January 13, 2005

• Well, if he says so...
• "The Cobb County school board is doing more than accommodating religion," Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents, argued during the trial. "They are promoting religious dogma to all students." A-fucking-men. Teach religion in religious class, teach science in science class. And if you don't like it, homeschool your kids. And if you can't afford to homeschool, pool resources with your church buddies. Fer crying out loud, my mother-in-law was taught evolution in the 50s in A CATHOLIC SCHOOL.
• "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Critically considered, eh? The kind of critical consideration that leads one to dismiss evolution as a "theory, not a fact"?
• I don't understand what is wrong with putting "This is just a theory" on the science books. Don't we already put "This is a collection of tall tales" on the bible?
• Everything in science is "just a theory." Gravity is a theory. They are purposely misusing the term to discredit the concept. Theories are based on facts and observations. I really wish the media would explain this simple concept and the whole 'just a theory' meme would die out, but I'm not holding my breath.
• Well, if he says so... Heh, I missed the f8xman...
• If the sticker was followed with another one explaining exactly what the word "theory" means in scientific usage (as opposed to common usage), then I'd have less of a problem with the stickers. And yeah, it'd be nice if the same principle was applied to all books in a school (like these stickers). In fact, I'd be more in favour of that than any other solution. Stickers all round! Teach the little buggers to develop a healthy, questioning approach to life. "This book contains history. History is interpreted from sources which are often biased, and is filtered through the prejudices and preconceptions of our current culture. It is often written by the winners. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." "This book contains French. French is a language, not a way of life, and other languages exist which may describe detailed physical concepts more accurately and are less given to flowery metaphysical flourishes. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and considered en critique." "This book is a novel, which is a work of fiction. Although often containing thinly disguised versions of reality, it may contain over-enthusiatic metaphor and story arcs that tie up far too neatly. This material should be approached with an open mind, critically considered, and should not form the basis for a concept of romantic love."
• To take the opposite tack, evolution is just a theory, and is one that should be considered critically. Alternatives should be discussed, along with a discussion of scientific method, and evolution should be explained as the theory that best fits availible knowledge. There's nothing wrong with these stickers per se, just in the way they're likely to be interpreted.
• This comment is a complete waste of bandwidth, and no a stunning insight into the evolution/creation/ID debate. It should be approached with open contempt, verbally urinated upon, molested with a broomhandle, and left in a ditch to die.
• I wonder if we can stop using theory as a synonym for hunch now.
• "Good to see the winds of change are a-blowin' down in Georgia" --Dennis Miller, before the aliens got him
• "...the school board said it was disappointed by the ruling and will decide whether to appeal." I'm disappointed in the school board. I'm well aware that 'Christian' fundamentalists have long been infiltrating school boards in order to pass their scheming little agendas, but you'd think that at least one or two sensible people had managed to get elected to the board, too.
• fucking rednecks. just as moderate muslims, throughout the world, must retake islam from the tiny, but quite vocal, minority of extremists who have hijacked the religion for their own nefarious purposes... it is of equally vital importance that moderate (read: reasonable) christians denounce the ignorance and intolerance of these reactionary "christian" fundamentalists. mainstream christianity embraced evolutionary creationism years ago... where was the bible belt then? burning galileo at the stake? and why not offer some elective comparative religion credits, anyway? it seems like these dumbfucks have a lot to learn about their own theology.
• This strikes me as a rather inconsistent ruling. "By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said. Smart People: Indeed. And how can the lack of an endorsement of alternative theory, or even a mention of alternative theory, be considered...an endorsement of alternative theory?! The Judge: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community." Smart People: In other words, critical thinking has become synonymous for "not believing". And the plaintiffs are concerned about religious dogma?
• fucking rednecks Wedge wins
• f8x - glad to see you here again. But, yes, the theory of evolution is a theory, as are intelligent design and the "earth is only so many years old depending on how you count the generations as detailed in Genesis." Perhaps if the stickers had admitted that that theories are based on the best available evidence, and that other theories existed, they might have been more acceptable. But, they clearly tried to degegrate the theory of evolution because it is only a theory, as if other theories were "facts", which they clearly are not. The facts are things you can point to. Theories just interpet them. And, yes, the plainiffs should be concerned. The theory of evolution is really neutral about causes. Theories based on religious dogma are not. That's really the point of the decision. And, parents of children in public schools should be concerned about their children being taught dogma which goes beyond the physical facts - there are a lot of takes on how man came to be, but I wouldn't want any child of mine to be taught that any religious theory was the perfect explanation. (Disclaimer - I'm irreligious, and don't think it's important whether some diety created the earth in 7 days or whatever.) It kind of surprises me that you're arguing this. If the prevailing dogma in your school distict was based on Buddhist or Hindu religious beliefs, and you were very Christian, would you want the public schools to present the majority opinion as fact? No? Well the rest of of feel the same way about establishing Christianity as the official doctrine.
• The stickers need to stay because the science book is such a total piece of shit it doesn't say what a theory is nor does it bother to distinguish between micro-evolution (fact because it's a definition) and the I-ain't-no-monkey-fucker type. They should put a Chapter 1: Intro sticker right there next to the theory sticker. And as long as they don't forget the "Don't watch me! I'm a book and not a TV!" stickers, I'll be happy.
• News Alert!!!. They came up with a compromise sticker.
• But, yes, the theory of evolution is a theory, as are intelligent design and the "earth is only so many years old depending on how you count the generations as detailed in Genesis." But not even that's true, path - there simply isn't a logical equivalence between those concepts. For a start, ID is more of criticism of a theory than a theory in its own right - but in any case, it is currently no more than an hypothesis, and it's hard to see how it could ever be more. Ideas based on an analysis of Genesis are conjecture, no more. I see what you're driving at, but really, it gives far too much credit to the ID /creationist crowd. The wiki-fiddlers, as ever, have a nice little run down of the characteristics of a theory here.
• f8- Yes, critical thinking in this instance does mean "not believing in 'intelligent design.'" Why? Well, because intelligent design falls to the same level of proof that solipsism does. It's true that God could have created everything, including fossils, all at once. And He could be using micro-evolution now to achieve goals that we don't understand. But on the same level of possibility, we might all be perfect simulations of people in the Matrix, unable to realize it due to our programming. Both of those are philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. And textbooks should teach children to use the scientific method to examine the world, as that is the method most likely to result in verifiable outcomes. Granted, evolution (and global warming, and other long-term trends) are incredibly hard to verify or experiment with, though computer modelling does help. But they're more reliable than intelligent design or creationism, which are impossible, illogical and take a sort of willful ignorance to believe in. But hey, you've got the floor now- convince me otherwise. Do more than argue against evolution, convince me of the truth of intelligent design.
• it is of equally vital importance that moderate (read: reasonable) christians denounce the ignorance and intolerance of these reactionary "christian" fundamentalists. Such movements are on the rise as we speak. This is a recent (and somewhat colorful) one. FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't know the owner of the site I just linked, but an article written by my wife is linked in the sidebar, which is how I came to discover it. Which makes it a self-link-in-law once removed. I apologize if this offends.
• Horseshit. THIS is it.
• path, js, I'm not arguing against evolution. And I'm not arguing for ID or creationism. Even though I can see compatibility between science and religion, I don't endorse teaching it (or as you say path, "establishing Christianity as the official doctrine" --a hyperbolic reading of the situation, IMO). What I'm arguing is that the ruling here was inconsistent. On the one hand the judge is saying evolution has been demonstrated through science to have some problems, and criticism of it as a theory are valid. But don't offer a red-letter criticism of it as a theory because that's implicit support of an alternative (read: religious) theory. I think what's happened here is that the judge has already set up the teaching of *any* alternative theory that counters evolutionary theory as an endorsement of some religious doctrine, which it clearly is NOT!
• Of course, refutation of a scientific theory does not necessarily equal forwarding a religious doctrine per se. But in this case, the judge is being pragmatic. The only major theories contradicting evolution in the US are religious, the majority of which being Christian. The judge knows this, as do you and I and the citizens of Georgia, and believes that allowing this will be read as government endorsement of a religious belief. There are no stickers pointing out the limitations of relativity theory or quantum theory, though there are problems with both of those. Same with dozens of other scientific theories. The reason is that none of these theories threaten Biblical literalists. People with alternative *scientific* theories don't print stickers. They present those theories to their respective disciplines, bolster them with hard evidence, and if they are accepted, then those theories make it into the textbooks. That's how it's supposed to work. Not by putting a sticker on the book. Another argument would be to point out that there would be at least an equally negative reaction if the state were putting scientific disclaimers in all Bibles distributed there.
• Then again, Bibles aren't taught in school. And while those other theories do have problems, none have major alternatives either. ID, creationism, whatever you want to call it, is and does have valid scientific support behind it; there's no reason why the two competing theories can't be given equal treatment under law. I'm not saying preach religion, but at least entertain the reality that the ID/creationism approach has evolution cornered on many issues. Hell, if the Hindu or Buddhist philosophies behind the origins of the universe/world/human beings had scientific credence, I wouldn't mind learning about it in school. But then again, I'm not a parent, I'm not anti-religious (also not anti-irreligious), and I don't mind hearing about theories that compete with the ones I believe in.
• Then again, Bibles aren't taught in school. Precisely the point. Teaching creationism in public schools is the same thing as teaching the Bible in public schools, whether we put a toned-down, generic "ID" filter on it or not. It's not tantamount to teaching the Bible, it's not sort of like teaching the Bible, it *is* teaching the Bible. And if we're going to violate separation of church and state in that direction, then the doctrines of fairness and equal time to competing theories mandate that we violate it in the other direction as well: namely, requiring the addition of alternative, secular inserts into all religious texts distributed in the state. If ID wants to gain scientific creedence, it's going to have to fight for it the hard way. The same way that evolutionary theory gained scientific creedence. Evolutionary theory didn't use stickers to get where it is. It used evidence and rigor to convince scientists of its truth. As was pointed out above, the teaching of Hindu/Buddhist/Christian/whatever creation ideas is the domain of a philosophy or religious studies class, not a science class.
• those other theories do have problems, none have major alternatives either. ID, creationism, whatever you want to call it, is and does have valid scientific support behind it But there's the thing - that's completely the wrong way round. Relativity, Newtonian physics, quantum physics do have alternatives (each other, most of the time), and I don't think many physicists working today would be shocked if we came back in a century to find that they'd been - at least partially - superceded by a more complete, integrated theory of physics. There's other parts of science taught in schools which could be even more problematic - certain elements of medical biology, for example, are in constant flux. But evolution simply doesn't have a scientific alternative, and the disagreements within the field revolve around details that are staggeringly small when compared to many other branches of science. Anybody who tells you that there is scientific evidence against the neo-Darwinian synthesis is misleading you, plain and simple. Not only is there not widespread scientific disagreement about the model (compared, say, to certain parts of paleoanthropology, in which there are clear disagreements over certain issues which it would be dishonest to ignore); nor is there any reputable disagreement held by a small minority (as you could make a case for in, say, climatology); there is simply no scientific counterpoint to evolution by natural selection at all. (There's a difference between the biological and the physical problems, as well. In physics, the observed facts and the nature of events are in most cases uncontroversial, it's the underlying principles which are problematic. In biology, it's more often that the unifying principles are well known, but interpretation of the observable details differs. If that makes sense.) I'm trying to think of an analogy - the best one I've come up with so far is the proposition that Illuminati/shadow government ideas should be required to be covered in history or politics classes as an alternative to standard reading of world events. (As an internally consistent conjecture with real explanatory power, but lacking either genuine evidence or falsifiability.) But I feel that analogy is a little unfair, and a bit too vague, so I don't really stand by it.
• "ID, creationism, whatever you want to call it, is and does have valid scientific support behind it...." Oh, please identify any respected scientist who finds much truth in intelligent design who hasn't had his or her theories debunked.
• ID, creationism, whatever you want to call it, is and does have valid scientific support behind it; Proof, plzkthxbi. Difficulty: No doubleposts. there's no reason why the two competing theories can't be given equal treatment under law Oh yes there is. ID is not valid scientific theory and has no falsability. It stops at the second step of Scientific Method and says, "Well, since we can't figure it out, it's gotta be a creator."
• hey shinything - the Catholic church actually accepts evolution. Now if we could just get them to open their mind on birth control we'd be making some real progress...
• F8- The Bible is taught in schools. In high school, I took Bible Lit as an elective. It was taught by a lesbian athiestic cultural Jew. One of the best classes I had in public school. You might have noticed above that I also disagree with this decision. The answer when faced with competing ideas isn't to eliminate the one that, while attractive, is false. The answer is to explain why it is false, and more to the point, why it is not a valid way of dealing with a scientific viewpoint. A brief lesson on Galileo would probably be instructive for the students. But I'm of the opinion that one of the best things that liberals could do would be encouraging the teaching of the Bible as literature and culture for students. Once you've actually read the thing, it's a lot harder to take it seriously as one cohesive document. And thinking critically about the Bible may be the best thing for children across this country.
• Sorry, been away all weekend without interwebs access. flashboy: I hadn't looked at it that way. js: Honestly, I had no idea the Bible was taught in high school. It certainly wasn't taught in mine, and none that I know of around where I live teach it. Hell, where I went for undergrad barely had a religious studies program, and its Bible-related classes were pretty limited. shawnj: I have my own concerns with the Scientific Method, but that could fill another thread... The antipathy with which creationism is received is distressing on a number of levels. It was creationism, and a Judeo-Christian worldview that became the defacto foundation for Western Science as we now know it. In fact, science, as first perceived by the learned in Europe, was an attempt to explain the supernatural. This drove science for over 1700 years. I shudder to think of the credence we give to what we believe we know is true today, congratulating ourselves on our ever growing store of knowledge. If science has taught us anything, it's that everything we knew yesterday is replaced by something else today. Given that, I guess I just see this whole debate as a screen for the real issue of the inadequacies of theoretical science. Surely, no one here believes science holds all the answers? A divorcing of ourselves from theories or ideas that run counter to current trends may be more harmful than at least listening to them, if not teaching them as alternative courses of possibility. Even if I believed in evolution, which I don't, I would prefer to have both evolution and creationism in hand to examine, disassemble, compare, and test. Instead, evolution has been given a veritable "shove through the door" by the twin declarations of "Separation of church and state" and "God is dead. Reason has killed Him." The result is a deeply faulty science that is built upon straw disguised as brick. Thus we have scientists who nonetheless declare it the "most firm" fact of science in history. And I've gone beyond what I intended to say here; it probably sounds like a journey far beyond common sense and into the realm of denial and fantasy dreamed by a kooky conservative. So it's probably best if I bow out here and now.
• I'm sorry, f8xy. Creationism is the worst kind of rubbish "science". It's in fact more like a business than a science. Anyway, here's cheers and all the best.
• MonkeyFilter: taught by a lesbian athiestic cultural Jew