Kansas votes to endorse ignorance

[Evo]

Tact is also useful in discussing real science. For instance when someone says something goofy on a thread here about manifold calculus, it is usually not helpful to retort that he/she would not recognize a tensor field if it bit them on the fanny, even if that seems likely.
My favorite website on the Kansas evolution situation is the following, devoted to the claims of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. They are suing Kansas for inclusion in the curriculum.
http://www.venganza.org/
A sample of their scientific reasoninjg follows:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
The graph includes the interesting fact that in one recent year there were exactly 17 living pirates. they also offer t - shirts.

Yes, he has reached out and touched them with his noodly appendage.

I would rather my children be taught about the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think ID is a great evolution in our understanding of religion. However it definitely is not science.

Intelligence seems to be the direction evolution is taking, this IMO is because the software of DNA is flexible enough that no matter the environment, and forces of natural selection, the end result will be living creatures, conscious of consciousness. Throughout the universe of universes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...so this would imply that the will of God cannot be predicted; only the average will God over many samples.

 

[dlgoff]

Well if you consider Decoherence, there may be preferred states. Where do these come from?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well if you consider Decoherence, there may be preferred states. Where do these come from?

Decoherence! Why that's merely speculation.

And there are still issues such as decay.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.venganza.org/
A sample of their scientific reasoning follows:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
The graph includes the interesting fact that in one recent year there were exactly 17 living pirates. they also offer t - shirts.

The data in the graph cited by Veganza are incorrect - there are thousands of pirates still around - and if one considers the international black market to include drug and arms smuggling (and other illicit activities), the numbers of 'pirates' are in 10's of thousands.

If some group seeks to impose ID in the local school system, I will vehemently oppose it. ID is religion, not science, and it is a unique religious perspective, not one that is universally shared.

I could accept a course on comparative religion, and such courses are offered at universities through the study of humanities.

 

[EngineeredVision]

Personally, I think that there is nothing wrong with offering a class in public schools that teaches about the most common world religions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Additionally, I believe that a general philosophy class would be advantageous to students that would benefit from expanding their general knowledge. However, I don't believe that these topics are an appropriate subject for a science class since science should remain a study of natural phenomena. This is the point that I think the Kansas School Board screwed up on.

Myself, I believe in a higher intelligent being and creator, but that doesn't restrict me from also believing in the Big Bang, evolution, or many other scientifically credible facts and theories. I'm not going to get into my own philosophical and theological beliefs right now since that would open a discussion that couldn't easily be contained here. I also don't think that teaching kids about common world religions, traditions, and beliefs is going to offend anyone or pursuade them into changing their own ideas and beliefs.

If anything, society should promote an openess to a broad range of subjects in school and forget about the politically correct bs that is keeping many citizens ignorant of the world around them. Anyone, who is afraid that teaching kids about other belief systems will corrupt their minds is just as ignorant and asinine as parents who think that teaching kids about sex is dangerous mentally and psychologically. Just like the topic of sex, I think there is a time and a place developmentally where children would be prepared for a class on world beliefs without being influenced, dissuaded, or persuaded one way or another.

As far as the Spagetti Noodle Monster is concerned I have read the article, and find it amusing but by no means a credible argument intended to show that teaching intelligent design will open a can of worms for other ridiculous theories and beliefs. Not only does the Spagetti Noodle Monster theory defy any common rationale, but it is not a commonly accepted belief system around the world. In history we teach about main world events, individuals, and civilizations. We can't possilbly afford to teach every single aspect of history for the sake of fair coverage, because not everyone needs (or wants) to learn in detail the origins of silverware, the history of a single insignificant carpenter in Norway, or the history of a mostly unknown town in Australia during the time of WWII. Institutions and educators use common sense and relevance of subject matter when choosing what specific topics to teach in a class. The Spagetti Noodle Monster theory is a weak satirical tactic employed to divert attention from the real issue.

Anyway, I want to say in conclusion that unnatural phenomena should be excluded in science classes and if it is to be discussed in context of scientific theory that it should be done in a philosophy class. Anyone who disagrees with this would have to be a hypocrite to consider themselves a scientist since scientists are supposed to continually further their knowledge, increase their understanding of the world, and revise their own preconceptions when evidence suggest they should. I'm not saying that there is currently any evidence to suggest that scientists should change their current ideas. I'm simply saying that scientists and any rationale minded person should remain open to opportunities that may expand their knowledge of the world around them rather than close potential learning experiences.

Anyone else agree or disagree?

 

[Art]

Personally I think religious doctrines and other 'belief' systems should be taught at Sunday schools for those who want it and kept completely separate from mainstream education.

 

[EngineeredVision]

So what you're saying Art is that it's ok to be close minded and to limit the variety of knowledge that one acquires.

I'm not suggesting that schools should try to influence students to embrace any religious doctrine, but that students should at least be made aware of the most common belief systems and traditions found around the world. As long as the subject is approached objectively there should be nothing wrong with it. In fact, it seems that understanding world religions would be a prerequisite for many history classes as many world events have been related to some significant religous movement or beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Dear Harvard,

My kid is from NJ.

Yours,

Jimmy

 

[Evo]

Anyway, I want to say in conclusion that unnatural phenomena should be excluded in science classes and if it is to be discussed in context of scientific theory that it should be done in a philosophy class. Anyone who disagrees with this would have to be a hypocrite to consider themselves a scientist since scientists are supposed to continually further their knowledge, increase their understanding of the world, and revise their own preconceptions when evidence suggest they should.

That's exactly what the opponents of ID are saying, that's why ID should not be taught as science because it requires accepting supernatural phenomena. ID taught as religion is fine, ID taught as science is wrong. Sounds like you agree.

Teaching about the fact that there are varied religious beliefs in history or social science classes is done, teaching religion in a non-parochial school should be prohibited, that's what churches are for.

 

[jcsd]

I can trace my family back to the eighteenth century and no known member of my family has at any time in their life been a monkey. That is why evolution is wrong.

 

[Art]

I can trace my family back to the eighteenth century and no known member of my family has at any time in their life been a monkey. That is why evolution is wrong.

Obviously you are not related to G W Bush then.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Obviously you are not related to G W Bush then.

Ahem! Please do not mock my ancestry.
G W Bush is obviously reptilian brained and I'll bet you money that David Ike will back me up on that one too.

 

[Danger]

G W Bush is obviously reptilian brained

Really, now... what a horrible thing to say! You get up here and apologize to those reptiles right now!
I'd like to correct your statement, but then I would have to apologize... to the plant kingdom.

 

[franznietzsche]

As far as the Spagetti Noodle Monster is concerned I have read the article, and find it amusing but by no means a credible argument intended to show that teaching intelligent design will open a can of worms for other ridiculous theories and beliefs. Not only does the Spagetti Noodle Monster theory defy any common rationale, but it is not a commonly accepted belief system around the world. In history we teach about main world events, individuals, and civilizations. We can't possilbly afford to teach every single aspect of history for the sake of fair coverage, because not everyone needs (or wants) to learn in detail the origins of silverware, the history of a single insignificant carpenter in Norway, or the history of a mostly unknown town in Australia during the time of WWII. Institutions and educators use common sense and relevance of subject matter when choosing what specific topics to teach in a class. The Spagetti Noodle Monster theory is a weak satirical tactic employed to divert attention from the real issue.

I don't think you understand the Spaghetti Monster. Its not a slipperry slope critique. Its not about saying that doing this opens a can of worms. Its saying that ID is the same thing as the Spaghetti Monster. And it is. Change proper nouns around and that letter is chock full of standard ID lines.

 

[Art]

So what you're saying Art is that it's ok to be close minded and to limit the variety of knowledge that one acquires.
I'm not suggesting that schools should try to influence students to embrace any religious doctrine, but that students should at least be made aware of the most common belief systems and traditions found around the world. As long as the subject is approached objectively there should be nothing wrong with it. In fact, it seems that understanding world religions would be a prerequisite for many history classes as many world events have been related to some significant religous movement or beliefs.

I have no objection to children being taught about the existence of religion or it's role in key events; that is not what I said. I said the teaching of religious doctrines should not be part of mainstream education.

 

[ahrkron]

Something loosely related, but equally sad, happened recently around here. Some big tobacco companies hired recently a Law professor from the University of Geneva to try to stop a ban on smoking in public places. The main argument they were pushing was that there is controversy about the effects of second hand smoking.

I was very saddened by this, since I looked at it as an attempt from those companies to use the "teach the controversy" strategy that seems to be working for ID'ers.

I really hope all those attempts (ID and big Tobacco) are stopped.

 

[hbarnum]

Intelligent design old and new

TheStatutoryApe (quoted by Evo):
You know as well as I do that the "intelligent design" argument is at least centuries old, or gained it's original popularity with the "watch maker" argument.
Evo:
Not the current "Intelligent Design" movement that we are discussing, it started in 1988. You're discussing something completely different

Me: Maybe completely different as a movement, but not intellectually. The basic intellectual idea of intelligent design, that life is too complicated to have evolved via natural selection (or other processes except its design by an intelligent designer) has been around for a long time, and was used against Darwin. In fact, I'll have to take a look, but I think Darwin gave explicit arguments against it. It's one of the intellectual triumphs of Darwinism to have given an explanation of how such complex, apparently machine-like, systems as living beings could have evolved without being designed.
The "watchmaker" argument is to analogize "see a complex living being, infer it was created by a being-desinger, with: see a watch, infer it was made by a watchmaker. Of course, there are reasons for the watch inference, other than difficulty imagining how else a watch could come into being: we've seen watchmakers and their watchmakings, or been told of them by credible sources.

The basic intellectual idea of ID should probably not be considered stupid, or even
necessarily unscientific, it's just that in the development of science, it's been left in the dust by evolution, especially evolution by natural selection. There are many things plausibly explained by evolution, including instances where organisms *don't* seem to have been intelligently designed, because they bear traces of having evolved out of other forms, that don't particularly seem like intelligent design if one is starting from scratch. Vestigial organs, etc...

I'm not a biologist, so I don't have all the zillions of examples to hand... probably Stephen Jay Gould's books of columns are full of examples.

Intelligent design is arguably less predictive in some areas than evolution by natural selection and other natural mechanisms such as genetic drift, because natural selection predicts "design features" that maximize reproductive success in a given (though changing) environment, whereas with ID, there's the question: intelligently designed *for what purpose*?

 

[Evo]

TheStatutoryApe (quoted by Evo):
You know as well as I do that the "intelligent design" argument is at least centuries old, or gained it's original popularity with the "watch maker" argument.
Evo:
Not the current "Intelligent Design" movement that we are discussing, it started in 1988. You're discussing something completely different
Me: Maybe completely different as a movement, but not intellectually. The basic intellectual idea of intelligent design, that life is too complicated to have evolved via natural selection (or other processes except its design by an intelligent designer) has been around for a long time, and was used against Darwin. In fact, I'll have to take a look, but I think Darwin gave explicit arguments against it. It's one of the intellectual triumphs of Darwinism to have given an explanation of how such complex, apparently machine-like, systems as living beings could have evolved without being designed.
The "watchmaker" argument is to analogize "see a complex living being, infer it was created by a being-desinger, with: see a watch, infer it was made by a watchmaker. Of course, there are reasons for the watch inference, other than difficulty imagining how else a watch could come into being: we've seen watchmakers and their watchmakings, or been told of them by credible sources.
The basic intellectual idea of ID should probably not be considered stupid, or even
necessarily unscientific, it's just that in the development of science, it's been left in the dust by evolution, especially evolution by natural selection. There are many things plausibly explained by evolution, including instances where organisms *don't* seem to have been intelligently designed, because they bear traces of having evolved out of other forms, that don't particularly seem like intelligent design if one is starting from scratch. Vestigial organs, etc...
I'm not a biologist, so I don't have all the zillions of examples to hand... probably Stephen Jay Gould's books of columns are full of examples.
Intelligent design is arguably less predictive in some areas than evolution by natural selection and other natural mechanisms such as genetic drift, because natural selection predicts "design features" that maximize reproductive success in a given (though changing) environment, whereas with ID, there's the question: intelligently designed *for what purpose*?

But this isn't what we're discussing, we're discussing the Discovery Institute's religious push of their version of ID into schools as science.

 

[Astronuc]

Professor treated for roadside beating
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/06/creationism.class.ap/index.html

LAWRENCE, Kansas (AP) -- A college professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he derided Christian conservatives said he was beaten by two men along a rural road early Monday.

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said the men referred to the class when they beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and possibly a metal object, the Lawrence Journal-World reported.

"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."
. . . .
The professor said he confronted the men after they were tailgating his vehicle along a road south of Lawrence. "I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he said.

Mirecki planned to offer a spring course called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" after the Kansas Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.

Very troubling if true.

 

[Astronuc]

The other ID.

An interview with Don Wise, creator of "incompetent design".

Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the nation's foremost proponent of ID. No, Wise isn't getting ready to testify on behalf of the school board in Dover, PA. Rather, he advocates for a different version of the acronym: "incompetent design."

Wise cites serious flaws in the systems of the human body as evidence that design in the universe exhibits not an obvious source of, but a sore lack of, intelligence. Seed asked him to chat about his theory, reactions he's received to it, and the anthem he penned to rally people to his cause.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php?page=all&p=y

 

[Entropy]

Just don't teach ID or evolution. Most people don't need to know it anyways. You don't need to know about evolution to learn the basics of biology. Problem fixed.

 

[Entropy]

All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution's way of modifying something or else it's just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student.
Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn't count accurately above 20?
Look at the bones in your face. They're the same as the other mammals' but they're just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it!

How is that a "poor" design, it works better than any man-made creation. Thats like saying a motorcycle is a "poor" design because it's just a car cut in half.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Hurray!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/s...en=0045908773e05cdb&ei=5094&partner=homepage"

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday.
...
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.
...
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

And there you go.

 

[rachmaninoff]

There's a new thread about this in GD.

 

[Astronuc]

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones.

Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

AP

 

[Wishbone]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID. And if psudo-philisophical/science arguments cannot be simply brought up for 30 seconds in a science class, then I do not want my quantum mechanics teacher to mention shrodinger's cat.

 

[Evo]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID

You're forgetting that the ID proponents are the ones that brought up the ridiculous idea that things appear too perfect to not be intentionally designed.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID. And if psudo-philisophical/science arguments cannot be simply brought up for 30 seconds in a science class, then I do not want my quantum mechanics teacher to mention shrodinger's cat.

It is fine to speculate about possibilities or consider analogies in the pursuit of knowledge but the truth is obscured when our emotional attachment to our beliefs preclude them from further examination or evaluation.

 

[Astronuc]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID.

Not necessarily - they might simply be facetious - hence .

The problem all along has been that ID is NOT science, but a religious view poorly packaged as science. In fact, ID is an anti-science dogma, and has no place in a science course, except as an example of dogma (worth no more than 5 minutes in a 200 hr biology course).

I don't mind if ID is discussed in the context of a comparative religious course in which various creation myths/beliefs are disucssed. But let us be honest and call it what it 'really' is.

 

[phcatlantis]

The problem all along has been that ID is NOT science, but a religious view poorly packaged as science. In fact, ID is an anti-science dogma, and has no place in a science course, except as an example of dogma (worth no more than 5 minutes in a 200 hr biology course).

Just out of curiousity, if ID has relevance to the philosophy of science--as a critique--why wouldn't you teach it?

 

[Astronuc]

It depends on what is meant by 'teaching' ID.

I have no problem with a discussion of ID in a classroom in the context of a philosophical discussion, whether it be philosophy of science or of religion. However, that was not the intent of the Dover school board.

The objective of the Dover school board and some other ID proponents has been to teach a religious belief as a replacement of science. That is wrong!

Furthermore, the Dover ID proponents were dishonest in their intentions, which is contrary to various religious principles with which I am familiar.

 

[russ_watters]

And if psudo-philisophical/science arguments cannot be simply brought up for 30 seconds in a science class, then I do not want my quantum mechanics teacher to mention shrodinger's cat.

I suspect most teachers of biology will mention ID when they teach evolution - they'll just teach the science correctly. ID needs to be mentioned in science class because it is a quinticential example of abuse of science for religious/political gain.

As the jude pointed out, it's not like the ID people were looking for a 30 second mention of a competing theory, they were essentially comitting scientific fraud.

 

[Astronuc]

As someone quoted Morpheus (The Matrix) as he put it when asked if people don't believe him, "My beliefs don't require them to".

Here is a BBC report on it - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm#, which quotes

Peter Briggs of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, described the ruling as a dangerous precedent. "That's a terribly slippery slope if we're going to say in a democracy, in a free country, that people who are motivated by religion are excluded from the public script."

Briggs is incorrect in his assertion. People who are motivated by religion are not excluded from the public script, they simply need to use a different venue, e.g. the internet, their own church, the media, a stadium, etc.