Both Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Drum are wrong, but I think Drum is infuriatingly wrong.
They're arguing over a statistic, the observation that about 46% of Americans believe the earth is 6000 years old and that a god created human beings complete and perfect as they are ex nihilo. Andrew Sullivan sees this as a consequence of the divisiveness of American politics, that they're using it as a signifier for red vs. blue.
I'm not sure how many of the 46 percent actually believe the story of 10,000 years ago. Surely some of them know it's less empirically supported than Bigfoot. My fear is that some of that 46 percent are giving that answer not as an empirical response, but as a cultural signifier. That means that some are more prepared to cling to untruth than concede a thing to libruls or atheists or blue America, or whatever the "other" is at any given point in time. I simply do not know how you construct a civil discourse indispensable to a functioning democracy with this vast a gulf between citizens in their basic understanding of the world.
Drum is quite right to point out that this is a bogus correlation: the US has been about evenly split on the issue for as long as we've been polling our citizens on it. There's been a gradual drift to sharpen the distinction along political lines — a hundred years ago, the most likely proponents of creationism would have been liberal Democrats — but it's largely because the Republican party has stepped in to embrace the demographic of ignorance and anti-intellectualism, becoming a kind of general know-nothing party. These differences have been here all along and are not a product of partisan politics; it's just that one party had the brilliant idea of enthusiastically waving the flag of stupidity.
But Kevin Drum goes too far. He claims the fight over evolution isn't actually all that important, and that the science doesn't really matter.
The fact is that belief in evolution has virtually no real-life impact on anything. That's why 46% of the country can safely choose not to believe it: their lack of belief has precisely zero effect on their lives. Sure, it's a handy way of saying that they're God-fearing Christians -- a "cultural signifier," as Andrew puts it -- but our lives are jam-packed with cultural signifiers. This is just one of thousands, one whose importance probably barely cracks America's top 100 list.
And the reason it doesn't is that even creationists don't take their own views seriously. How do I know this? Well, creationists like to fight over whether we should teach evolution in high school, but they never go much beyond that. Nobody wants to remove it from university biology departments. Nobody wants to shut down actual medical research that depends on the workings of evolution. In short, almost nobody wants to fight evolution except at the purely symbolic level of high school curricula, the one place where it barely matters in the first place. The dirty truth is that a 10th grade knowledge of evolution adds only slightly to a 10th grade understanding of biology.
Oh, great. That's all we need — for both parties in our polarized political system to abandon science.
Drum is making a very stupid argument. Most Americans have trouble balancing a checkbook — ever witnessed a confused high school student try to make change at a fast-food restaurant — so what the heck do they need algebra for? Why even bother with basic arithmetic? Teach them how to use a calculator in first grade, bam-pow, math education is done.
How many Americans read a novel as adults? How many bother with magazines, even, short of looking at the pictures? You don't even need to read to be able to navigate our highways — knowing symbols and names are enough. Teach kids the alphabet, show 'em how to write their name and roughly recognize place names, and wham-bam-zowie, reading is done by second grade. Ship 'em out into the workforce by third grade.
We'll just let the eggheads take the advanced courses, like geometry and creative writing and literature.
Drum isn't arguing anything that extreme, of course, but it's a logical consequence of his reasoning: he doesn't use biology, and he doesn't think most Americans use much biology, therefore it's a frippery that can be set aside.
Now, I think evolution should remain in high school texts anyway. Why? Because it's true. Biology is a science, and evolution is one of the pillars of modern science. For me, that's a cultural signifier every bit as much as a literal reading of the Bible is for 46% of the country. But you know what? I could spend an entire day arguing politics and economics and culture with a conservative and never so much as mention evolution. It's just not that important, and it doesn't tell us much of anything about our widening political polarization. We should keep up the fight, but at the same time we shouldn't pretend it has an epic significance that it doesn't. I'm not optimistic about anyone or anything "bringing the country together," but not because lots of people choose to deny evolution. Frankly, that's one of the least of our problems.
You know what? I could spend all day arguing science with a conservative (and I have!) and never once mention politics or economics or culture. Therefore, politics and economics and culture are unimportant.
Funny how that works.
The evolution statistic does have epic significance. If kids were graduating from high school unable to read or do basic arithmetic, we'd see that as a serious indictment of our educational system…and we'd be right to worry about our future as a technological society. That 46% of our citizens graduate with a complete denial of a most basic, fundamental fact about our world — that all of the sciences, not just biology, but physics, geology, chemistry, and astronomy concur that the planet is billions of years old — represents a massive failure of our educational system. In itself, it's a small problem — it's knowledge of one small detail. But as a symptom, it indicates a nation-wide problem.
I don't just blame the schools, though: it's not that they can't teach a simple, fundamental fact. It's that there is immense cultural push-back that opposes a scientific truth. If it were just an omission in the school curricula, it would be trivial to fix — but no, it's a symptom of systemic rot in the whole body politic and a reflection of a crippling anti-intellectualism in this country. That's what has epic significance.
It directly affects us in two ways.
One is that it's nice to be able to American biology departments and medical research and say they're doing fine, and it's true that we have excellent opportunities for advanced research, but it's our public schools that fill the pipeline leading to those places. Look in our research labs, and what will you see? Swarms of Chinese students. I have no objection to that, but think long term: most of those students will go home to build careers there, not here. Students who do not get the basics of science are handicapped when it comes to progressing up the academic ladder, so sure, let's knee-cap our student base by telling them all that the most minimal, trivial understanding of an entire large discipline isn't actually all that important. Where are our future American biologists going to come from, then?
Second, this is going to be the century of dependence on the sciences. Climate change is going to hit us all; environmental crises are going to rise up all over the place; we're going to face shortages of energy and fresh water; emerging diseases will be a major concern; new biomedical technologies will cause cultural shocks; the whole world is going to change. Most people, I agree, will not be doing the research that leads to changes, and most of those problems will require political and social changes to correct, but how are you going to convince people to, for instance, change their fuel consumption habits when they're in complete denial of the basic facts? How can you expect people to appreciate the importance of ecology and global interactions when you tell them that evolution doesn't matter? How will you get them to make rational decisions to control pandemics when they can't comprehend probability, epidemiology, and viral/bacterial evolution on even the most basic level?
Most importantly, though, this utilitarian attitude that all that matters is what people can directly use in their day-to-day life is a denial of the Enlightenment and principles on which our country was founded. It's a rejection of the liberal ideal that human beings should be well-rounded and informed individuals — the informed citizenry that should be the foundation of a democracy. We can't expect everyone to be biologists or poets or political scientists, but we should expect that one outcome of a public education is an appreciation of the breadth of human endeavor, and at least a smattering of the fundamentals of a wide range of subjects, sufficient that, to make it practical again, students can make informed career decisions and understand a basic argument from evidence from an expert. We lack that now. And to wave away a simple but essential starting fact about our existence as unimportant is deeply offensive.
I'll leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson, who understood deep down how important the principle is, even if he never heard a word about evolution.
I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.
Shorter Thomas Jefferson:
If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.
89 Comments
TomS · 13 June 2012
DS · 13 June 2012
These two little gems were in the consecutive paragraphs:
"The fact is that belief in evolution has virtually no real-life impact on anything."
"Nobody wants to shut down actual medical research that depends on the workings of evolution."
So, evolution has not impact on real life, except the medical research that depends on it! The only way it would have no impact then would be if nobody ever got sick. This guy should really learn not to make stupid statements that can be taken out of context by science deniers, even to make a point. Why make it easier on the quote miners?
As for the question posed by Tom S, how about fishermen, or anybody else who depends on knowledge of the tides? See the thing is, reality doesn't care what you think, you ignore it or deny it at your own risk. The fact that it is reality should be sufficient reason to study and understand it, never mind the practical implications. Whether you can use evolution as a a cultural indicator or a pawn in silly little political games is irrelevant. Get your head out of the sand and face up to reality, otherwise there will be a price to pay.
John · 13 June 2012
Drum doesn't understand that knowledge of biological evolution isn't only relevant to understanding the subject of biology in a high school science class. It includes understanding why we need to be vaccinated against diseases like flu and TB not just once, but especially, in the case of flu, annually, with the emergence of new strains via Natural Selection that are resistant to pre-existing vaccines. And that's merely the start of a long list of reasons why understanding and appreciating biological evolution should be a view shared by most Americans, irrespective of their political and religious beliefs.
TomS · 13 June 2012
DS · 13 June 2012
Richiyaado · 13 June 2012
Soon-to-be GOP VP nominee, Gov. Jindal, is forcefully pushing forward his "education reform" here in Louisiana. Instead of spending any more state money to improve public education, we're well on the way to complete privatization. By next year, all Louisiana students will get vouchers, and almost anyone can hang out the "educator" shingle. He's already made public schools (what's left of them) safe for Creationism by adding sufficient weasel-words to the standards. And once the voucher system kicks in completely, the state's many current (and sprouting) madrassas will have free reign to teach whatever they like (and call it biology). I'm sure this won't have any "real-life impact on anything."
eric · 13 June 2012
TomS - the practical consequences of the general population not understanding evolutionary science (or other science) is that they will not vote for, not fund, and not implement policies based on evolutionary science because they have no reason to think those policies will work.
And both the OP and commenters have given you examples. Current vaccination strategies are based on the assumption that common viruses evolve. Conservation, ecology, and land management strategies are based on an acceptance of species competition, and a rejection of the notion that ecologies are god-ordained or otherwise inherently stable.
Put another way, there is no reason to vote for vaccine funding if you think the 2013 flu virus or the 2020 chickenpox can be treated with today's medicines. And there is no reason to vote for snakehead or kudzu extermination if you think God will keep the ecosystem cranking regardless of what happens. There's no reason to ban CFCs if you don't think human pollution could possibly affect the atmosphere. And so on.
YOU will have to live by the laws passed by your fellow citizens. If they pass stupid laws because they are uneducated, you get to live by them. If they fail to address environmental or biological problems because they don't believe there is any problem to address, YOU must live in the world where those problems go unaddressed. Do you want to live in that world? If not, support science education.
This argument, incidentally, goes well beyond science. As another example, you should support financial/economic education of the general populace because if they make bad decisions, the people who make good decisions will end up paying for it. THEIR education improves YOUR world.
TomS · 13 June 2012
I apologize for my carelessness. I am not arguing that evolutionary biology is "useless", and I am not arguing against the heliocentric model of the Solar System. I intended to point to the motion of the Earth, with the assumption that everybody who is reading this would surely be shocked to think that it would not be mentioned prominently in early science education. I thought that it would be amusing to remind you of the quotation about Sherlock Holmes.
I speculate that Sherlock Holmes, although he claimed that the mechanism of the Solar System did not make a pennyworth of difference to him or his work, would never say that about the mechanism of evolution (especially as it has developed since his retirement).
My apologies for wasting your time by not making my intentions clearer.
eric · 13 June 2012
I think you're still mostly wrong about geocentrism. Yes, technically, a geocentrist could hold exactly the same beliefs as a heliocentrist on every single thing except the factoid question of which body orbits which. I'd agree - that hypothetical geocentrist will be able to live his/her modern life normally, and you will likely not be affected by their crankery.
But IMO you are not going to encounter those people in real life (even if Holmes does in fiction). In real life, a geocentrist is a geocentrist because of a host of more foundational, background beliefs they hold. Those background beliefs will entail geocentrism plus a variety of other empirical and political beliefs, which will likely negatively affect you if they became popular.
Metaphorically, geocentrism is more like a single symptom than a disease. Saying that single symptom doesn't impact your life is short-sighted in the extreme; other symptoms of that same disease might, and in fact the presence of the disease in the population might.
DS · 13 June 2012
Tom,
No apology needed. I thought your intentions were pretty clear. My point however is that if one is ignorant of a scientific principle, then one is in no position to determine how it affects anything. And if one chooses to remain ignorant about how the universe works, then one shouldn't be surprised if the universe displays a remarkable indifference to ones desires. Determining our place in the universe would seem to be of more than just a passing concern to everyone, even those not working in the field of astronomy. How humans got here would also seem to be a more important concern for every human, not just evolutionary biologists and anthropologists. Alas, not everyone shares the fundamental curiosity so characteristics of the scientific community.
A wise man once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. He was right. But if I be so bold as to suggest, the unexamined universe is not worth living in, nor does it tend to discriminate between ignorance and indifference. Another wise man once asked for the major cause of ignorance and apathy, the response: "don't know, don't care."
Science Avenger · 13 June 2012
I'm sure if you gave a young caveman a hammer, at the end of his life he could point at it and say "Me never need that, it useless".
You have to understand something to know where and how to use it. Now if we could only get Kevin Drum, David Frum, and John Fund to debate the issue...
harold · 13 June 2012
I don't usually have much use for Andrew Sullivan, but he's right here.
There may be some educationally deprived people who innocently think that the world is 6000 years old.
However, that type of answer is also often a dog whistle code for "I support the authoritarian, racist, homophobic, and/or misogynistic tendency in American politics".
In post-modern America, people start with a set of biases and a tribalistic group association, and then they seek out some kind of frosting to justify the already baked cake.
If they're against racism, sexism, homophobia, self-destructive greed, and the like, they can choose almost any traditional moderate religion, or no religion at all.
But if they're in favor of racism, sexism, homophobia, self-destructive greed, and so on, whether because of insecurity with their own status, narcissistic self love, or sociopathy, they feel more cognitive dissonance. Those things, in the modern context, violate human instincts of empathy and fairness, and are frequently criticized, and as we all know, they are VERY sensitive to that criticism. They need a special system that strongly says "even though it seems better to treat everybody fairly, there is actually a good reason why this group of people should be treated like shit".
Although no version of the Christian Bible, read as a whole, whatever its many flaws, can really be said to give that message unambiguously, cherry picking a few passages and calling them "literally true" can be used to that effect. Using the Christian Bible in this way is very important to them, because mainstream Christian churches were so active in the civil rights movement. That caused decades of cognitive dissonance.
Therefore, a "literal interpretation of the Bible" which contradicts science (associated with the "liberalism" and "progress" of the civil rights era), and which tells them that they can do whatever they want if they "repent" later, while condemning gays, uppity women, and perhaps implicitly, albeit silently, "the Sons of Ham", what they turn to.
Maybe it's true that "decades ago" in 1890 you would have gotten the same statistics for a different reason.
The reason you get it now, at least from a good number of the people who claim that belief system, is exactly what Sullivan says.
harold · 13 June 2012
Red Right Hand · 13 June 2012
Weird. I first discovered Panda's Thumb as a result of this post by Drum when he blogged for Politcal Animal. In fact, I think he used to blog quite a bit on the evo/id controversy. Too bad.
Drum has always had an ugly feigned Saletan-style contrarian streak though, so maybe this issue is just the latest price he thinks he can pay for inclusion into the Kool Kids Village.
Just Bob · 13 June 2012
Red Right Hand · 13 June 2012
Oops, sorry. Source is
here.
Flint · 13 June 2012
Well, Drum is quite right if he's arguing that most professions are insular, which means that nearly anyone can become truly excellent at any of them without necessarily having to understand or accept the foundations of anyone else's profession. Biologists don't have to understand how a well-built car can go 100,000 miles between tuneups and never break down, and those who build cars don't really need to understand what paleontologists mean by a transitional fossil.
The argument that ignorance of the foundations of other peoples' professions necessarily means voting against research support for all other professions isn't supported by anything I've seen in practice. Instead, I think Sullivan is correct that political support has little or nothing to do with specific technical understandings and a great deal to do with identification with an in-group of like-minded people. If the Department of Defense were to decide to spend heavily on ecological or environmental or evolutionary research, Republicans would be all in favor - and STILL have no clue what they were or were not supporting. Anymore than I might in voting against such research because the DoD is too big and too secretive, and because this is the only way I can express opposition to expensive purposeless wars.
I do see an incestuous relationship between religious and political trends today. The Republican party has for some time now been schizophrenic, torn between the fiscal conservatives who want much smaller and cheaper government whatever it takes (including slashing defense), and the religious conservatives who want to enforce the social policies of their faith no matter how much it costs. And I know that today the religious right is winning, and they tend to oppose providing enough education about social matters to expose children to shades other than black and white. The workaround seems to be to teach evolution but not CALL it evolution. Opponents of teaching "evolution" react to the words, not their content. Label it some mouthful like "ramifications of cumulative allele distributions across generations" and nobody will complain.
Robert Byers · 14 June 2012
The point of the thread is that the creation/evolution issue matters and the split through America is hurting America.
Yes it does matter.
The truth matters.
So why not let schools free to discuss the origin contention.?
If evolution was not true would it not be America who figured it first(followed by Canada)?!
Turning Americans into evolutionists is not going to make a better America!
Turning them into creationists will!
More education on evolution should include creationist criticisms.
This would possibly increase iterest in sciences and introduce people to it.
If these establishment people say it doesn't matter to the liberal agenda then let them move aside the censorship.
prove you don't think it matters!
Mr Myers is saying creationism is the reason Chinese/indian/European students etc are flooding in america for these positions and careers in science instead of Americans relative to numbers.
In Canada its the same without the high creationist percentage.
America created modern science and the high salaries to go with it.
third nations like India/China know this and their kids know that their countries can not offer the great rewards America does.
So Americans has the absurd case of competing with hugh third world nations for limited positions in America.
Is it true Americans don't show up on hiring day?
Are americans really not interested or rather they are prevailed over by a few points on tests etc?!
Americans have a great interest in science and the rewards of it.
its up to america to decide who inherits America and gains America!
if foreigners are getting what Americans would rather have themselves then just say no more of that.
Its a gift to a foreigner to be given another peoples nome and the good things in it.
People aim at professions held by people they live with.
The more americans in science the more it breeds interest in relatives and friends.
Its not origin issues that have any impact although discussing interesting points about origins might stir people otherwise aloof from it.
Evolution has not made its case to the american people who are less influenced by authority or have another authority.
I say a wrong case can't make a good case.
Dave Luckett · 14 June 2012
Because there is no contention, Byers, you dribbling moron. There is no argument. The issue was settled more than a century ago. Special creation of the species didn't happen. Evolution of the species did. The riotously idiotic collection of mutually refuting tall tales you subscribe to are lies, and damnfool lies at that, and you are yourself a deluded simpleton, but one who is further afflicted by overweening hubris.
Creationist Americans are not better Americans. They are nearly always much worse - they are far more likely to be bigoted, intolerant, authoritarian, racist misogynists. They are very often Protestant theocrats like yourself, Byers, as ignorant of history as they are of science, and far more likely to become the willing pawns and useful idiots in the service of a tyranny.
You want more Americans in science, Byers? Then stop trashing science. Learn some. While you're at it, learn some history. And a little humility would be good, too. But that would be asking too much, I think.
Dave Lovell · 14 June 2012
Rolf · 14 June 2012
There is nothing special about evolution, it is just sciense like any other. What you want, Robert, amounts to settling scientific issues by popular vote.
Don't bother with science, let public opinion determine whether the Sun orbits the Earth or vice versa.
Fair enough, or?
TomS · 14 June 2012
bbennett1968 · 14 June 2012
DS · 14 June 2012
Bye bye drive by Byers.
Just Bob · 14 June 2012
My understanding is that a clincher for heliocentrism was Galileo's observation that the Earth was NOT the center of all heavenly motion, when he observed the moons of Jupiter orbiting their primary--not Earth, and Venus having phases. That, on top of the Copernican system and Kepler's proof that planets moved in ellipses put paid to the Ptolemaic model endorsed by the Church because it supported biblical "astronomy".
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 14 June 2012
SLC · 14 June 2012
RM · 14 June 2012
Robert Byers · 14 June 2012
phhht · 14 June 2012
Robert Byers · 14 June 2012
DS · 14 June 2012
I vote to ignore Byers. Bye bye drive by Byers.
phhht · 14 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 15 June 2012
apokryltaros · 15 June 2012
eric · 15 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 15 June 2012
apokryltaros · 15 June 2012
apokryltaros · 15 June 2012
Tenncrain · 15 June 2012
harold · 15 June 2012
RWard · 15 June 2012
Does anyone else think Robert Byers may actually be a well educated, articulate person who is posing as a creationist buffoon with the goal of making creationism/ID appear to be even sillier than it already seems?
The man is, in fact, brilliant.
bbennett1968 · 15 June 2012
eric · 15 June 2012
harold · 15 June 2012
apokryltaros · 15 June 2012
dalehusband · 16 June 2012
Robert Byers · 16 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 16 June 2012
DS · 16 June 2012
its true creationists cant and dont do sciences they are judged accordingly you can cry all you want but it aint gonna change theres no censorships of people who don't do nothin nohow anyway they caged themselves creationists ban themselves cause they knows they is dead wrong anyways
bye bye drive bye byers
John · 16 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 16 June 2012
Scott F · 16 June 2012
TomS · 16 June 2012
How, then do heliocentric creationists justify their acceptance of the heliocentric model of the Solar System?
To be heliocentric creationists they have to accept that naturalistic evidence and human reasoning modify their interpretation of the Bible.
Scott F · 16 June 2012
Just Bob · 16 June 2012
And the Bible says pretty damn clearly, straightforward, and simply that pi = 3.0. (2 Chronicles 4)
Byers, does pi = 3.0? If you agree with the Bible that it does, then you can easily prove yourself (and the Bible) wrong by just measuring the diameter and circumference of something circular.
If you agree with even ancient math, that pi is more like 3.14159..., then that means you dispute the straightforward FACT given in 2 Chronicles.
So what was it, Byers, A) a very crude estimation (without any qualifier, like "approximately"; B) the measurements are not made to the same place (e.g., the widest edge of the rim), rendering them completely useless as a description of the size and shape of the sea; C) the writer of 2 Chronicles didn't know enough math to know that something with a diameter of 10 CANNOT have a circumference of 30; or D) pi really did equal 3.0 in Solomon's time, or miraculously only for his sea.
steveastrouk · 16 June 2012
John · 16 June 2012
TomS · 17 June 2012
Scott F · 17 June 2012
harold · 17 June 2012
Henry J · 17 June 2012
The question that I'd have for them is simply why assume that the "Designer" would be unwilling or unable to use natural means to produce results that meet the criteria for whatever the primary goal was? (Oh, and which is it - unwilling, or unable?)
Of course, to answer that, one has to have some notion of what that primary goal was in the first place. (If it was primarily spiritual (whatever that really means), why would physical details matter to it?)
Henry
Just Bob · 17 June 2012
The question I would have is: Even if Creation, or Design, or whatever you choose to call it were true, of what practical value would it be?
Other that getting into Heaven (not what I'd call a 'practical' value), what can you use it for? How would science be advanced by recognizing 'design'? What new discoveries, new products, or new processes would be likely to follow?
We know that 'secular' science is highly effective for producing those outcomes. Why and how would 'design' science be superior?
My contention is that even if 'design' were a TRUE bit of knowledge, it would be an entirely USELESS bit of knowledge. It would not advance our useable knowledge of nature in any way, nor add to its practical outcomes or applications. On the contrary, it would likely halt much scientific inquiry, since the answer to why many things are the way they are would be that the 'designer' made them that way, and his reasons are beyond our ken.
Rolf · 18 June 2012
Robert Byers · 18 June 2012
Robert Byers · 18 June 2012
TomS · 18 June 2012
harold · 18 June 2012
DS · 18 June 2012
byers never took any science class so he dont know what goes on in them obviously he avoided math class as well his biblical boundaries are the only barrier he has demonstrated bye bye drive bye byers
harold · 18 June 2012
TomS · 18 June 2012
I am suggesting that "intelligent design" does not provide an explanation.
harold · 18 June 2012
Scott F · 18 June 2012
Just Bob · 18 June 2012
Like Matthew Harrison Brady, Byers does not think about things he... does not think about.
Scott F · 18 June 2012
Tenncrain · 18 June 2012
dalehusband · 18 June 2012
Rolf · 19 June 2012
Robert Byers · 19 June 2012
Robert Byers · 19 June 2012
Robert Byers · 19 June 2012
DS · 19 June 2012
Well, he did provide a shining example of the title of the thread. An uninformed citizenry leads to bullshit like this. Let the people vote on science, what do the experts know? Science is a democracy after all, at least as long as my views are in the majority. It they aren't then just shoot everybody who disagrees and teach only what i want anyway, otherwise i'll scream censurship. So, in conclusion, no one can say i'm wrong, not the experts, not the state, not anyone. So you must teach exactly what i want and you must pay for it. And they compare darwin to hitler!
Another thread shot to hell by the drive by rantings of a lunatic.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 19 June 2012
Oh good grief, Robert, you simply don't get it do you.
You say you want "creationism" taught in public schools as an "alternative" explanation to the standard, well-demonstrated scientific ones that currently prevail. But what you are conspicuously ingnoring is that there are a number of awkward issues that you have to deal with, before we even begin to address the current state of scientific bankruptcy in the "creationist" sphere. In the US context there's the small problem of the constitutional question, but we'll park that to one side for now.
You've ignored these questions before, but you're damn well going to give an answer to them.
Which version of "creationism" are you going to teach? TE? YEC? OEC? ID? Mormon? Catholic? Orthodox? Islamic? 7DA? "Evangelical"? Anglican/Episcopalian? Methodist? Jewish? Scientologist? Hindu? Buddhist? First Nations? Which version, Robert?
Failure to give an answer is not an option. Because, in the real world you have to give an answer that can satisfy EVERY single group simultaneously - and given the glaringly obvious reality that the list of groups I've given often can't even agree on the date of Easter or New Year, that's going to be tough. You know what the consensus position amongst all these listed groups as regards science teaching is? It's actually the status quo, as it's the least contentious.
The thing is, Robert, there is no unitary "creationist" position that can be taught, which is one hell of an awkward hurdle for you to get over. In fact, what you're proposing is a recipe for chaos; and you know who the first people who are going to explode in anger over your proposal are? A whole variety of church/religious hierarchies whose particular versions are, by definition, going to be excluded. The funniest thing is Robert, it's not going to be the "secularists" who will be the most pissed off with your scheme - although they're going to be highly miffed at a science curriculum that wastes their kid's time when they should be getting educated - it's probably going to be your fellow bible-believing Christians and other religious groups. If you don't believe me, ask your minister how he would feel about the local high school teaching the Catholic doctrine of creation and its harmony with science, or Islamic creationism.
See, Robert, my sense of you is that you've never actually been to school - you're a product of a homeschool environment, and you don't get that the vast majority of schools have a student body that is actually quite diverse in terms of its religious/non-religious/denominational make-up. Maybe you're an anarchist and sowing the seeds of social chaos across an education system is one of your missions in life.
So, Robert, tell us what your "creationist" science curriculum is actually going to consist of; and remember, you've got to present one that is going to cause minimal amounts of sectarian animosity and is going to satisfy the entirety of the parent body that wants their kids to get the best education possible. Show us what you've got.
Just Bob · 19 June 2012
A typical high school classroom that I taught in, in a magnet school (estimations, but pretty typical):
2 fairly strong, every-Sunday Catholics
6 Catholics-in-name, mass 2 or 3 times a year
4 mainline, moderate Protestants
2 fundamentalist evangelical creationists
5 apathetic to religion or agnostic
2 declared atheists
2 Hindus
1 Muslim
1 Mormon
1 Jew
And occasionally a Native American animist, Shintoist, Taoist, Wiccan, or even Satanist.
Byers, there's no majority there, and the plurality is with the Catholics. Now, why on Earth should the creationist beliefs of a couple of kids determine what should be taught to the other 25 or so?
Robert Byers · 20 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 20 June 2012
Self-refutin' Robert. FAKE. FRAUD. LIAR.
I asked you to show us what you've got in terms of a curriculum, and all it involves is you standing up in front of the class and saying NOTHING. You continue to demonstrate your own intellectual bankruptcy.
In the US, the people decided the issue quite some time ago - it's called the constitution.
As with alchemy, astrology, geocentrism or a whole host of pseudo-disciplines, there is NO CONTROVERSY to teach in the science class, and there is no censorship that is being practised - if "creationists" want to be taken seriously, then they have to go away and do the hard, time-consuming, and grindingly tedious scientific work that will justify their position, but apparently they're still too busy building theme parks and visitor attractions to get round to that little issue. You can parrot the standard shop-worn whines about censorship and propaganda all you like, but it seems to me that all you're really doing is pursuing the classic Homeric dictum of "if at first you don't succeed, CHEAT!"
If schools want to have the discussion about theology/culture/religion, there is no bar to them doing so in history, civics, literature, religious studies etc classes - why is that so unsatisfactory for you?
DS · 20 June 2012
The answer to who decides is that its the satanists. Only a few satanists options would have any support for the voting public. If a indian reservation wants to add a old myth of their tribe then they can vote it in, but that won't make it science. For America some fair idea of districts/states etc with voters deciding what satanist alternatives should included would be unconstitutional, immoral and counter productive. in areas of no interest then they simply would not include satanism although it still would be illegal. However teaching the controversy is a issue that is not easily settled. So, why not teach satanism? That's a controversy. I says satan made life so if that's my opinion i should vote and make you teach it as science, right? Teach the controversies!
its simple and fair and smart. Censoring satanism is absurd, immoral, and illegal and surely a dampening to millions of kids on their perception of “science’. its seen as a important enemy to their faith and their fathers faith and the exclusion of criticism confirms a propaganda agenda. All ruining the fun and interest of satan for the people. surely this shows itself in those seeking professions in it or seeking acclaim in it. Americans should be number one in science at this point in history and not foreigners from or in third or second or other first world countries. Somebody is to blame. Fix the censorship and the top down control over these issues of education. Teach the satan controversy!
John · 20 June 2012
Tenncrain · 20 June 2012