Case Western steps up, rejects House Bill 597

Beautifully written. Rarely is opposition to pseudoscience expressed so well.

Let's hope the politicians are listening!

Whereas neither political nor religious arguments may therefore enter into the scientific formulation or evaluation of scientific theories;

Other institutions–I’m looking at you, Ohio State

But how is it fair that science gets the good way of knowing, when fundamentalists are stuck with "other ways of knowing" (specifically, essentially worthless ones)?

If creationists say that evolution is a religion, what options do that have but try to legislate it into being a list of declarations, just like creationism has?

Glen Davidson

eric said: . . . the firing of any of the undersinging professors.

Extremely well stated and as such will be rejected by the citizenry of Ohio, for the most part because it leaves out the part about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the back of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. And NOT, as some heathen religions like the pope, claim on a Brontosaurus. They was extinct by then due to allowing gay marriage and, of course, because, BENGHAZI!!!!!

What if all of the public institutions in Ohio signed a document stating that they would not consider high school graduates for admission to any science program if they knew nothing about the scientific process? Wouldn't that send the right message? You can try to legislate science education out of existence if you want, but there will be a real price to pay. Public institutions would be within their rights to deny access to unqualified students. It would be ironic if they worked for the same government who sold science education down the river in high schools, but you couldn't really expect everyone to just ignore the insanity if something like this was passed.

DS said: What if all of the public institutions in Ohio signed a document stating that they would not consider high school graduates for admission to any science program if they knew nothing about the scientific process? Wouldn't that send the right message? You can try to legislate science education out of existence if you want, but there will be a real price to pay. Public institutions would be within their rights to deny access to unqualified students. It would be ironic if they worked for the same government who sold science education down the river in high schools, but you couldn't really expect everyone to just ignore the insanity if something like this was passed.

DavidK said:

DS said: What if all of the public institutions in Ohio signed a document stating that they would not consider high school graduates for admission to any science program if they knew nothing about the scientific process? Wouldn't that send the right message? You can try to legislate science education out of existence if you want, but there will be a real price to pay. Public institutions would be within their rights to deny access to unqualified students. It would be ironic if they worked for the same government who sold science education down the river in high schools, but you couldn't really expect everyone to just ignore the insanity if something like this was passed.

Didn't California encounter the same problem with private christian schools trying to pawn off their "biology" classes as meeting science standards? I believe they lost their case in the courts.

Ah, never mind that first comment to DS, somehow I didn't see the "to any science program." I still think its a bit draconian, but DS' comment makes more sense to me now.

Well my comments usually don't make much sense when you first read them, but sometimes they can kinda grow on you. I admit that this is a rather extreme reaction, but if such a bill were ever to be passed, it would be completely justified. Just imagine letting these know-nothing yahoos gut science education just to promote their own religious agenda. That would be completely and totally insane. It would absolutely demand the strongest possible response. I can't think of anything more humiliating than your own colleges and universities refusing to admit your own high school graduates into science programs. It would be obvious that you had made a terrible mistake that you would be paying for for generations to come.

As for students who don't intend to go into science, it is still vitally important that they learn how science works. If they don't, then we are just breeding another generation that will be vulnerable to this kind of pseudoscientific chicanery. Scientific literacy should be an essential part of any well rounded education. It might not be appropriate to make it a specific requirement for a college art program, but I don't think that it's inappropriate make it a requirement in any high school curriculum that supposedly prepares students for college. After all, even art students are required to take science classes as part of a general education in most colleges and they should be. The whole point is that science literacy is vitally important at every level of education. If we abandon it, or allow religious agendas to dictate how it is taught, we will pay a terrible price. Someone has to stand up for science, it might as well be colleges and universities.

DS said: I admit that this is a rather extreme reaction, but if such a bill were ever to be passed, it would be completely justified. Just imagine letting these know-nothing yahoos gut science education just to promote their own religious agenda.

It might not be appropriate to make it a specific requirement for a college art program, but I don't think that it's inappropriate make it a requirement in any high school curriculum that supposedly prepares students for college.

Well of course this won't fix the problem. But it would point out how ludicrous it is to pass such legislation. The only way to fix the problem would be to repeal the legislation, or hopefully never pass it in the first place, if these are the known consequences. After all, that is exactly what Case Western is attempting to do here.

Of course students might still have the option of demonstrating proficiency on admissions tests. But when it becomes obvious that they are at a serious disadvantage compared to students who were properly prepared, the same message will be sent. It isn't a matter of prerequisites or what courses are on your transcripts. If you come from a school that doesn't even try to teach how science works, you probably aren't going to be qualified and should not be admitted unless you can demonstrate proficiency. Hopefully this deficiency would show up in entrance exams, but it wouldn't hurt to have a policy that explicitly states that you will be assumed to be unprepared by such a misguided background, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

However, I must respectfully disagree that students automatically understand the process of science. If they are not taught the process properly they probably won't understand it. If they are not prepared for college level work they are being set up for failure. If they are not as well prepared as other students, they will be at a significant disadvantage. And most of all, if they are never exposed to scientific reasoning, why would they ever choose to go into a science program in college? It isn't a matter of creationist versus non creationist. No one will be taught science properly in the entire state of Ohio is these charlatans have their way. That is their goal, to make sure that no one can do science and that no one knows enough to care. We shouldn't try to force creationists to teach evolution in their private schools, that's their choice and there will be a price to pay. But we should never allow them to deny students the opportunity to learn how science works in public schools. That would be truly insane.

DS said: The only way to fix the problem would be to repeal the legislation, or hopefully never pass it in the first place, if these are the known consequences. After all, that is exactly what Case Western is attempting to do here.

If you come from a school that doesn't even try to teach how science works, you probably aren't going to be qualified and should not be admitted unless you can demonstrate proficiency. Hopefully this deficiency would show up in entrance exams, but it wouldn't hurt to have a policy that explicitly states that you will be assumed to be unprepared by such a misguided background, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

However, I must respectfully disagree that students automatically understand the process of science.

we should never allow [these legislators] to deny students the opportunity to learn how science works in public schools. That would be truly insane.

This has nothing to do with religious affiliation. It's public, state funded schools we are talking about. They are the ones who would be forced to bow to religious extremists who are willing to destroy science education for everyone.

What I'm saying is, that if the state adopts a policy that is virtually guaranteed to inadequately prepare students for college courses, then the colleges and universities should make a political statement that they are aware of the policy and disagree with it. This sends the message that the real experts, the ones who actually do science, aren't fooled by the religious motivations of those attempting to hijack science education. It is the policy that is the problem and it is the policy that needs to be addressed. But pretending that these students will be adequately prepared isn't going to help. Asking them to compete with students from other states who are better prepared isn't going to help. And bringing up a generation of science illiterates isn't going to help. It needs to made clear exactly what the consequences of such legislation would be, before the legislation is enacted. Obviously it would be difficult to actually keep students out of college, especially as freshman with undeclared majors. But that isn't the point. The colleges and universities need to stand up and say: "You are not being adequately prepared for a career in science. If you want to be adequately prepared, you need to go to another state where religious agendas are not allowed to determine public policy."

Other than making the student feel bad, what does that policy do?

Does it require extra entrance exams for students coming from religious schools?

Extra pre-reqs? Or is it just a declarative statement by the University with no actionable measures associated with it?

My point was that its fairer and more sensible for a College or University to evaluate 'understanding of process' by the student's class and research performance, not by the name or religious affiliation of their High School.

I'm only taking issue with your idea that colleges and universities should not consider students for admission to a science program (science major?) if they come in with an inadequate understanding of the scientific process.

DS said: What I'm saying is, that if the state adopts a policy that is virtually guaranteed to inadequately prepare students for college courses, then the colleges and universities should make a political statement that they are aware of the policy and disagree with it.

Well, just to nit-pic out of 524 words, the only thing I would have changed in an otherwise next to perfect objection to Ohio HB579 is:

c) Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science;

I do not think the term theories is appropriate wording, considering the intent and concerns of the resolution. I would have replaced that word with the more accurate term, alternatives.

Other than that rather insignificant point of semantics, it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be. Frankly, I doubt if anyone in the Ohio legislature who is promoting this type of nonsense is going to be swayed at all. Many of them have made it perfectly clear over the years that not only do they not understand what science is, they have no interest to learn what science is. And these are the people writing the science education policies? Shameful.

Maybe it would be better for the state to deny accreditation to any high school that refuses to teach the scientific method. After all, it isn't the fault of the student that they were sold out by some school board or the state legislature. They will have to pay for that regardless. The principle is that if your high school education does not properly prepare you for college, you shouldn't expect to be admitted, or to be successful if you are admitted. There has to be some way to get this message across to high schools and students and parents, otherwise the butt heads will win. If you choose to be home schooled to go to a private high school you should know the risks. But you shouldn't have to worry about whether a public school is allowed to teach science or not. Not knowing how science works will make you a poorer citizen as well as a poorer student. It might also mean that few students will ever want to go into science at any level.

Keelyn said: Well, just to nit-pic out of 524 words, the only thing I would have changed in an otherwise next to perfect objection to Ohio HB579 is: c) Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science; I do not think the term theories is appropriate wording, considering the intent and concerns of the resolution. I would have replaced that word with the more accurate term, alternatives. Other than that rather insignificant point of semantics, it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be. Frankly, I doubt if anyone in the Ohio legislature who is promoting this type of nonsense is going to be swayed at all. Many of them have made it perfectly clear over the years that not only do they not understand what science is, they have no interest to learn what science is. And these are the people writing the science education policies? Shameful.

DS said: Maybe it would be better for the state to deny accreditation to any high school that refuses to teach the scientific method.

The principle is that if your high school education does not properly prepare you for college, you shouldn't expect to be admitted, or to be successful if you are admitted. There has to be some way to get this message across to high schools and students and parents, otherwise the butt heads will win.

If you choose to be home schooled to go to a private high school you should know the risks. But you shouldn't have to worry about whether a public school is allowed to teach science or not.

TomS said:

Keelyn said: Well, just to nit-pic out of 524 words, the only thing I would have changed in an otherwise next to perfect objection to Ohio HB579 is: c) Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science; I do not think the term theories is appropriate wording, considering the intent and concerns of the resolution. I would have replaced that word with the more accurate term, alternatives. Other than that rather insignificant point of semantics, it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be. Frankly, I doubt if anyone in the Ohio legislature who is promoting this type of nonsense is going to be swayed at all. Many of them have made it perfectly clear over the years that not only do they not understand what science is, they have no interest to learn what science is. And these are the people writing the science education policies? Shameful.

I noted that, too. But just to show the semantic quagmire, I wouldn't suggest "alternatives", which might suggest parity, but something like ideas. (And they wouldn't like to have me on the drafting committee.)

So there you go. If the proposed legislation directly conflicts with state standards, it cannot be enforced legally. This needs to be pointed out before the legislation is voted on or enacted. This presumes that the state standards are not subject to manipulation by those with a religious agenda.. But if that is the case, you are probably already screwed. In any event, religious fanatics cannot be allowed to dictate science education. If they try, they must be exposed for what they truly are and the harm they are trying to cause must be prevented or at least mitigated.

The issue is not whether or not you can get into college with a high school diploma. The issue is if you have any chance of getting an education that will prepare you for college in a public high school. If science is not being taught, the answer is no. No matter how many extra classes you take, they will never teach you what you need to know. That's because the nice man in the white robe doesn't want you to question his authority, just drink the kool aid and say amen.

bigdakine said:

TomS said:

Keelyn said: Well, just to nit-pic out of 524 words, the only thing I would have changed in an otherwise next to perfect objection to Ohio HB579 is: c) Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science; I do not think the term theories is appropriate wording, considering the intent and concerns of the resolution. I would have replaced that word with the more accurate term, alternatives. Other than that rather insignificant point of semantics, it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be. Frankly, I doubt if anyone in the Ohio legislature who is promoting this type of nonsense is going to be swayed at all. Many of them have made it perfectly clear over the years that not only do they not understand what science is, they have no interest to learn what science is. And these are the people writing the science education policies? Shameful.

I noted that, too. But just to show the semantic quagmire, I wouldn't suggest "alternatives", which might suggest parity, but something like ideas. (And they wouldn't like to have me on the drafting committee.)

Or more specifically, non-scientific ideas.

TomS said:

Keelyn said: Well, just to nit-pic out of 524 words, the only thing I would have changed in an otherwise next to perfect objection to Ohio HB579 is: c) Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science; I do not think the term theories is appropriate wording, considering the intent and concerns of the resolution. I would have replaced that word with the more accurate term, alternatives. Other than that rather insignificant point of semantics, it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be. Frankly, I doubt if anyone in the Ohio legislature who is promoting this type of nonsense is going to be swayed at all. Many of them have made it perfectly clear over the years that not only do they not understand what science is, they have no interest to learn what science is. And these are the people writing the science education policies? Shameful.

I noted that, too. But just to show the semantic quagmire, I wouldn't suggest "alternatives", which might suggest parity, but something like ideas. (And they wouldn't like to have me on the drafting committee.)

Keelyn said: Well, that word (ideas) did momentarily cross a couple of my neurons, too, but I decided it did not meet the same level of sophistication in wording of the rest of the resolution. I am happy to compromise, though – how about notions? Of course, in all honesty, what I would like to substitute for it is “nonsense,” but that wouldn’t be cool. Now, before the powers that be call me out on this, let me say that I was making a less than trivial point – I just felt like writing something! Frankly, I would be just as satisfied if a class of 3rd graders wrote a letter in different colored crayons if it managed to influence the members of the Ohio House, Senate, and the Governor to stop cowering to these science illiterate nitwits who have somehow managed to find their way into positions of public education policy making. I hope this resolution is taken seriously. This bill seriously undermines good science education. And I fear that some other states (especially in the south – sorry fellow southerners, but history speaks for itself) may follow suit with this sort of idiocy. Frightening.

I think the problem lies in the construction "faith-based (something)", where "faith-based" is used as an adjective. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against adjectives. But in this case "faith-based (something)" really simply means "faith", that is, "belief without evidence".

So I'd simplify: "non-scientific perspectives, including religious faith".

Bobsie said:
The requisites for college level study is public knowledge. If the student can’t meet those requirements via public or some private schools, it is their responsibility to find a way to meet them. Colleges should provide remedial instruction for entering freshmen if they lack the prerequisites but with the understanding they will most likely need to extend their college time.

I beg to disagree. I do not believe it is the role of colleges to provide remedial instruction for poorly prepared students who obviously do not meet the entrance requirements to begin with. Why should colleges teach incoming freshmen SCI001 rather than SCI101? If their HS preparation is inadequate, then it's up to the schools to change their methods so that students are prepared. But unfortunately these days we're seeing massive public education funding cuts by republicans who'd rather transfer the money to private/parochial schools in their voucher schemes, laying off teachers, etc.

DavidK said: Why should colleges teach incoming freshmen SCI001 rather than SCI101?

Scott F said: Because if the colleges don't, then their graduation rates tank. Sure, if you're one of the ivy league schools, you can afford to restrict your recruitment to the top 1% of students. Other colleges aren't that lucky. If your local college is trolling for students in the 20-30% range, and the bottom of your range keeps getting worse from year to year, you have to re-prepare those kids. Most community colleges nowadays are just the 5th and 6th years of high school for most kids.

Scott F said:

DavidK said: Why should colleges teach incoming freshmen SCI001 rather than SCI101?

Because if the colleges don't, then their graduation rates tank. Sure, if you're one of the ivy league schools, you can afford to restrict your recruitment to the top 1% of students. Other colleges aren't that lucky. If your local college is trolling for students in the 20-30% range, and the bottom of your range keeps getting worse from year to year, you have to re-prepare those kids. Most community colleges nowadays are just the 5th and 6th years of high school for most kids.

DS said: So there you go. If the proposed legislation directly conflicts with state standards, it cannot be enforced legally.

This presumes that the state standards are not subject to manipulation by those with a religious agenda.

DavidK said: Why should colleges teach incoming freshmen SCI001 rather than SCI101? If their HS preparation is inadequate, then it's up to the schools to change their methods so that students are prepared. But unfortunately these days we're seeing massive public education funding cuts by republicans who'd rather transfer the money to private/parochial schools in their voucher schemes, laying off teachers, etc.

eric said:So I don't think the 001 courses will ever go away, nor necessarily should they. State mandates to serve the local population, specialist freshman, a desire to attract currently non-science-considering students into science - these are all reasons to keep them.

I'm sure the Discovery Institute will respond with another 'What, that's not what the bill says' post, just like they did here, and again calling any fears 'groundless'. Luckily there are many people not fooled by such antics. Many folks remember:

It was the Discovery Institute who lobbied the Ohio State School Board to teach Intelligent Design?

It was the Discovery Institute who handed to Ohio State School Board a list of 44 peer-reviewed publications that they said showed support for Intelligent Design? A list that was fraudulently represented by them! (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-discovery-institutes-bibliography).

Anyone else remember Deborah Owens Fink (former Ohio Board of Education member) and her efforts to get Creationism, and later Intelligent Design, into the school curriculum. She was the one who referred to the National Academy of Sciences as "a group of so-called scientists." When real scientists voiced support for Fink's opponent, the Discovery Institute complained about it (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/inside_the_mind_of_the_new_yor002817.html)

Back in 1996 the Ohio House voted down a bill that would have done exactly what this bill can do -- and that bill didn't mention the words Creationism or Intelligent Design either! (http://ncse.com/ncser/16/1/close-ohio-house-vote-scuttles-evidence-against-evolution-bi)

The potential impact of HB 597 on science education is not a groundless fear. It is a concern based on the actions of Creationists in the past, and I do include the Discovery Institute when I say 'Creationists'.

It doesn't even matter if the religious motivations are revealed or not. This would be a very bad idea no matter who proposed it or why they proposed it. As the statement clearly demonstrates, scientific thinking and scientific processes are at the core of science and they should to be at the core of science education as well. Then again, when you have the track record of these guys to consider, it should become intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that this bill is not designed to improve science education but to degrade it. You probably wouldn't even have to read the proposed legislation in order to determine the real intent. In this case, both lines of independent evidence converge on the same answer: this is a scam and a fraud.

From the humor pages of The New Yorker: "The Borowitz Report", by Andy Borowitz,
Some Fear Ebola Outbreak Could Make Nation Turn to Science

From the article itself: . . . “in which a belief in science leads to a belief in math, which in turn fosters a dangerous dependence on facts.”

DS said: It doesn't even matter if the religious motivations are revealed or not. This would be a very bad idea no matter who proposed it or why they proposed it. As the statement clearly demonstrates, scientific thinking and scientific processes are at the core of science and they should to be at the core of science education as well. Then again, when you have the track record of these guys to consider, it should become intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that this bill is not designed to improve science education but to degrade it. You probably wouldn't even have to read the proposed legislation in order to determine the real intent. In this case, both lines of independent evidence converge on the same answer: this is a scam and a fraud.

harold said:

DS said: It doesn't even matter if the religious motivations are revealed or not. This would be a very bad idea no matter who proposed it or why they proposed it. As the statement clearly demonstrates, scientific thinking and scientific processes are at the core of science and they should to be at the core of science education as well. Then again, when you have the track record of these guys to consider, it should become intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that this bill is not designed to improve science education but to degrade it. You probably wouldn't even have to read the proposed legislation in order to determine the real intent. In this case, both lines of independent evidence converge on the same answer: this is a scam and a fraud.

I very strongly agree with this statement. As it happens, in the US, the most prevalent form of politically active science denial that directly targets high school curricula is religious evolution denial. And the US constitution forbids using tax-funded resources to favor one religious sect. So a transparent religious motive is usually there, and since that makes the exercise illegal... However, with other major forms of politically motivated right wing science denial, such as denial of climate change, or denial of the health risks of cigarette smoking, it may be the opposite of the case with creationism. These forms of science denial are transparently commercial in motivation, but their advocates will sometimes hypocritically pretend that they are religious or ethical in nature. We have creationists pretending not to be religious, and oil industry fetishists pretending that climate change denial is somehow based on religion. Science denial is a stupid idea in classrooms and when public policy is being decided, regardless of its motivation.

TomS said:

harold said:

DS said: It doesn't even matter if the religious motivations are revealed or not. This would be a very bad idea no matter who proposed it or why they proposed it. As the statement clearly demonstrates, scientific thinking and scientific processes are at the core of science and they should to be at the core of science education as well. Then again, when you have the track record of these guys to consider, it should become intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that this bill is not designed to improve science education but to degrade it. You probably wouldn't even have to read the proposed legislation in order to determine the real intent. In this case, both lines of independent evidence converge on the same answer: this is a scam and a fraud.

I very strongly agree with this statement. As it happens, in the US, the most prevalent form of politically active science denial that directly targets high school curricula is religious evolution denial. And the US constitution forbids using tax-funded resources to favor one religious sect. So a transparent religious motive is usually there, and since that makes the exercise illegal... However, with other major forms of politically motivated right wing science denial, such as denial of climate change, or denial of the health risks of cigarette smoking, it may be the opposite of the case with creationism. These forms of science denial are transparently commercial in motivation, but their advocates will sometimes hypocritically pretend that they are religious or ethical in nature. We have creationists pretending not to be religious, and oil industry fetishists pretending that climate change denial is somehow based on religion. Science denial is a stupid idea in classrooms and when public policy is being decided, regardless of its motivation.

O happy fault, that evolution-denial is tied to particular sectarian religion. It has made the legal struggle against it possible. If the anti-evolution forces had not turned to the Bible, how many bans on the teaching would we have in the USA? I happen to believe that the original motivation for denial is that it is repulsive to think that one is related to apes, and particularly so because it is so undeniably obvious. And I don't have a clear idea of what a religion is. But somehow, the two (evolution denial and religion) have become inextricably bound. But, regardless, science denial is stupid.

harold said:

TomS said:

harold said:

DS said: It doesn't even matter if the religious motivations are revealed or not. This would be a very bad idea no matter who proposed it or why they proposed it. As the statement clearly demonstrates, scientific thinking and scientific processes are at the core of science and they should to be at the core of science education as well. Then again, when you have the track record of these guys to consider, it should become intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that this bill is not designed to improve science education but to degrade it. You probably wouldn't even have to read the proposed legislation in order to determine the real intent. In this case, both lines of independent evidence converge on the same answer: this is a scam and a fraud.

I very strongly agree with this statement. As it happens, in the US, the most prevalent form of politically active science denial that directly targets high school curricula is religious evolution denial. And the US constitution forbids using tax-funded resources to favor one religious sect. So a transparent religious motive is usually there, and since that makes the exercise illegal... However, with other major forms of politically motivated right wing science denial, such as denial of climate change, or denial of the health risks of cigarette smoking, it may be the opposite of the case with creationism. These forms of science denial are transparently commercial in motivation, but their advocates will sometimes hypocritically pretend that they are religious or ethical in nature. We have creationists pretending not to be religious, and oil industry fetishists pretending that climate change denial is somehow based on religion. Science denial is a stupid idea in classrooms and when public policy is being decided, regardless of its motivation.

O happy fault, that evolution-denial is tied to particular sectarian religion. It has made the legal struggle against it possible. If the anti-evolution forces had not turned to the Bible, how many bans on the teaching would we have in the USA? I happen to believe that the original motivation for denial is that it is repulsive to think that one is related to apes, and particularly so because it is so undeniably obvious. And I don't have a clear idea of what a religion is. But somehow, the two (evolution denial and religion) have become inextricably bound. But, regardless, science denial is stupid.

Despite the universal human tendency to ridicule our primate cousins, evolution denial is peculiarly tied to authoritarian ideologies. It is seldom seen among "liberal" or even "moderate" religions, and isn't even universal among conservative, politically active religions. I don't think I'd be unfair in saying that the Catholic Church has many conservative tendencies, but they don't deny evolution. Soviet communists, the post-civil rights US reactionary right wing, and the international imitators of those movements are the main sources of evolution denial. It's also true that other authoritarian movements have distorted the theory of evolution, even if ostensibly accepting it.

ID/creationism has a lot in common with Lysencoism and Deutche Physik. All of them were/are socio/political movements attempting to replace real science with ideological dogma. There was even a component of Deutche Physik - i.e. Jude Physik - that sought to demonize the Jews and Albert Einstein.

ID/creationism demonizes real science as a competing religion - the "religion" of "naturalism" - and even has a manifesto, called the "Wedge Document," that declares its intent do drive out science and replace it with a sectarian science.

Their common thread appears to be the authoritarian mind.

Mike Elzinga said: Their common thread appears to be the authoritarian mind.

Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationism has a lot in common with Lysencoism and Deutche Physik. All of them were/are socio/political movements attempting to replace real science with ideological dogma. There was even a component of Deutche Physik - i.e. Jude Physik - that sought to demonize the Jews and Albert Einstein. ID/creationism demonizes real science as a competing religion - the "religion" of "naturalism" - and even has a manifesto, called the "Wedge Document," that declares its intent do drive out science and replace it with a sectarian science. Their common thread appears to be the authoritarian mind.

phhht said:

Mike Elzinga said: Their common thread appears to be the authoritarian mind.

The Wikipedia article on Politicization of science cites, as a recent example, efforts by the George W. Bush (Republican) administration to warp science to their liking.

harold said: Despite the universal human tendency to ridicule our primate cousins, evolution denial is peculiarly tied to authoritarian ideologies.

eric said:

harold said: Despite the universal human tendency to ridicule our primate cousins, evolution denial is peculiarly tied to authoritarian ideologies.

That makes some sense. Those ideologies tend more to try and control what their citizens think and what information their citizens access. Science may be seen as competing against the authority (or as a competitive source of authority) in both cases; giving people information independent of the dictator and also telling "truths" not derived from the dictator. Who knows better how to grow crops, the guy at the university with the PhD or Fearless Leader? Fearless Leader does! However I don't think the connection is as strong or as clear as the connection between anti-evolutionism and religious literalism (to include Islam).

harold said: Because religious literalism is a form or, or sometimes a prop of, authoritarianism. Name an extreme Islamist organization that doesn't have an authoritarian political goal.

eric said:

harold said: Despite the universal human tendency to ridicule our primate cousins, evolution denial is peculiarly tied to authoritarian ideologies.

That makes some sense. Those ideologies tend more to try and control what their citizens think and what information their citizens access. Science may be seen as competing against the authority (or as a competitive source of authority) in both cases; giving people information independent of the dictator and also telling "truths" not derived from the dictator. Who knows better how to grow crops, the guy at the university with the PhD or Fearless Leader? Fearless Leader does! However I don't think the connection is as strong or as clear as the connection between anti-evolutionism and religious literalism (to include Islam).

TomS said:

Keelyn said: Well, just to nit-pic out of 524 words, the only thing I would have changed in an otherwise next to perfect objection to Ohio HB579 is: c) Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science; I do not think the term theories is appropriate wording, considering the intent and concerns of the resolution. I would have replaced that word with the more accurate term, alternatives. Other than that rather insignificant point of semantics, it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be. Frankly, I doubt if anyone in the Ohio legislature who is promoting this type of nonsense is going to be swayed at all. Many of them have made it perfectly clear over the years that not only do they not understand what science is, they have no interest to learn what science is. And these are the people writing the science education policies? Shameful.

I noted that, too. But just to show the semantic quagmire, I wouldn't suggest "alternatives", which might suggest parity, but something like ideas.

diogeneslamp0 said:

TomS said:

Keelyn said: Well, just to nit-pic out of 524 words, the only thing I would have changed in an otherwise next to perfect objection to Ohio HB579 is: c) Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science; I do not think the term theories is appropriate wording, considering the intent and concerns of the resolution. I would have replaced that word with the more accurate term, alternatives. Other than that rather insignificant point of semantics, it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be. Frankly, I doubt if anyone in the Ohio legislature who is promoting this type of nonsense is going to be swayed at all. Many of them have made it perfectly clear over the years that not only do they not understand what science is, they have no interest to learn what science is. And these are the people writing the science education policies? Shameful.

I noted that, too. But just to show the semantic quagmire, I wouldn't suggest "alternatives", which might suggest parity, but something like ideas.

"Allegations... Faith-based allegations" or "allegations supported only by faith" are ideal. Alternatives isn't bad either. We should use "alternatives" and "weaknesses" to describe pseudoscience. For example, "the Flat Earth alternative beliefs to Round Earth theory" or "the phlogiston alternative to evidence-based chemistry.'

eric said:

harold said: Because religious literalism is a form or, or sometimes a prop of, authoritarianism. Name an extreme Islamist organization that doesn't have an authoritarian political goal.

Well if you're going to say religious literalism (like I did), you have to look further than just Islam. Which is why I said 'to include...' I would count the Amish and Christian Scientists as religious extremists without authoritarian political goals. Their beliefs certainly are extreme in the sense of how those beliefs impact their lives, but they appear to be pretty strongly secular and supportive of democracy at the state and federal level. I'll leave the muslim counterexamples up to those who know Islam better than I do.

harold said: The George W. Bush administration really brought science denial into the Republican mainstream, or at least, really acknowledged its membership.

“Alternative medicine” seems to be acceptable to those who believe in it.

Harold said:

Reagan may have been first Republican since WWII to more or less openly pander to the reality denying extremes of the party.

From the NYT's archives regarding Reagan's take on science:

White House Confirms Reagans Follow Astrology, Up to a Point. The Reagan's practiced astrology and managed their calendar by favorable astrological signs.

By STEVEN V. ROBERTS, Special to the NYT, May 4, 1988

President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, are both deeply interested in astrology, the White House spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, said today, and two former White House officials said Mrs. Reagan's concerns had influenced the scheduling of important events.

A California astrologer said she had been consulted by the Reagans regarding key White House decisions, but Mr. Reagan said astrology had not influenced policy.

Followers of astrology believe the alignment of stars and planets influences human affairs. Such people consult charts, based on their birth dates, for clues concerning many decisions.

Mr. Fitzwater said Mrs. Reagan is particularly worried about the impact astrological portents can have on her husband's safety. But he declined to say exactly how Mrs. Reagan had used astrological information. And the President, answering a question at a photo-taking session, said, ''No policy or decision in my mind has ever been influenced by astrology.''

A highly questionable statement!

There is no "alternative medicine". If it works, it's medicine, period. If it doesn't, it's snake oil.

Hypothesis:

Unknown function for jDNA is due to as yet undiscovered design principles in action that control the creation and development of various higher level functions such as the management of cell differentiation, proliferation speed and quantity, and spatial organization.

.....we reject you application on the grounds that the 'd' word has been co-opted in a non-scientific manner.

...please rephrase your hypothesis so that there is no reference to design but yet still retains all the essential elements and meaning behind the concept of design.

...then we will bless it with our consensus seal of approval.

....after all, we are the new gods in town.

....don't forget to pay your tithe at the end of the month.

DavidK,

Literally billions of people consult calendars to get married, buy stock, and switch jobs.

Astrological billions trump your skeptical thousands.

Consensus rules.

harold said: My original point was that there is an apparent association between evolution denial and authoritarians, and I strongly stand by that point.

If some people who deny evolution do not engage in authoritarian politics, that makes their evolution denial largely irrelevant to me, since it does not hurt me if they do not try to foist it on me, but also does not contradict my point.

6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

eric said: I agree "secular creationists" are largely politically irrelevant. But they still count if you're going to try and draw a correlation between creationist-belief and authoritarianism. And without any data to back me up, I'll go on record as saying that I think most of the approximately 50% of the population that answers creationy on Gallup polls, would probably not support authoritarian measures to impose it on the rest of us.

eric said:

harold said: My original point was that there is an apparent association between evolution denial and authoritarians, and I strongly stand by that point.

Maybe. I'm not sure Gallup polls really support you. The US population has been 55%-45% creationist over the last couple of decades (with the numbers dropping very slowly). Are you saying half the US population would like to install an authoritarian dictator? Half the population would like to change the structure of our three branches of government? I'm not sure even the news coverage of the right wing supports you. What *I* see is a mix of strategies. Some authoritarian, such as state and local school boards wanting to make creationism part of the official curriculum. Other times, they are majoritarian - such as the Ahlquist case, the numerous 10 commandments and numerous school prayer and meeting prayer cases. If I had to guess, I'd say the latter outnumber the former something like 10 to 1. IOW, when it comes to God in the public square, the religious right pushes for more direct local democracy far more often than they push for authoritarianism. Are they insincere about that majoritarianism? I dunno, but I think it's safe to say that they'd change their tune if they were not the majority; historically we've seen that religious minorities almost always support separation of church and state. But its entirely possible that most of the creationists arguing majoritarianism now would not switch to being authoritarians if they were in the minority, they'd just become believers in a democratic separation of church and state. Remember, the Dover BOE lost their reelection in an overwhelmingly Christian religious town. Same thing in Kansas; the creationists lost even though the region is majority right-wing Christian. Texas see-saws but again, McLeroy lost his reelection bid. 50% of the US is on-paper creationist and about 75% of it is Christian, but many times we've seen that 50%/75% reach up and slap the right wing authoritarians whenever their antics go too far and publicly embarass the community. That's creationism without authoritarianism.

If some people who deny evolution do not engage in authoritarian politics, that makes their evolution denial largely irrelevant to me, since it does not hurt me if they do not try to foist it on me, but also does not contradict my point.

I agree "secular creationists" are largely politically irrelevant. But they still count if you're going to try and draw a correlation between creationist-belief and authoritarianism. And without any data to back me up, I'll go on record as saying that I think most of the approximately 50% of the population that answers creationy on Gallup polls, would probably not support authoritarian measures to impose it on the rest of us.

However, when you look at the groups of people who publicly push evolution denial, you see the following - 1) It was initially associated with upper class British clergy but they gave up long ago. They weren’t authoritarian enough to persist. 2) The Soviets pushed evolution denial, at least at times. 3) The American post-civil rights right wing backlash movement, through its “religious right” arm, pushes evolution denial. 4) Various Islamic movements, who if they aren’t imitating/inspiring the American religious right do a good job of coincidentally seeming to do so, also push evolution denial. This is well-documented in Turkey, where the situation is quite analogous to the US situation - religious figures associated with authoritarian politicians push (Islamic) evolution denial. If some Amish person somewhere is using a Guttenberg press and woodcuts to publish a bunch of anti-evolution nonsense, I haven’t heard of it. Evolution denial in politics, on television, in books, on the internet, on the radio, etc, seems to be highly, highly, highly correlated with the groups I mentioned above. And the main thing they all have in common, despite being ostensible enemies, is that they are authoritarians.

harold said: You've implicitly defined "authoritarian" and "one who wishes to impose a dictatorship no matter what". You've even excluded transient insincere "majoritarians", who superficially respect majority rule, when it suits them, while clearly rejecting individual rights at all times, from being viewed as authoritarians.

Meanwhile, you've implicitly defined "creationist" as anyone who ever answers a poll question in any way other than strongly endorsing the theory of evolution, no matter how biased the poll question may be. This is the broadest possible definition of creationist.

You've also mildly cherry picked. You've left out this part of my comments, probably because it's too blazingly obvious to dispute

By your own definitions, more or less, the creationist half of the population would be 16% authoritarian (8/50), whereas the non-creationist half would be 4% authoritarian (2/50). Even by an analysis that goes to rather extreme lengths to define authoritarian very restrictively and define creationist very loosely, you can't get rid of the strong association between the two.

SteveSteve said: Hypothesis: Unknown function for jDNA is due to as yet undiscovered design principles in action that control the creation and development of various higher level functions such as the management of cell differentiation, proliferation speed and quantity, and spatial organization.

NOTE: There is really not much disagreement between me and Eric here.

To have a strong correlation between creationism and authoritarianism, you need not just high levels of match between the groups, you need low levels of match between noncreationism and authoritarianism. And if you step away from the ‘form of government’ definition and just talk about US citizens who would impose their ideology on others through force of law, the number of noncreationists who would do that is high enough that I think your correlation mostly disappears. Not entirely, but mostly.

Unlike creationists, by "later" I don't mean "never", I mean in a few hours.

Again yes, we posters (including you, I would imagine) often point to Gallup as evidence that acceptance of evolution in America is woefully bad.

If its sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander; they can’t be creationists when we want to complain about the levels of creationism in the US, and not creationist when we want to ask about the correlation between creationism and authoritarianism.

harold said: I could come up with a poll question that would cause 70% of the population to "deny evolution". Or one that would cause 70% to choose the pro-science answer.

harold said:

To have a strong correlation between creationism and authoritarianism, you need not just high levels of match between the groups, you need low levels of match between noncreationism and authoritarianism. And if you step away from the ‘form of government’ definition and just talk about US citizens who would impose their ideology on others through force of law, the number of noncreationists who would do that is high enough that I think your correlation mostly disappears. Not entirely, but mostly.

I'll have to reply to this later.

Just Bob said:

harold said: I could come up with a poll question that would cause 70% of the population to "deny evolution". Or one that would cause 70% to choose the pro-science answer.

How about these: A) Do you think God had, or might have had, some hand in the creation of life? B) Do you think living things have changed over time? Vague enough that even most acceptors of science would say yes to A), and most creationists would say yes to B)?

George Breithaupt said: Extremely well stated and as such will be rejected by the citizenry of Ohio, for the most part because it leaves out the part about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the back of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. And NOT, as some heathen religions like the pope, claim on a Brontosaurus. They was extinct by then due to allowing gay marriage and, of course, because, BENGHAZI!!!!!