standard creationist/IDiot doctrine. Argue your you case until you see you are up against superior intellects and then run away :) I think it must be something that they get taught first day at fundie school.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:24 AM
1. No mistake. There is a polarity. Either nature evolved things or they were intelligently designed by a supernatural designer. The middle steps are smoke and mirrors and fall quickly to the problem of regression.
2. We have lots of arguments because we deal with liars like you all the time. Now, whether you're lying to yourself is unknown, but there's nothing in your arguments or rebuttals that isn't Creationism Doctrine. No matter how many times you put your fingers in your ears and say say "la la la la you've proven nothing."
3. You're totally predictable. Every argument you've tried, or will likely try, has been shot down in flames a 1000 times before. At this point in time I'll just point you to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Feel free to pick and choose which arguments you want to have and pretend that I'm making the rebuttal.
k thx bai.
Posted by: Moses | November 11, 2007 11:31 AM
They made me come back. Matt, that is not my 'stupid claim'. Actually, I might stick around; you seem to have an inkling, but your tone is unscientific.
Buh bye for now.
===================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:32 AM
Moses, have I made a single creationist argument?
Y'all are blind. Exactly the sort of blindness that a course in the theory of knowledge would help.
========================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:34 AM
Blind to what, dear Kim? Enlighten us foolish lost souls.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:38 AM
There is something different about creationism and its closet variety, ID. They are trying to sneak cretinism into our children's science classes. This is part of the fundies attack on science and attempt to force their wacko lies onto the rest of us.
People believe all sorts of weird stuff. The Amish reject modern technology, scientologists believe billions of Thetan ghost roam the world, New Agers believe crystals have "powers", and on and on. Since these groups aren't forcing their ideology on us, no one much cares. Free country, last I heard.
No one would care about creos as long as they didn't try to force their belief system on everyone else. They could wave their rattlesnakes around, tell scary stories about evolutionary biologists, and raise their kids to be voluntarily ignorant and stupid in peace. It isn't the belief in 4,000 year old mythology, it is that they attempt to force it on everyone else.
Posted by: raven | November 11, 2007 11:39 AM
Kim,
You have called for creationism/ID to be taught in science classes. That is from page one of the big creationist book of how to bullshit.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:41 AM
And what exactly is 'good' theology?
To the kim person:
What other avenues to legitimate knowledge are there outside of science, logic, and rationality?
Givea few examples of knowledgegained outside these realms. Your a great stone chucker but please lay your cards on the table.
Posted by: Uber | November 11, 2007 11:44 AM
Raven,
I understand that difference about creationists but I must not have made myself very clear. When I asked what is different I could equally have included the Amish in with the creationists or any other group that rejects reason in favour of superstition. I was just wondering why some people do that and some, like you, me and PZ do not. The oft cited reason is, as I said, education, but that does not seem to be sufficient to me.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:44 AM
Kim,
In all your posts here you have posited questions, but I cannot find any of your posts in which you provide any possible mechanisms by which to consider those questions could be addressed.
No substance.
Since this is a thread concerning science, which includes attempting to figure out the mechanisms by which events in nature occur, what is it that you are attempting to contribute to this discussion?
1) Can you answer this specifically, instead of vaguely?
2) Will you do so?
Posted by: cyan | November 11, 2007 11:45 AM
Uber,
You would need to ask a theologian. All I was doing was going on what the consensus seems to be about creationism/ID amongst theologians and that would seem to be that creationism is bad theology.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 11:46 AM
Yeah, the way I understand it is that YEC theologians believe that if any part of the Bible is wrong, it's not the Revealed Word of God and is worthless. Mainstream theologians disagree.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:51 AM
RE#42: Teach creationism in a theory of knowledge (or epistemology) course? Aren't such courses typically (and appropriately) taught in philosophy departments? And wasn't that PZ's original suggestion re. where creationism should be taught?
Note: I've only taught the design argument in my Intro to philsophy courses (Hume's Dialogues -- devastating). It isn't actually a bad idea to teach it in an epistemology course, although it might be better suited to a philosophy of science course as an illustration of the difference between science and pseudo-science.
Posted by: Peter | November 11, 2007 11:52 AM
I sure would like there to be some class that discusses creationism, because there are lots of people who need to hear the counter-arguments.
Posted by: Paul Crowley | November 11, 2007 11:53 AM
I wouldn't go as far as consensus.
Posted by: Uber | November 11, 2007 11:54 AM
That is an enduring question for the ages. The empirical fact is that humans believe all sorts of weird thing. Almost as many believe in astrology as creationism. 20% believe Copernicus was wrong. Currently the champions are Sunnis and Shiites who are killing each other over minor doctrinal disputes that date back 1400 years.
My answer would be, it is just human nature. Even the so called scientific socialism (communist) societies are (or were) full to the brim with superstitions.
Most of this is relatively harmless unless and until they start trying to force it on everyone else. The Amish aren't roving the US in gangs cutting power lines and I don't care if they have electricity or not either.
Posted by: raven | November 11, 2007 11:55 AM
Well, the strange thing is that I don't believe that theology is worthless, even as an atheist. The aspects of theology I despise are the pretensions of rationality among theologians like Alvin Plantinga (and, of course, the bigotry and intolerance). The best theologians, I find, are open fideists like Soren Kiergekaard.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:58 AM
*pretensions to rationality, my mistake.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 12:01 PM
Too bad I'm in that tiny minority of Americans who can't drive to Kentucky in a day, otherwise I'd be tempted to go there and thank someone.
Posted by: Epistaxis | November 11, 2007 12:04 PM
"The issue as why people insist on believing in things for which not only there is no evidence but an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence is something I find of interest. What is about creationists that is different?"
Nothing. It's just the way the human mind works. Everyone's mind works more or less the same way, and it takes years of training and experience in being wrong to learn how not to. (Or at least, how to do it less.)
People base their beliefs on what the people around them or like them believe, what they want to believe, whether it fits with what they already believe, on initial appearances, on apparent correlations, on respected authorities. The whole catalogue of fallacies and errors are well-known "bugs" in the software of the human mind.
Creationists are irrational on this topic, but on subjects in which they have less emotional investment they can be perfectly rational. But non-Creationists are often the same, having their own pet delusions about other subjects, and are just as stubborn about defending them. Even the scientist is no exception - the advantage the scientist has is that he or she recognises the fact, and has the technical tools with which to circumvent their own biases if they choose.
Kids should be taught the methods of science in such a way that if they ever do come across ID, they will be able to find the flaws in it on their own. You shouldn't have to even mention it. If they can't, or if it only takes a new disguise for it to gain converts again, science education has failed.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 11, 2007 12:05 PM
Peter,
Your points are good but as I am sure you would agree aimed at undergrads, not school students.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 12:06 PM
Now Peter, in your Philosophy of Science class are you going to have philosophers or scientists? And Matt, don't let youngsters think about such things.
=======================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 12:09 PM
Not a single. Multiple.
I'm sure there are more, I was just making it quick. But in those four posts you've hit many of the major headings in Creationist Argumentation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
CI102. Irreducible complexity indicates design. (Post 6)
CA310. Scientists find what they expect to find. (Post 9 & Post 28)
CA301.1. Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation. (see also CI401: Science's method rules out design.)
CA610. Evolution is a religion. (Post 12)
Just for giggles, why not go for the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument? Haven't seen that one in awhile. And how about a side of "Darwin recanted," sprinkled with a liberal dose of "It's just a Theory," and perhaps a buffet of 'CA300-CA499: Scientific Method' arguments. (Post 16)
Now, if you have any insight, at this point in time you might begin to feel used. You've been wound-up and set free with a pack of lies to fortify you. Because lying for Jesus is what they do...
Posted by: Moses | November 11, 2007 12:17 PM
Matt (#59)
I primarily have undergrads in mind. Although I do like the idea of teaching philosophy in high school, a philosophy of science course would be too advanced for most students at that level.
Kim (#60)
everyone who's interested is welcome in my philosophy classes.
Posted by: Peter | November 11, 2007 12:18 PM
Uber #46, see my post #21. Cyan #48, see my post #6. That's the whole deck, folks. Moses, in #40, seems to want to have a word with you, though.
======================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 12:18 PM
Sorry. Had edit and blockquote problems. It was five posts, four well defined and frequently seen creationist arguments in those five posts.
Posted by: Moses | November 11, 2007 12:20 PM
Glad this one rational Kentuckian could help.
Kim, irreducible complexity is a celebration of ignorance. It states that since someone doesn't understand how something could have evolved (and doesn't bother checking the scientific literature to see if others have ideas), then it must have magically been poofed into existence.
That isn't how science works. If you don't understand something, you investigate it and try to understand it, not just throw your hands up and cite the supernatural.
When someone does come along and demonstrate that your example of irreducible complexity is neither, your god is down one miracle, a bit smaller and less grand.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 11, 2007 12:20 PM
You miss my point, Peter; this argument is pertinent for scientists to learn, and the younger the better.
But, keep 'em blind. Don't let their poor feeble minds learn how to resist creationism on their own. You really sound more like propagandists and bookburners than scientists.
========================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 12:24 PM
Kim,
Along with Peter, I have no problems with schools students learning philosophy. I am not sure where you got the idea I was not in favour of that. Of course that does not mean that philosophy of science, and the role of creationism/ID within that is a suitable area of study.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 12:27 PM
Kim,
It's necessary that students realise that creationism is a falsehood through instruction because creationist arguments are deceptively convincing, but fall apart after closer scrutiny. It's easy for even the most keen and intelligent minds to fall prey to their lies if they don't pursue the topic in greater depth, which is, quite frankly, a waste of time.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 12:30 PM
Kim,
When it comes to school the idea that a pupil is a "scientist" is a silly one. Certainly a pupil may have a keen interest in science that they intent to pursue at university but at school level education needs to expose students to a wide a range of subjects.
As for your stupid comment about us being book burners and propogandists, you really do seem to have problems with comprehension. Nowhere have I seen anyone advocate book burning or anything like it. What you have seen, and could not, or would not, see is people informing you that a person who advocates teaching creationism/ID in a science class in acting like a proponent of creationism/ID and not like someone who actually gives a toss about education.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 12:32 PM
kim,
You really,really don't get it do you. Keeping it out of the classrooms as legit subject matter is necessary simply because so many come in to class already indoctrinated into silliness. Granting equal time to such obvious pseudoscience does nothing more than confuse students and take time away from teaching real science that can actually be applied in real world scenarios and not lala land.
Now if one wants to use ID as a foil to show why it's bad science and pseudoscience and therefore irrevelant to scientific pursuits that angle has some traction. But to pretend it's a way to knowledge just makes those that present it as such liars to children and they get enough of that already.
They need to know evolution is as well grounded as gravity.
And you still haven't listed your 'ways' of knowing.
I think it's a contradictory wasteland which has some minorly interesting arguments. Mainly I find it sad. Sad that grown men spend their only life doing it. I will give a hat tip to fideism in it's many forms as I to appreciate the angle and find it honest.
Posted by: Uber | November 11, 2007 12:35 PM
Kim,
Something you seem to be ignorant of is that in order to tell psuedo-science from good science is that students need to learn critical thinking skills. Key among those is them asking "Where is the evidence". Of course once that question is asked creationists/IDiots must lie as they know full well they have none.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 12:36 PM
Meanwhile, the position of Chief Gubernatorial ID Proponentsist has been transferred from Kentucky to Louisiana, where Bobby Jindal is hard at work devaluing his much-flaunted Ivy League/Oxford education.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 11, 2007 12:37 PM
Uber,
I think your first point is important, at least within the US. Creationism/ID is really too contentious a social issue to be useful as an example of pseudo-science. Of course it is not an issue at all within science as no reputable scientist will give creationism/ID the time of day.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 12:39 PM
Kim,
Your reply to my post #48 in your post #63 that your post #6 addresses my questions: nope, your #6 did not at all address my queries to you for elucidaton of your thinking.
Again, I request that you address my questions specifically, because I truly want to understand the flow of your thinking and thus its results.
Posted by: cyan | November 11, 2007 12:44 PM
Kim (#66) you may miss my point as well. I think everyone should study a little philosophy. And I'm inclined to think it would be a good idea for science students to study the philosophy of science, although I'm relectant to say that it ought to be a required course in science programs. But I do think philosophy of science would be a bad idea at the high school level. It's really hard, and requires a background in philosophy, logic, and science to be properly understood. And I think students who come away with a very poor and/or distorted understanding of a subject matter are harmed rather than benefitted.
Posted by: Peter | November 11, 2007 12:46 PM
Damnitall, PZ! Quit sending us your rejects!
I am a philosopher. I study philosophy, write philosophy, and teach philosophy. Please, please listen to me when I say Intelligent Design Creationism has NO PLACE IN PHILOSOPHY CLASSES EITHER!!
Or rather, teaching about ID has the same use in a philosophy class as it has in your biology classes: It can serve as an illustration of error, as a textbook example of how NOT to do things.
Posted by: G Felis | November 11, 2007 12:46 PM
Moses, Moses, Moses. You confuse 'creationist argument' with 'argument made by creationists'. I specifically deny belief in creationism in post #21. My arguments are in the theories of education and knowledge, some of which theories are also made by creationists. Do you see?
Is that the bell? Well, until we meet again, don't go trashing ideas like they are books to burn or something. Class dismissed.
===================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 12:51 PM
Now, of course, am laughing at myself for the creationist hoops that I've just attempted to jump through, when I see my latest attempt to get blood from a stone!
Posted by: cyan | November 11, 2007 12:52 PM
Dang, 'some of which arguments are made by creationists.' That won't be on the quiz.
===========================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 12:52 PM
Peter,
Would I be right in thinking not least of your reasons for wanting to introduce school students to philosophy would be to show them how to think critically about issues ? After all critical thinking is a key skill in being a scientist but it useful no end of areas, not least in everyday life in learning how to tell when someone maybe conning you, or deciding who to vote for.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 12:53 PM
Matt (#80) you would be right.
Posted by: Peter | November 11, 2007 12:55 PM
Kim,
What "Arguments made by creationists" ? Lies do are not arguments, nor is willful ignorance an argument. I am not aware of a single issue raised by creationists that has the slightest merit, let alone be worthy of being introduced into a science class.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 12:56 PM
Peter, your concern for the fragility of your pupils' minds is touching. You get extra credit.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 12:57 PM
Matt, read Moses #61 post. I've half a mind to put that on the test.
========================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 12:59 PM
G Felis: (#76)
PZ is not advocating pushing creationism/ID into Philosophy classes. Quite the opposite (bold added by me):
Posted by: eewolf | November 11, 2007 1:01 PM
And I claim it is religious hysteria to refuse to consider discussing the error of Intelligent Design in science class. Now, that will be on the test.
====================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 1:04 PM
kim wrote: And I claim it is religious hysteria to refuse to consider discussing the error of Intelligent Design in science class.
"religious hysteria" - that's hilarious. And for a really tough problem to solve, why do these trolls keep saying goodbye and then come back with the same old crap over and over?
Posted by: tomh | November 11, 2007 1:12 PM
Kim,
Oh, I see. Very clever the way you keep shifting your position. In your first post, you said "the study of Intelligent Design is a marvellous exercise in the theory of knowledge" and later accused me of having "faith" that every instance of irreducible complexity will be explained away when, as I demonstrated, I did not: I had a justified and rational belief. Now, of course, you're contradicting yourself by saying Intelligent Design is erroneous to get more attention. And here I am falling for it. Damn.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 1:24 PM
The perfect use for a discarded church is as a library. Let the temples of darkness become repositories of knowledge.
Posted by: LiberalDirk | November 11, 2007 1:24 PM
Kim,
You would have a point if creationism/ID was wrong science. The problem you face is it does even come into to the criteria of scientific ideas that were wrong. There are many of those, Darwin and Einstein amongst the scientists who put forward those ideas. Creationism/ID is not bad science, it is NON science. To borrow from Peter's field it was what philosophers call a category error, or others have said is "not even wrong". (I forget who said that, and I have consumed too much red wine to remember!). The simple fact is that creationism/ID has none of the things that mark even a wrong scientific hypothesis out from people talking out of their backsides.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2007 1:34 PM