A Schoolteacher Speaks Out

Posted 29 July 2006 by Burt Humburg

Kansas State Board of Education member Connie Morris was one of the anti-science gang of six who railroaded changes to the state standards past the normal processes of curriculum development. In "Reasoning Behind Evolution Vote" (full copy available on the flip side), she attempts to justify that decision. Her article was published in the Hays, KS newspaper, and we here at the Thumb were just cracking our knuckles to respond to it. Alas, one of the stalwart science defenders in Kansas has beaten us to the punch, but we didn't mope too long because the response was brilliant. Cheryl Shephard-Adams's "ID Promoters' Perpetual Folly" is highly recommended and you can find it at the Garden City Telegram Online. Of note, Ms. Morris is up for re-election this year. She will be opposed by both a Republican, Sally Cauble of Liberal, and a Democrat, Tim Cruz of Garden City. If you click through to the flip side, you'll see the Google Cache version of Morris' original screed and, in case the same fate befalls Shepard-Adams' brilliant reply, a full copy of it as well. BCH

Reasoning behind evolution vote Published Jul. 16, 2006 Most people avoid talk about evolution like the plague. Why is it so sensitive? I think Cardinal Christopher Schonborn put his finger on it last year when he observed that "the question of the origin (Whence do we come?) is inseparable from that of life's goal (Where do we go?)." So, what we believe about where we come from likely will affect our beliefs about religion, ethics, morals and, yes, even politics. If this subject is so explosive, why teach it to children? Shouldn't we leave that to parents? The problem is, all the biology textbooks open up the discussion, and the inherent curiosity of science seems to make it inevitable. So if we must teach it, how do we do that? We were presented with two competing models. The majority proposal is a vague model that describes evolution so ambiguously that it is hard to see how one could ever prove it wrong. This "standard model" suggests no weakness in the theory and offers no hint that it might be subject to any criticism. Whether it's true or not is important, because chemical and biological evolution describe a materialistic account of origins --- life just results from matter, energy, the forces and chance. Materialism supports many non-theistic religions and belief systems. Should the state use the standard model to indoctrinate young children in materialism? The "minority" proposal, which I call the comprehensive model, was crafted by eight of the 25-member writing committee. The eight included three having doctoral degrees in the life sciences. They believe the standard model is insufficient because it omits relevant information. Students should be informed of the particulars of the theory so they can see if it's wrong or not. They also believe we should describe significant scientific controversies over the origin of life and the origin of significant new body plans and bio-chemical systems. Random mutation and natural selection can explain finch beaks and peppered moths, but can they adequately explain the origin of the eye or the 40 different body plans that suddenly appear during the Cambrian explosion? I'm not a scientist, so how did I decide between the two models?Ã€ Intuition and my own analysis tell me the comprehensive model wins. Most of its additions to the standard model simply reflect common sense. However, we heard that any criticism of evolution is almost sacrilegious --- tantamount to scientific heresy.Ã€ Accepting common sense would be going against the grain. We decided to resolve the problem by having extensive public hearings so scientists for and against the comprehensive model could explain in detail their competing views. For three solid days, we listened to 23 experts: four PhD biochemists, five PhD microbiologists, three PhD chemists, two PhD philosophers of science, a PhD geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun, a PhD quantum physicist, a PhD professor of education and religion, three biology teachers, a Muslim journalist and an attorney. An ACLU attorney cross-examined all their testimony. They made a strong case for the comprehensive model. It became apparent it was not only needed, but was actually necessary to achieve a scientifically objective discussion of origins that would be religiously neutral. Those advocating the standard model didn't show. They stood on the sidelines and waved banners and shouted slogans. Who were the scientists in the building? The real scientists were the ones who stood tall before the public, who testified and didn't hide from a stiff cross-examination. They demonstrated not only courage, but they left no doubt that modern evolutionary theory is not the slam dunk that it's made out to be. After the hearings, I had no choice. Evolution is scientifically controversial and students need to be fully informed about it. Teaching only one side of the origins controversy is not really scientific or religiously neutral. Connie Morris is a member of the Kansas State Board of Education.

ID promoters' perpetual folly Published 7/28/2006 By CHERYL SHEPHERD-ADAMS How on Earth did this happen? Honestly, I already have plenty to do with being married to a hard worker, raising four kids and working diligently - as I have for the past 20 years - to find innovative ways of teaching science to teenagers. Writing opinion letters was the farthest thing from my mind. But then some members of our current state school board started accusing me and my colleagues of promoting dogma in our classrooms, of being "confused" if we accept Christ in our hearts and evolution in our minds, and of "indoctrinating young children into materialism." As they repeated these charges, I started reading everything I could find about science and faith, and realized that science and faith both have one important tenet: the primacy of truth. Unfortunately, Connie Morris' recently-published rationalization for the new science standards ignores that tenet. Her description of the May 2005 Topeka intelligent design (ID) hearings omitted several key facts. According to the Kansas Department of Education's established rules for adopting curriculum standards, four public hearings were held across the state in early 2005, where it became obvious that the public did not support the ID-friendly version of the proposed standards. At that point, John Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network of Kansas Inc., declared that these public hearings were counterproductive to his cause. As a result, the state school board changed the rules to legitimize the Topeka hearings described by Mrs. Morris. Mrs. Morris was one of the three judges who presided over those hearings in which no oaths were administered and no rules of evidence were in place. Although Mrs. Morris admits that intuition guided her decision, intuition also maintains that since the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the earth must be stationary with the sun orbiting around it. Intuition doesn't replace scientific evidence, and she and her fellow judges, Kathy Martin and Steve Abrams, repeatedly brushed aside the copious evidence supporting evolution. It is true that mainstream scientists boycotted the event, knowing that science proceeds by careful evaluation of published results and not by rhetoric. Considering Mrs. Morris' opinion of evolution as "an age-old fairy tale," Mrs. Martin's statement before the hearings that her decision was already made, and Mr. Abrams' complicity in the 1999 creationism debacle, it's not surprising that scientists refused to submit to their whims. The real boycott continues to be perpetrated by the ID proponents, who have refused to submit their work to the scientific scrutiny of peer-review. Instead, they demand special treatment - to have their ideas taught in classrooms without going through the standard vetting process endured by the rest of the concepts in the science curriculum. Contrary to claims of evolution as "unquestioned dogma," Nobel Prizes are routinely won by those who uncover data challenging the scientific status quo. ID has no such data. Mrs. Morris also neglected to point out that she and Mrs. Martin admitted they hadn't read through the previous standards they were criticizing; neither had most of the pro-ID witnesses. Scientists and "teach the controversy" proponents sparred last year in a Pennsylvania courtroom, where those testifying swore to tell the truth and strict rules of evidence were applied. A church-going, Bush-appointed Republican judge ruled in Kitzmiller vs. Dover that "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny, which we have now determined that it cannot withstand, by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM (ID movement) is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." It's obvious that scientists have shown up where it counts, in the laboratories, the scientific literature and in court. The Topeka hearings were an exercise in public relations, an attempt to portray ID and "teach the controversy" as legitimate science rather than a political/religious movement. Recently, Cardinal Schonborn stated, "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained." Mrs. Morris supports a false definition of science, one which blurs those borders so that explanations originating outside the natural world can be taught as science. ID proponents have long maintained that this changed definition is crucial to the acceptance of ID as science. During the Dover trial testimony, ID leader Michael Behe admitted that using this definition would recognize astrological horoscopes as authentic science. The truth remains that the current science standards have been rejected by the major science and science teaching organizations in Kansas and the U.S. Is it honest for the state board of education to presume to know more about science than those tens of thousands of experts? Cheryl Shepherd-Adams teaches high school science in Hays. She was awarded the 2005 NSTA-Toyota Tapestry Large Grant, was named 2003 Outstanding Kansas High School Physics Teacher and is a member of Sigma Pi Sigma National Physics Honorary.

75 Comments

wamba · 29 July 2006

The real scientists were the ones who stood tall before the public, who testified and didn't hide from a stiff cross-examination.

And who would that be? If I recall correctly, Pedro I. asked only 3 questions of witnesses: the age of the Earth, common descent, and specifically common descent of humans and other apes. Some witnesses refused even to answer some of these questions.

quork · 29 July 2006

and realized that science and faith both have one important tenet: the primacy of truth.

I'm not even going to comment on this. Instead I'm going over to hang out on Pharyngula for a while.

Ichneumon · 29 July 2006

*applause*

Bruce Thompson GQ · 29 July 2006

A minority group on the committee produced the "comprehensive model". So, model size is inversely proportional to the size of the committee developing the model. Then the most broad based all inclusive model should be developed by the smallest complement of individuals, less than 1, perhaps something non corporal contacted using a Ouija board. Of course certain controls would be required to ensure the correct standards were being received and translated properly.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Christensen. · 29 July 2006

What is she talking about, Christ in our "hearts" and evolution in our "minds".
Sounds an evasion to me.
In other words, if you are a Christian check your brains at the door and fill your mind with mainstram evolutionary theory.
Isn't that kind of lile the "gospel of evolutionism".

Christensen. · 29 July 2006

hiero5ant · 29 July 2006

Why should anyone care about whether Connie Morris's statements omit facts? After all, I "have faith" that her position is true. And faith is all about "the primacy of truth", so my selective obliviousness to documentary evidence shouldn't be held against me. Faith is just a "different way of knowing".

Peri_P_Laneta · 29 July 2006

Well-written letter, Cheryl. Your students are very fortunate to have as their teacher someone as articulate and analytical as you. I wish that all teachers of Biology had as firm a grasp of the issues as you do.

Corkscrew · 29 July 2006

What is she talking about, Christ in our "hearts" and evolution in our "minds". Sounds an evasion to me. In other words, if you are a Christian check your brains at the door and fill your mind with mainstram evolutionary theory. Isn't that kind of lile the "gospel of evolutionism"

It sounded like a derivative of Stephen J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" concept, whereby it is noted that science is consistently better than religion at determining the truth of materialistic statements, but is completely unable to comment on metaphysical ones. I think most people would agree with the above statement, albeit with some considerable redrawing of the boundary between the two magisteria. For example, atheists generally feel that questions like "is there a God" fall in the materialistic category, whereas theistic evolutionists generally feel that these questions fall into the metaphysical category. Checking one's brain at the door and getting involved with mainstream science are mutually inconsistent ideas - scepticism is the fuel that drives the scientific machine. However, if you have an argument against something, it's generally required that you express it in a way that can itself survive scepticism. So, for example, a mathematical disproof of evolution would have to be published in a reputable journal (or in some other way subjected to fierce peer review) before it would be widely accepted.

Ed Darrell · 29 July 2006

What is she talking about, Christ in our "hearts" and evolution in our "minds". Sounds an evasion to me.

Hardly an evasion. It's a head-on assault: We Christians who study nature, who bring you better crops, better insecticides that target more carefully, better pharmaceuticals to cure your ills, and knowledge of creation that strikes awe into the heart of anyone with half a brain, are sick and tired of being called "anti-Christian" simply because we study creation. If you have data, bring it to the table. Honest people will let the data speak. But it is dishonest for creationists to claim they have the moral high road by denigrating the faith of others. Knowledge is not anathema to faith. If some people keep attacking knowlege under a pretense of advancing faith, ignorance may triumph in some places, or in many places. Be very careful to think through what it is you advocate. Ignorance is not a tool of virtue.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 July 2006

Hey Christensen, I thought ID wasn't about religion. No sireee Bob. Not at all.

Or are IDers like you, uh, just lying to us when they make that claim . . . ?

waldteufel · 29 July 2006

Mrs. Shepherd-Adams wrote an incisive and focused response to Connie Morris' blathering about science standards.
Connie Morris is a scientifically illiterate nutcase.

Even with clowns like Morris and her ilk on the KBOE, there is hope for Kansas as long as teachers like
Mrs. Shepherd-Adams stand up, speak out, and teach science.

trrll · 29 July 2006

Creationist/ID propaganda is heavily dependent upon two Big Lies:
1) That there is a scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution, and
2) Belief in evolution and belief in God are inconsistent.

Here is the truth:
1) Biologists almost unanimously regard creationism/ID as a joke, about on a level with the Flat Earth Society.
2) There are lots and lots of Christian biologists (along with many other religions) who find that if anything their knowledge of evolution enriches their religious belief. Ken Miller's views are fairly typical: http://brownalumnimagazine.com/storydetail.cfm?Id=1838

Creationism/ID is
1) an assault on science.
2) an assault on teachers, who are forced to parrot the lies of the Discovery Institute.
3) an assault on Christians who don't share the particular religious doctrine espoused by the propagandists of the Discovery Institute.

Christensen · 29 July 2006

Hey "REV" Lenny, when ya gonna debate me at KCFS?

Have your friend Jack set it up.

Although considering the lousy job he did of questioning Calvert at Calverts meeting on the 26th I suppose that is unlikely now.

By the way, I sure would like t hear the audios of Jacks and his buddies questions of Calvert, Menuge, and Harris.

Wouldn't you?

I mean, it could only help you all, right?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 July 2006

(yawn) Hey Christensen, quit waving your arms all around, and just answer my goddamn questions.

Torbjörn Larsson · 29 July 2006

Morris reads as not knowing science and easily duped regards it. Shephard-Adams is indeed brilliant on argument and style.

"It sounded like a derivative of Stephen J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" concept, whereby it is noted that science is consistently better than religion at determining the truth of materialistic statements, but is completely unable to comment on metaphysical ones."

It has made some direct statements and provided trust in others indirectly. Methodological naturalism is a direct metaphysical conclusion on a useful method, and vitalism, animism, souls and other dualisms has lost much or all credibility indirectly. NOMA is a failed concept, trivially so with this definition.

Christensen · 30 July 2006

Cherly Sheperd Adams is billed as a science teacher.

What the article does not disclose is that she is a board member of the Kansas Citizens for Science .

Her, letter, and the rash of personal attacks launched on Calvert certainly SEEMS to be an attempt to influence the election.

Christensen · 30 July 2006

Hey Lenny! I did mean to answer your question, I just got too excited, ... ID is no more about religion than your promotion of evolution is about atheism! (hehehe)

Now, how about that debate at KCFS big guy!

Lets do it!

It will be quite a show!

Certainly I would not have a chance against a guy like you!

fnxtr · 30 July 2006

"... now it's Christensen on the right wing, all alone one-on-one headed toward Flank in the net... Christensen takes the shot.. OH! That one was WAY wide."

Dude: ID is about getting Christian fundamentalist doctrine into high-school science class. Real scientists say religion belongs in church, and science class is where they teach science.

Why do you have a problem with that?

k.e. · 30 July 2006

Oh I think I see Christen-sins problems with that.

1. The courts have ruled out teaching his particular sect's or cult's version of biblical literalism in science classes. Since the enlightenment inspired constitution forbids giving one sect advantage over the other by separating church and state and guaranteeing freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion.

2. He is under the illusion that scientists consider those who scream out their religious convictions, disguised as pseudo-science, the loudest and longest will have their crack pot ideas accepted as 'science'. (C'sin the patent office still accepts inventions for anti-gravity machines, you're in the wrong place)

3. He considers that religious obscurantism in the form feel god postmodernist waffle gab written by half educated amateurs dabbling in education standards ACTUALLY IS an education standard.

4. He's a loser.

Peter Henderson · 30 July 2006

Re. Christ in our hearts and evolution in our minds. Is this the same as theistic evolution ? maybe that's what she means.

However, when she talks about teaching the controversy it might sound as if she is talking about alternative evolutionary theories.

For example, Gene Shoemakers ideas on impact creators were an alternative to what was believed by most astronomers at the time, but by the end of the 1960's everyone had accepted his ideas as to the origins of lunar creators ( they were demonstrated to be true by laboratory experiments by the way )

Similarly, there were various theories to explain red-shifts in cosmology but the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 left only one plausible explanation.

As we all know, what Ms Morris really means is that we should teach young earth creationism as an alternative. Possibly some of the parents who have no scientific background may not have realised what she was talking about.

Burt Humburg · 30 July 2006

Christensen wrote:
Cherly Sheperd Adams is billed as a science teacher. What the article does not disclose is that she is a board member of the Kansas Citizens for Science. Her, letter, and the rash of personal attacks launched on Calvert certainly SEEMS to be an attempt to influence the election.

It strikes me as odd for an advocate of ID creationism, a collective that denounced evolutionists for not turning up to defend their views at Kalvert's Kangaroo Kourt, to denounce Shepherd-Adams for defending her views in the forum of a newspaper. (Isn't ID creationism always itching for a fight with evolution?)

Shepherd-Adams is indeed a board member of KCFS. Back when I was a member, we put forward a significant effort to develop contacts in Western Kansas. Whether by her own motivation or our campaigning, Shepherd-Adams is at least a part of that push. Because of people like Shepherd-Adams, KCFS represents pro-science activist citizens state-wide.

BCH

Christensen · 30 July 2006

Well Burt, you are misrepresenting what I said just like you did wheh we were both on KCFS forums.

I did NOT say she should not defend her views.

What I did say was that she did not disclose in the article that she was a KCFS board member.

Christensen · 30 July 2006

By the way Burt, you say that when you were on the board you put significant effort into developing cotacts in Western Kansas.

Were those political contacts?

Any verification that you did that?

k.e. · 30 July 2006

How's the anti-gravity machine going Christensin?

k.e. · 30 July 2006

Oh sorry, I mean the perpetual ~~motion~~ folly machine.

dogmeatIB · 30 July 2006

Christensen,

I'm not familiar with the specifics of Kansas law, but in most states Shepherd-Adams would be under no legal requirement to state that she was a member of KCFS. You may notice she never mentioned what school or school district she happened to work for either. She is expressing her opinion, not as a member of an organization, but as an individual. It's another part of that pesky 1st amendment you ID folks seem to really dislike. Her letter is perfectly legal and intellectually honest.

I personally have seen science teachers taken in by the ID movement's bogus argument that there is a controversy and that teaching other "scientific" theories is simply good instruction. This effort ends up with classes full of kids who really don't understand the concept of a scientific theory but do feel better about their own religious beliefs. Sorry, I'll trade a few hours of discomfort, that they can cope with on Sunday in their respective churches, over a collection of nitwits who have no concept of biology, science, evolutionary theory, critical thinking, etc.

You want to teach the 'controversy?' Then do this, start teaching them on Sunday morning after your services, heck you can teach it during your services. But keep your religion out of the SCIENCE classroom.

Stein · 30 July 2006

Score one for dogment over Christenstain.

However, although Sherly Shepard Adams would not be required to mention that she was a BOard member of KCFS, it WOULD have been the HONEST thing to do wouldn't it?

Stein · 30 July 2006

Score one for dogmeat over Christenstain.

But although Sheryl Sheperd Adams would not be required to disclose unders Kansas law that she was a board member of KCFS it WOULD have been the honest thing to do.

ScottN · 30 July 2006

I'm sorry, how, exactly, was she being dishonest by not revealing that? What legal or ethical duty did she violate?

I find it more than a little ironic that someone would get their knickers in a twist about an imaginary issue of 'honesty', yet not bat an eye as the DI and their local henchmen in the form of Calvert et. al., are in the process of perpetrating a truly dishonest campaign in Kansas.

subterranean kryptonite · 30 July 2006

Well, it might do for Christensen to disclose his own official affiliations as well.

One doesn't attend these lectures as often as he claims he does (under his various guises), followed by his usual chatter about whom he saw, whom he met, whom he will identify later, etc., without having some official reason to grind an axe, and grind it as hard as possible through various intimidation tactics.

I wonder if he's on salary to someone.

Someone whose name also begins with "C."

Jack Krebs · 30 July 2006

Even though one may not agree with Christensen, I don't think innuendo about his politics or possible relationship with Calvert is appropriate.

My 2 cents.

Christensen · 30 July 2006

YOU gave yourself away with that one "kryptonite".

But am I on salary to someone?

No, not a salary.

Ed Darrell · 30 July 2006

However, although Sherly Shepard Adams would not be required to mention that she was a BOard member of KCFS, it WOULD have been the HONEST thing to do wouldn't it?

She probably did. The slugs at the end of these pieces are done by the copy desk, or the opinion editor, usually, and they are subject to space limitations. Under those circumstances, the editor chooses the most important affiliations, not all affiliations. That she teaches high school science is the most important. That she won an awards for outstanding teaching qualifies her as THE expert in the field. No, it's not dishonest to list one's bona fides in order of precedence. It's not Shepherd-Adams' dishonesty, in any case, that the newspaper edited the list. It just galls creationists that people who oppose them tend to be the most qualified people in any area of academics, pedagogics, law, or science -- and so they pick silly, nonconsequential stuff to carp about. Ms. Shepherd-Adams really spanked the Kansas creationists, and what we're hearing from them is their complaints about the stinging.

Corkscrew · 31 July 2006

[Science] has made some direct statements and provided trust in others indirectly. Methodological naturalism is a direct metaphysical conclusion on a useful method, and vitalism, animism, souls and other dualisms has lost much or all credibility indirectly. NOMA is a failed concept, trivially so with this definition.

Science may say "we have no evidence for the existence of these things". The decision to infer from that that they don't exist is fundamentally a philosophical one. Science can demonstrably work even if people don't make that inference - the only think that causes trouble is when they try to argue with the lack of evidence. This inference is one that I personally accept as being valid (hence my atheism). However, it's still a subject for philosophical rather than scientific discussion. Other philosophical viewpoints are common, and it's even possible to back them up with somewhat convincing arguments.

Corkscrew · 31 July 2006

[Science] has made some direct statements and provided trust in others indirectly. Methodological naturalism is a direct metaphysical conclusion on a useful method, and vitalism, animism, souls and other dualisms has lost much or all credibility indirectly. NOMA is a failed concept, trivially so with this definition.

Christensen · 31 July 2006

So in other words, Corkscrew, evolution supports your atheism.

Notice that I do not say evolution equals atheism, but evolution (or at least YOUR VIEW of the current mainstream theory) supports your atheism.

And this is the irrationality that will end up being presented to public school students.

And that was my own experience, so don't tell me it doesn't happen.

k.e. · 31 July 2006

Right ...so let me get this straight

Christiansin....since teaching evolution is the same as teaching economics or mathematics, neither of those say god exists nor does not exist, then in your experience mathematics and economics are 'anti' god.

Thank you ...makes perfect sense to me.

Is there any numbers that you consider to be 'holy' or perhaps the 'supply and demand' graphs could have a god line on them, is that what you want?

Would you like the 'guns and butter curve' to be called 'god and guns' instead....seems to be appropriate for the times don't you think?

Why not an investigation of capitalism, militarism and politics rather than your misnamed materialism which most religions equate with consumerism not the rational investigation of natural phenomenae.

You could graph the relationship between say, the rate of demand for martyrdom with the supply of those willing to provide it....all in the name of the father of Abraham.

Anonymous_Coward · 31 July 2006

And this is the irrationality that will end up being presented to public school students. And that was my own experience, so don't tell me it doesn't happen.

1) Anyone can make up experiences on the internet. Creationists have shown that time and time again. 2) We don't expect there to be 100% certainty or guarantee. Just because you SUPPOSEDLY had that done to you does not extrapolate to make it a supposed concern for you. 3) Given your obvious lack of understanding of things right in front of you and your apparent reactionary nature, you probably misinterpreted what your teacher taught. You probably even read your biases into your teacher's teachings. 4) What's worse, you've obviously decided a long time ago that evolution was atheism, so when your teacher taught you evolution, you "knew" the teacher was also teaching atheism.

Anonymous_Coward · 31 July 2006

So in other words, Corkscrew, evolution supports your atheism. Notice that I do not say evolution equals atheism, but evolution (or at least YOUR VIEW of the current mainstream theory) supports your atheism.

You even ignore the rest of his post. Corkscrew admits that there are very good arguments for the other side as well. So while Corkscrew sees atheism as closer to the truth, he did not say that evolution cannot be used to support deism. The Catholics certainly think evolution is support for deism.

And this is the irrationality...

As opposed to your VERY original arguments that are SOOO rational...

Jack Krebs · 31 July 2006

Catholic doctrine is not Deism. Catholic and mainstream Protestant doctrine is that God is continually and creatively present at all times.

This is probably a topic for some place else, though.

gwangung · 31 July 2006

So in other words, Corkscrew, evolution supports your atheism.

Um, no.

Try again. THis time for comprehension, not confirmation of your own biases.

Anonymous_Coward · 31 July 2006

Catholic doctrine is not Deism.

I know. Just a play on words on how the latin texts use "Deus" for God. So it's not Deism, the philosophy, but Deism the belief in Deus. Or, more possibly, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Alann · 31 July 2006

Don't confuse atheism with religion. Try finding a definition of religion which does not include worship, divine, or supernatural. Calling something atheistic is usually a desperate attempt to achieve parity by reducing an otherwise explainable phenomenon to a matter of faith.

Besides to be more accurate science is not so much atheistic as agnostic (the existence of God is unknown/unprovable and if God exists would generally be considered unknowable)

When a religion makes a testable claim, then it is religion which has ventured into materialism, and not by some twisted logic the other way around. Very few religions return unscathed from such ill advised ventures.

If you happen to believe in a religion which is opposed to evolution I suggest one of the following:
- take up a serious study of biology (and try to keep an open mind), even if you are unconvinced in the end, you'll find that it does present a rather strong and compelling case it is not some adhoc product of anti-Christians.
- change religions. There are quite a few variations out there that hold the same essential principles, and are not so caught up in themselves.
- know when to shut-up. Your free to have and express whatever belief you want, but there is a big gap between can and should. If your not prepared to explain complex issues like fish blood chemistry (blood plasma salinity), which are well supported by evolution you will come off sounding like an ignorant religious freak.

Darth Robo · 31 July 2006

GoP said:

"And this is the irrationality that will end up being presented to public school students.

And that was my own experience, so don't tell me it doesn't happen."

It didn't happen to me. As long as you did the work and learned what you were supposed to, my science teachers never made a person's spiritual beliefs an issue.

Alann said:

"Besides to be more accurate science is not so much atheistic as agnostic (the existence of God is unknown/unprovable and if God exists would generally be considered unknowable)"

Exactly. If I was to debate a creationist, I would be sure they would accuse me of being a 'materialistic athiest' despite the fact I choose to think of myself as 'undecided' in regards to the idea of a God. I just simply agree with the above statement that shows why God shouldn't be in a science class.

"When a religion makes a testable claim, then it is religion which has ventured into materialism, and not by some twisted logic the other way around. Very few religions return unscathed from such ill advised ventures."

So when religions turn round and say that the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around IT, man was made from dirt and woman from a spare rib, Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead & the T-Rex ate daisies in the garden of eden, amazingly, somehow, I'm gonna say: "Sorry, but I just can't accept that at face value."

The other thing that I've always found bizzare is just why do creationists find athiesm so distasteful, or even dangerous? And just because they are athiests, they have no morals? With atheists being a relative minority in the world surely religious people have their hands full dealing with all the other opposing belief systems in the world (which if course makes it every single one except their own). Why single out athiesm (or their view of them)?

Christensen · 31 July 2006

To answer your question about what creationists, and many others, find so distatesful about atheism it could be the irrationality of the BELIEF that all existence (the universe, life, mind and reason itself) can be explained by a mindless process.

It also has something to do with the nasty things atheists have done when they have acheived political control and established officially atheistic governments.

It could be their hypocrisy; like telling us that science says nothing about religion like they do over at KCFS and yet when they are on sites like this attacking Christianity and Judaism with straw man arguements, as you have.

Well, you asked...

Anonymous_Coward · 1 August 2006

It could be their hypocrisy; like telling us that science says nothing about religion like they do over at KCFS and yet when they are on sites like this attacking Christianity and Judaism with straw man arguements, as you have.

No. We are attacking your weird little brand of Christianity. Not all Christians are ignorant fundamentalists like your lot are. A lot of them, Catholic or otherwise (yes, Catholics are Christians too), also disagree with your lot. So the only one using a straw man is you. This has never been a battle between Christianity and Evolution. That is the straw man and you continue to use it.

Darth Robo · 1 August 2006

Christensen said:

"To answer your question about what creationists, and many others, find so distatesful about atheism it could be the irrationality of the BELIEF that all existence (the universe, life, mind and reason itself) can be explained by a mindless process."

While the idea of an all powerful invisible impossible to observe extra-dimensional creator that lives forever capable of creating entire universes with the power of speech is of course, perfectly rational.

"It also has something to do with the nasty things atheists have done when they have acheived political control and established officially atheistic governments."

Let us not also forget the nasty things that religious people have done when they have acheived political control. A guy called Hitler comes to mind for example, who in his book said he believed he was doing God's work. However, that doesn't mean I think ALL religious people are nasty like him. I generally think he was an exception to the rule.

"It could be their hypocrisy; like telling us that science says nothing about religion like they do over at KCFS and yet when they are on sites like this attacking Christianity and Judaism with straw man arguements, as you have."

Have you not been paying attention? The only reason why science has a problem with certain weird little brands of religion is because they are trying to dumb down science education in schools, just to make them feel better about a scientific concept they don't like. And you accuse me of straw man arguments. Perhaps if they bothered to educate themselves, they would realise that religion v evolution is a false dichotomy. But no, it's easier to 'teach the controversy' instead.

"Well, you asked..."

Well, gosh, I guess that told me...

Anonymous_Coward · 1 August 2006

To answer your question about what creationists, and many others, find so distatesful about atheism it could be the irrationality of the BELIEF that all existence (the universe, life, mind and reason itself) can be explained by a mindless process.

I think the bigger picture is the deep-seated fear that they don't want to believe that they do not belong to any master race. They need to feel special, as if being created from dirt and the result of heavy inbreeding is any better. I don't know. If you fick a clone of yourself that was genetically engineered to be female, is that inbreeding? Or something much worse. Why should it matter if mindless processes can create all existence if that is discovered to be the case? The ABSOLUTELY mindless process of gravitational attraction created the stars we see. The ABSOLUTELY mindless process of atomic physics inside stars created all the elements in the universe. Unless you can demonstrate that gravity and nuclear fusion requires intelligence to operate, then you may have a case.

GuyeFaux · 1 August 2006

what creationists ... find so distatesful about atheism it could be the irrationality of the BELIEF that all existence ... can be explained by a mindless process.

That's not atheism, sorry. Atheism says nothing at all about how all existence can be explained in any way. I think you may be confusing it with materialism or determinism or something (a philosopher should correct me), which I suppose would be distasteful to any serious X-tian. And when body count are compared, the Abrahamic religions are way way way ahead of atheists.

Jack Krebs · 1 August 2006

Yes to the comment about confusing atheism with materialism. All materialists are atheists, but not all atheists are materialists. A simple distinction.

Tyrannosaurus · 1 August 2006

as if being created from dirt and the result of heavy inbreeding is any better.
Ever since I was a little boy I had a problem with Genesis that boiled down to all Humanity the product of just one man and one woman. That is heavy inbreeding indeed!!!!!

Darth Robo · 1 August 2006

Tyrannosaurus said:

"Ever since I was a little boy I had a problem with Genesis that boiled down to all Humanity the product of just one man and one woman. That is heavy inbreeding indeed!!!!!"

I thought you might also have a problem with the fact that some people say you lived along side them, on a diet of daisies! ;)

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_060731_creation_museum.html

gwangung · 1 August 2006

It does Christianity no credit when you lie like this.

It has been pointed out before that what is being attacked is NOT Christianity; many of the people you are criticizing ARE Christians.

Michael Suttkus, II · 1 August 2006

The other thing that I've always found bizzare is just why do creationists find athiesm so distasteful, or even dangerous? And just because they are athiests, they have no morals?
— Darth Robo

I've thought about this a lot as I've watched creationists act all out of proportion with regard to atheists. My answer, as a completely untrained armchair psychologist is as followed: Fundamentalists NEED to believe. That belief is paramount in their lives. "Everyone's got to believe in something," they say. People who don't believe in anything cut right at the heart of their worldview. People who accept the *cough* wrong religion at least accept the need to believe. Much of creationism can be understood in these terms. Creationism isn't about faith. Faith is belief without certainty. It's supposed to be a religious gold standard. Creationists don't have faith. They cannot manage faith. What they have is certainty. A false certainty, but a certainty nonetheless. THEY need their belief to be not a faith, but a fact. The FACT of God has to be obvious and undeniable. If God isn't an undeniable fact, then they just have faith. They don't have certainty. People who go around denying it cut at the very base of their need to believe. That's my hypothesis, anyway. Take it or leave it.

Henry J · 1 August 2006

Re "then they just have faith. They don't have certainty."

Absotively.

Henry

stevaroni · 1 August 2006

Christiansen wrote... To answer your question about what creationists, and many others, find so distatesful about atheism it could be the irrationality of the BELIEF that all existence ... can be explained by a mindless process.

See, that's exactly the problem. You equate science with religion. You are wrong. Good scientists don't believe anything, at least not in the take-it-as-an-article-of-faith sense that you seem to imply. Science is all about proof. Science accepts evolution as the best model of the real world based on the available physical evidence. Someday, a more detailed model will come along and the accepted norm will change, as happens all the time in science. Einstein's model replaces Newton's, which replaces Galileo's which replaces Aristotle's. Until you can produce some piece of physical evidence. Any piece of physical evidence that offers positive proof of ID, or creationism, or of God for that matter, all you have is belief, and that's not good enough, because history has shown time and again that deeply held beliefs that have no foundation in demonstrable fact are probably wrong.

Christensen · 2 August 2006

Stevaroni, you are quite right that scientists CLAIM not to BELIEVE anything. Leaving aside the many assumptions and presuppositions required for the scientific method to work, I would generally agree with that.

But my point is that it is the ATHEISTS who claim that science is on their side...Dawkins, Dennet, Harris are only the most famous in this regard. Even Ken Miller, a Christian, points on in his book on Darwins God that this is the prevailing view in academia, one that his students are frequently suprised to find he does not agree with.

By the way, someone mentioned "body counts". Demonstrably, practitioners of atheistically based philosophies (most famously dialectical materialim) were responsible for more deaths in the 20th century (100 MILLION) ALONE (its still going on) than in all the so called religious wars (which always ignores their political and economic base) that in the past 2500 years. And this is not just due to increased populations...as if that makes any difference to the dead...but to the comprehensive vicousness of unrestraind attacks not inhibited by ANY moral traditions. (Ref. The Black Book of Communism, Harvard Univeristy Press)

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

Leaving aside the many assumptions and presuppositions required for the scientific method to work, I would generally agree with that.

And are these assumptions wrong? Do you know what these assumptions are? Can you name them? Can you show examples where the "assumptions" and "presuppositions" don't work? If these "assumptions" and "presuppositions" aren't correct, how come many things have been done with them?

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

But my point is that it is the ATHEISTS who claim that science is on their side

What's wrong with that?

Even Ken Miller, a Christian, points on in his book on Darwins God that this is the prevailing view in academia, one that his students are frequently suprised to find he does not agree with.

What? Are academics forbidden to be atheists if they choose to be one? The difference between academia and the fundamentalists is that academics don't plan to teach atheism. As we have seen, it is only your assumption that if they don't make explicit statements about the possibility of God that you assume that the lecturer is on a mission to spread atheism.

Demonstrably, practitioners of atheistically based philosophies (most famously dialectical materialim) were responsible for more deaths in the 20th century (100 MILLION) ALONE (its still going on) than in all the so called religious wars (which always ignores their political and economic base) that in the past 2500 years. And this is not just due to increased populations

No. It's due to increase in TECHNOLOGY. For the time, the religious wars caused more deaths than non-religious wars. If we had a religious war today, there would be even more deaths due to even more advanced technology than at the time of communism.

GuyeFaux · 2 August 2006

Demonstrably, practitioners of atheistically based philosophies (most famously dialectical materialim) were responsible for more deaths in the 20th century (100 MILLION) ALONE (its still going on) than in all the so called religious wars...

Demonstrably? Please demonstrate.

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 August 2006

Oh, so the underlying economic causes justify the religious atrocities, but not those from atheist *spit* powers, despite originating from the same economic causes.

Man, you've gotta love creationist double-think. Religious people commit attrocities because their corrupted by money. Atheists *spit* commit crimes because THEY'RE RUDDY ATHEISTS ALREADY! Got it! *spit*

Actually, the Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil, so the atheists *spit* must commit attrocities for that reason only. Just like rapists rape because they love money. Either that or rapists aren't evil...

I love his claim that atheists *spit* are more vicious for being unrestrained by any moral system. He must think Hitler was kinder than Pol Pot because Hitler (being restrained by a Christian moral system) used gas chambers and Pol Pot (the unrestrained atheist *spit*) just shot people. Puts me in mind of those classic restrained Christians in the Catholic church who, long ago, decided that round bullets, being less painful, should be used against Christian foes while square (more painful) bullets should be used against heathens. Oh, such kindness is brought on by a restraining moral system! Atheists *spit* would use square bullets on everyone! Of course, what they didn't know in those dark days of yor was that square bullets are about as accurate as a creationist argument.

JB · 2 August 2006

Actually anonyomous one, advanced technology is not required for mass exterminations. Most of the one hundred million dead were the result of forced starvation and deliberate exposure to diseases with of course a fair use of bullets (swords, spears and clubs could accomplish the same thing.)

The exterminations were generally part of a deliberate attempt to elimiate religion and thus can be directly attributed to atheit motivations. (Solzhenitsyns Gulag Archipelago series described this established this back in the seventies.)

In more recent times, the Chinese, according to Amnesty International have used atheism as a means of destroying the cultural identity of the Tibetans.

Atheists have no room to talk about ANYBODY.

Darth Robo · 2 August 2006

Michael Suttkus II said:

"That's my hypothesis, anyway. Take it or leave it."

I reckon you're dead on. I just can't get my head 'round that mindset of fact without evidence.

Christensen said:

"Demonstrably, practitioners of atheistically based philosophies (most famously dialectical materialim) were responsible for more deaths in the 20th century (100 MILLION) ALONE (its still going on) than in all the so called religious wars (which always ignores their political and economic base) that in the past 2500 years."

Bull. You're so full of it. If you have a corrupt government, it's not their philisophical or spiritual beliefs that make them nasty. You're completely ignoring the fact that dictators have come from all sorts of backgrounds AND beliefs. If you'd have payed attention to any of these posts (and indeed, to history) you'd understand that.

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

Actually anonyomous one, advanced technology is not required for mass exterminations. Most of the one hundred million dead were the result of forced starvation and deliberate exposure to diseases with of course a fair use of bullets (swords, spears and clubs could accomplish the same thing.)

Actually, advanced technology is required to uphold the state's power to the extent that the civilians are powerless to revolt.

The exterminations were generally part of a deliberate attempt to elimiate religion and thus can be directly attributed to atheit motivations. (Solzhenitsyns Gulag Archipelago series described this established this back in the seventies.)

Nice, expected non-sequitur. You said that most of the deaths were caused by starvation. Most of the starvation was due to bad management. Not because of some alleged war against religion by atheists.

In more recent times, the Chinese, according to Amnesty International have used atheism as a means of destroying the cultural identity of the Tibetans.

Sounds like a misrepresentation. Amnesty International doesn't seem to blame anything on atheism. Sure, the Chinese are destroying the cultural identity of the Tibetans. But it's certainly not in the aim of atheism. China destroying the identity of Tibetans is not excusable. But that fact does not negate the other fact that fundamentalist Christians destroyed more cultures than atheism. The only advantage you have is "it's all in the past, so let's forget about it".

Atheists have no room to talk about ANYBODY.

And you IDiots say that scientists are trying to censor people with disagreeing views...

JB · 2 August 2006

Standard quote mining from you, oh cowardly one. I said the deaths were caused by FORCED starvation, not just starvation. And YEP, it because of ATHEISM, the dialectical materialists are atheists, moron.

And Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao hated religion and would do ANYTHING to eliminate. Their atheism, in their minds, freed them from any higher reponsibility.

k.e. · 2 August 2006

So what you are getting at JB is that ID is about relgion and politics?

Lenin: "Religion is a kind of spiritual gin in which the slaves of capital drown their human shape and their claims to any decent life."

JB: "Unbelievers (in my religion) are a kind of spiritual gin in which the slaves of mamon drown their human shape and their claims to any decent life."

And that has what to do with high quality science education unencumbered with a particular sects world view?

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

I said the deaths were caused by FORCED starvation, not just starvation.

Forced, was it? So the millions of farmers who stopped farming to make steel were forced into starvation, was it? Again, all it is is bad policy and bad management. Not an attack on religion.

And Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao hated religion and would do ANYTHING to eliminate. Their atheism, in their minds, freed them from any higher reponsibility.

Check their biographies. They viewed many things more important that squashing religion. Such as capitalism. Mao was more concerned about the landlords. Eliminating religion played almost no part in the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap forward. The "higher responsibility" argument has been shown to be logically defective many times already. Strange that Hitler thought a higher power required him to exterminate non-Aryans. Higher power certainly hasn't stopped religious people from committing attrocities the technological suppression allowed for.

And YEP, it because of ATHEISM, the dialectical materialists are atheists, moron.

Atheists doing bad things does not mean "it is because of atheism", genius. Just as Christians doing bad things does not necessarily mean Christianity is bad. Of course, I might just have to use that argument, since you don't care for logic and thus won't be able to see why it's wrong.

JB · 2 August 2006

Hey, sorry to tell you anonymous coward, but they weren't doing much steel making in the GULAGS, as ably described by the Nobel Prize winner Solzhensitisyn in The Gulag Archipelago.

If you really believe that the actions against believers were not motivated by the desire to put into practice dialectical materialism, you have come under the sway of too much propaganda...or you are uninformed...or, you are lying.

As to the arguments you threaten to use...to late, that is what is argued all the time around here.

The problem...such behaviors are not consistent with the ideal.

But in the case of atheism, no perversion is inconsistent with it because it has no values.

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

Hey, sorry to tell you anonymous coward, but they weren't doing much steel making in the GULAGS, as ably described by the Nobel Prize winner Solzhensitisyn in The Gulag Archipelago.

But they were doing a lot of steel making in rural China, genius.

But in the case of atheism, no perversion is inconsistent with it because it has no values.

Again, that has been proven wrong long before you were born, genius. Check the more popular atheist websites. They all have a code of conduct that they believe atheists should adhere to. Not because of fear of encurring God's wrath: just because it is the right thing to do.

If you really believe that the actions against believers were not motivated by the desire to put into practice dialectical materialism, you have come under the sway of too much propaganda...or you are uninformed...or, you are lying.

Nice stock answer. "If I'm an idiot, it is only because you are under the sway of propaganda blah blah".

Alann · 2 August 2006

Lets see from what I can follow the argument seem to be:
Atheism -> Stalinism / Maoism.

These things are never so simple. For starters the atheism under discussion is based in the U.S. not China. We are not talking dialectical materialists and Marxism, as its more of an atheist sub-set of Humanism. While both atheistic these two philosophies are far from the same thing.

Even when you look at Communism and Marxism in the broader sense things get complicated:

Communism itself has never actually been achieved, and may be nothing more then a pipe dream. Its important to note that communism opposes capitalism not democracy, liberty or religion.

What is probably being referred to is Stalinism which specifically refers to the socialist governments represented by the Soviet Union ~1924-1960 (under Joseph Stalin) and the Peoples Republic of China ~1949-Present (Maoism is equated to Stalinism). This particular form of government is not big on human rights.

Leninism for example is a more idealistic version of communism, but is more of a theory having been relatively short lived ~1917 to 1924. Leninism favors democratic election of a representative government, and is a far cry from the "communism" vilified in the age of McCarthyism (1950s) which these terms bring to mind.

Besides as I said earlier evolution and science are strictly agnostic not atheistic. They are also more in line with naturalism then true materialism. Perhaps the confusion is do to the fact that atheism does not oppose agnosticism or naturalism directly, while the literalist version of Christianity does.

J. Biggs · 3 August 2006

Lets see from what I can follow the argument seem to be: Atheism -> Stalinism / Maoism.

Actually I think it went indirectly from Darwinism -> Atheism -> Dialectical Materialism -> Stalinism/Maoism (Or any other type of communist dictatorship). The funny thing is that most of us who accept evolution as the best scientific explanation at present for the amazing biological diversity observed on earth would not consider ourselves "Darwinists". And as has been pointed out by many posters not every scientifically minded person here is an atheist. Even fewer here would consider themselves dialectical materialists. And I seriously doubt you'll find one person here that is a fan of Stalin or Mao. To equate the many scientists who accept evolution to commies is just an ad hominem attack. I seriously doubt that Cheryl Sheperd-Adams is anything other that what she claims to be, a Christian science teacher who sees the beauty of evolution theory. And a person who does not want valid science replaced with pseudo-science. So to you JB and Christiansen, I respect that you can believe what you want to believe, but you have to understand that your side will eventually lose and fall into obscurity, primarily because you don't understand science. It isn't about opinion polls, politics or court battles. It is about research and peer review in which all forms of creationism are lacking. It is about following the evidence where ever it leads rather than sticking to your guns and ignoring any pesky observation that conflicts with your perceived reality. It is basically about what is predictivly useful rather than what is scientifically vacuous. You have all ready lost the battle in the scientific realm so you take it into the political realm and the courts. You will lose there as well unless you can get rid of the establishment clause of the constitution. You just won't be able to win as long as Creationism is all about the God of the Bible. According to the Constitution it is illegal for the government to support any particular religion or religious sect. So you parade around with ID and "teach the controversy" as if your side could ever shut up about what your real motives are for even five minutes. And that is why your side loses every court battle. Who knows what will happen with the public opinion polls. It seems to me that you guys are losing ground there too. I really don't care to research that because public opinion isn't going to sway me from being a supporter of valid science. So good luck on your mission to lie for God. See where it gets you. The rest of us here already know.

Henry J · 3 August 2006

Re "It isn't about opinion polls, politics or court battles. "

Yup. It's about understanding reality to the best of our ability, not as some group of preachers want us to.

Henry

Popper's ghost · 6 August 2006

science is consistently better than religion at determining the truth of materialistic statements, but is completely unable to comment on metaphysical ones.

Gotta love such a loaded asymmetric comparison. Indeed, science is "consistently better than religion at determining the truth of materialistic statements" -- what an understatement; religions (people, really) make empirical claims; when these claims go beyond straightforward (non religious) observation, they are invariably false, not just worse; religion has no method for determining the truth of empirical statements, it simply makes them. OTOH, science does not make metaphysical statements, whereas religions (people, really) do. But are they any better than science at determining the truth of metaphysical statements? No, of course not -- exactly the same situation holds, that the metaphysical claims of religions are just claims, and there's no method for determining their truth. But at least they aren't invariably false, because metaphysical statements are either meaningless or not in the category of statements that are true or false. When it comes to making claims, science has validity and religion has none; the claims of science are consequences of a rational discovery process, whereas the claims of religion are the consequences of sociological and psychological processes that result in those claims. It might be argued that religion has value as a cultural institution, for binding communities, providing behavioral standards, allaying people's fear of death, and so on. But for making statements it's worthless.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 14 August 2006

Thanks for your (mostly) kind words, y'all.

As usual, Christensen focuses on trivialities because he can't argue the truth of what I wrote. I didn't include my KCFS board membership because it has no bearing on being a science teacher. For the same reason, I didn't list my other community/church activities either. Duh.