Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[ldsoftwaresteve]

We are taxed and finance public schools because it is the best interest of society in general to have an educated populous. That does not make the schools beholden to what ever propaganda that those taxed individuals chose to believe. The goal of education is to teach individuals how to be critical thinkers, and unfortunately some where along the way people tried use it as an indoctrination tool for religious dogma.

Hmm. You claim that with such certainty. So, ideas counter to what you deem to be correct are ...'propaganda that those taxed individuals chose to believe'.

 

And who will be accountable if your ideas are wrong? That is really the issue here. Will you be? Will anyone be?

 

Who was held accountable for the careers and lives that were ruined because of the false belief that man's age was about 30k years? That was a certain theory too. People who discovered hard proof to the contrary were ruined and persecuted and black listed. Nobody was held accountable for those attrocities. Just another 'oops' in a long string of 'oopses'. Will we just say, 'oops. Tough titty.' again if evolution turns out to be wrong?

 

I would agree with you 100% if you were paying for all of it yourself, but you aren't. The folks that burned Giordano Bruno at the stake were just as certain that they were right.

 

I wish I was as certain as you. Perhaps that feeling is what religious people feel.

[modest]

Just another 'oops' in a long string of 'oopses'. Will we just say, 'oops. Tough titty.' again if evolution turns out to be wrong?

 

Do you have a theory in mind that might be an alternative to evolution?

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Hmm. You claim that with such certainty. So, ideas counter to what you deem to be correct are ...'propaganda that those taxed individuals chose to believe'.

 

And who will be accountable if your ideas are wrong? That is really the issue here. Will you be? Will anyone be?

 

Who was held accountable for the careers and lives that were ruined because of the false belief that man's age was about 30k years? That was a certain theory too. People who discovered hard proof to the contrary were ruined and persecuted and black listed. Nobody was held accountable for those attrocities. Just another 'oops' in a long string of 'oopses'. Will we just say, 'oops. Tough titty.' again if evolution turns out to be wrong?

 

I would agree with you 100% if you were paying for all of it yourself, but you aren't. The folks that burned Giordano Bruno at the stake were just as certain that they were right.

 

I wish I was as certain as you. Perhaps that feeling is what religious people feel.

 

One of the most basic problems of our society is that if you look long enough, no matter how stupid or close minded you ideas are, you will find someone who is willing to tell you what you want to believe as the truth. If you believe that global warming is BS you can find someone who is willing to tell you you are correct. If you believe that homosexuals should be denigrated and oppressed then you will find someone who will tell you this is true. If you don't like people that are different from you you will find someone who is willing to tell you that you are justified in this belief. that doesn't make any of these things true. I personally am put on alert when ever i start to hear someone tell me what i want to hear. that is the first thing to look for if to see if for someone is lying to you. Yes science changes, that is one of the things that makes science so powerful. It changes as new evidence comes into view, does the change always come easily, sadly no, but in ID and creationism circles change it's self is the enemy. In science change is what makes science advance. human egos do get in the way sometimes but that just makes sure the silliness cannot come in and change things with out proof. When the idea of drifting continents came around (it was first thought of in about 1596) the was no mechanism to allow this to happen. Lots of changes had to come about before the idea could get support and rightly so. proposing something that has no mechanism to allow it to happen is not a good idea and almost always fails. that is why ID isn't simply welcomed as a great alternative to evolution. there is no mechanism to allow for ID, No trace of a designer, evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology all have mechanisms that allow for the ideas behind them to work. No that doesn't make them necessarily true but it does give them weight that things like ID and creationism simply do not have. If you want to teach creationism and ID do it in the church. Personally I think religion should keep to moral issues and helping people save their souls and stay out of things they have no knowledge of and no evidence for. Every time religion has tired to decide what was real and what was not they have failed from the idea that the earth is the center of the solar system to the idea that there are no other planets but the earth (the brunelli guy you talked of was burned by the church not science) the earth has gone from be the center of everything to being just a another small planet around a yellow dwarf star in the out skirts of medium size galaxy somewhere in the universe. Religion has kicked and screamed "Not True!" all the way but they are always proved false. Until ID shows some real evidence it to will be just another attempt by religion to claim knowledge they do not have. BTW who besides God is considered the Intelligence in ID? Aliens?

[freeztar]

Steve,

 

It seems that your overlying issue with science is one of open vs. closed mindedness. I invite you to read this thread on the issue:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/15040-science-close-minded.html

[ldsoftwaresteve]

By the way ldsoftwaresteve, you are the one who believes what he wants to believe, I simply follow the evidence. If the evidence pointed toward some outside intelligence that's where i would go but it doesn't and no amount of belief on your and anyone else part will make it other wise with out real world evidence. why do the need for real evidence frighten you so much? Could it be because your belief system cannot hold up to real world evidence? can you give any real world evidence for ID? the would be a million times more effective than simply whining that ID doesn't get any respect.

Please show me where I said I believed in God. And show me where I said that the universe was created by an intelligence. I never did. What I said was that the people who believe in intelligent design should have their wishes respected too. They're paying the bill along with the people who don't believe in ID.

This thread is talking about teaching evolution in Public Schools. I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with not finding and teaching the good points of intelligent design, if there are any.

I also think that life will exist where it can and the evidence seems to be almost everywhere we look. Perhaps the real issue between ID and evolution is the issue of chance. I honestly don't know if it is chance or it is cause and effect. And neither do you.

If I am willing to consider all of the evidence of 'evolution' and then also any good points made by 'ID', does that mean that I'm stupid or closed minded? I'm willing to consider both of them.

I will say this though. If I were going to put my kids in public schools, I'd want them to be taught all major theories, regardless of their 'scientific' efficacy. And then I'd want them to tell me what they thought was correct and why. But that is exactly why I pulled my kids out of public school. That isn't what they do there.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Steve,

 

It seems that your overlying issue with science is one of open vs. closed mindedness. I invite you to read this thread on the issue:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/15040-science-close-minded.html

Thank you. I think to some extent it is.

And when we talk about public schools we're talking about our children and still developing world views. If they are forced to be there (and they are) and the parents and all of us are forced to pay for it (and we are), then content should reflect all of the beliefs systems in use whether or not I agree with them or not. At the same time though critical thinking, skepticism and cynicism should be valid subjects as well. They need to think for themselves and not just parot what they are told is 'true'.

[InfiniteNow]

Steve,

 

You are a bright guy, and you and I have been friends here for quite some time. I get the sense that you are arguing a philosophical principle, and you're getting pummelled because you've chosen to do it in the context of ID.

 

As I understand your points, we need to be cautious to teach our kids how to think, not what to think.

 

You are concerned that evolution is being presented as dogma, and that people may not examine it critically for faults, they may not try to find something better, they may just accept it since it's presented as "true."

 

Is this accurate so far?

 

 

The issue with this particular topic is that evolution is the single best supported scientific theory EVER put forth in the history of human existence. It is so profound, so simple, and applies to so many things.

 

But despite all of that, we would all abandon it in a heartbeat if evidence came forward which proved it wrong. We would say, "whoops... amazing how we missed that." However, for over 150 years now, evolution has withstood every test thrown at it. It has itself evolved, and become more robust, explaining things that were completely unconceivable at the time of its inception.

 

Intelligent Design, however, does not. They DID make some predictions, and those were proven wrong. We don't want to teach our kids things which aren't true. Truth is not a democracy. Science focusses on reality, and if someones idea is not a part of the reality under study, then it is rejected.

 

I am abundantly confident that you are arguing a deeper principle here... that we should teach people how to examine everything, and to think critically, and not to just accept whatever is spoon fed to them by the teacher.

 

I seriously doubt that anyone here will disagree with that sentiment.

 

However, ID is just plain wrong, and it's based on religious nonsense. It should not be taught as science, because it's not science. You may as well be teaching kids the stork theory of childbirth in biology or astrology in astrophysics. What about teaching your kids that they have to sacrifice a goat at every full moon to avoid illness, instead of just teaching them germ theory and basic sanitation? These are not science, that's why. These have been shown false, and ID has failed every time it's been tested, and it's not a valid representation of the reality in which we exist. It is repackaged religious creationism, and it has no place in my kid's classroom. I'd be outraged if some teacher tried to teach this religious bunk to my kids, and for good reason.

 

It's not true. It doesn't represent reality, and that's why it's not taught. Evolution, however, has performed marvelously in the face of every challenge thrown its way, but even with that strength, if a better theory came along, it too would be rejected.

[REASON]

I will say this though. If I were going to put my kids in public schools, I'd want them to be taught all major theories, regardless of their 'scientific' efficacy. And then I'd want them to tell me what they thought was correct and why. But that is exactly why I pulled my kids out of public school. That isn't what they do there.

 

There isn't enough time in a science class to devote to every pseudoscientific theory out there. Do those who espouse Astrology deserve a platform in a science classroom? Do those who espouse Numerology deserve a platform? How about Tarot Card or Palm Reading. Maybe there should be a class that teaches every religion so there is equity and fairness and every taxpayer will be served. I'm sure that would go over great. Can you envision your child at school learning about how to properly face Mecca when bowing to Allah?

 

We cannot expect as individual citizens, that the public schools will develop their curriculum around our individual desires. We have to rely on those who are experts in education to establish the best use of the limited time available to teach our children what is most valuable to their education. If people want their kids to learn about Creationism, then they can put their kids in parochial school.

 

Creationism, in any form, is not science. That is why it does not belong in a science classroom. It is at best philosophy. Let it be taught in an elective philosophy class. Disguising it as some sort of scientific theory in an effort to undermine legitimate science and create confusion in the minds of children as to what the scientific community actually thinks is preposterous.

 

Let ID, or any other form of Creationism, run the gauntlet of scientific analysis and peer review. If it can pass muster, than it can qualify for inclusion in a public school science curriculum. If not, than it shall continue to be relegated to the private schools that would choose to distort legitimate science in favor of religious dogmatism.

[CraigD]

This thread is talking about teaching evolution in Public Schools. I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with not finding and teaching the good points of intelligent design, if there are any.

The final condition in Steve’s statement is, I think, critical. Objections to the teaching of ID in non-religious schools by students, parents, teachers, scientists, and civil liberty activists are based on the conclusion that there are not any good points of intelligent design.

 

This conclusion is due mostly, I think, to a review of the origin of the terms and writings of the leading proponents of the ID movement, which revealed that the representation of ID as a scientific theory was an intentional deception, part of a strategy put forth in a document titled “The Wedge”, intended:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

This review of evidence received its greatest attention, I think, in the research leading up to, proceeding, and conclusion of the 2005 US District Court of Pennsylvania case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

 

I personally was taken in for a time by this strategy. In particular, I read several papers by and about William Dembski describing promising mathematical work on an idea he termed “specified complexity”, only to discover that the claimed work was practically non-existent, and Dembski’s motives not those of a mathematician, but of a zealot who would engage in intentional deception to promote acceptance of his religious beliefs. I suspect that many others like me wasted effort attempting to understand ideas that were never intended to be understood, only to undermine public acceptance and respect for math and science.

 

In defense of proponents of ID, they appear to truly believe that the transformation of the US and the world from a secular to a devout religious culture is for the good of humankind. However, I cannot support the promotion of religion through an intentional campaign of deception, and thus agree with the plaintiffs and the decision of the court in Kitzmiller v. Dover that public schools should not be permitted to promote the goals of the ID movement.

[Galapagos]

The final condition in Steve’s statement is, I think, critical. Objections to the teaching of ID in non-religious schools by students, parents, teachers, scientists, and civil liberty activists are based on the conclusion that there are not any good points of intelligent design.

 

This conclusion is due mostly, I think, to a review of the origin of the terms and writings of the leading proponents of the ID movement, which revealed that the representation of ID as a scientific theory was an intentional deception, part of a strategy put forth in a document titled “The Wedge”, intended:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

 

I think you summed up most of my personal objections pretty well above. "Teaching The Controversy" of ID is just a very, very clever way of sneaking creationism into schools. Between The Wedge Strategy and the court rulings, I don't think any reasonable person should be found supporting it.

 

I think it is also relevant to note that the founder of ID and author of The Wedge Document,

Phillip E. Johnson

is also an AIDS denier

; someone who doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV. It would be absolutely absurd to suggest that either of these fringe ideas be taught to children.

 

edit- I'd also like to re-post this article by

Dan Dennett

titled "Show Me The Science" about ID.. I've posted it before, but it's just so good, I think everyone should read it:

 

Edge: SHOW ME THE SCIENCE by Daniel C. Dennett

 

PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."

 

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done....

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I would like to thank my friends for coming to my aid because they understand that I'm not exactly talking about what some of my pummelers think I'm talking about.

 

My point of view comes from thinking that people will make the correct choices provided they are aware of their options and they haven't been lied to. I especially like CraigD's response where he showed the fraudulent behavior of one of I.D.'s defenders. I don't like liars of any stripe.

 

Everyone seems to take for granted the fundamental correctness of the Public School system. I am not one of this group of people, however.

 

The blatant disregard for the wishes of people who have different worldviews is one of the reasons that public education, as discussed in this thread, is flawed. If the folks whose ideas were not being represented in the school system had the option of not paying for the schools, then I'd have zero problem with teaching evolution as the one and only cause of speciation, etc. But nobody gets to opt out. If someone is getting screwed, something is wrong - or am I the only one that sees that?

 

Why?

 

Does anyone remember the cry, 'No taxation without representation!'?

 

If truth is gained by empirical evidence, where is the empirical evidence that shows Public Education isn't fundamentally flawed? Where is the evidence that says it's correct?

 

Or is this one of those areas where there isn't any truth and we just go along with what the omniscient experts say is good for us? (which is the tone that some of my 'pummelers' have taken with me. Thanks by the way. )

 

And the statement that one person made about the people who don't want their kids taught evolution just send them to a religious school - would be valid, if they could take the taxes they paid for 'public education' and put it toward the cost of that schooling. But they don't get to do that. Instead, they get screwed.

 

Perhaps the correct solution would be to teach no theory related to speciation. Just point the kids to a list of all related theories and tell them to go determine what they think is right.

 

But, and this is another major problem I have with public education, our kids are taught what to think, not how to think. And this whole thread is a perfect example of that.

[InfiniteNow]

The blatant disregard for the wishes of people who have different worldviews is one of the reasons that public education, as discussed in this thread, is flawed.

I disagree. Truth and reality is not a democracy. It's not about what people believe, it's about how nature behaves, and THAT's what I want taught.

 

I agree that we need to improve our school systems, no disagreement there. However, one of the best ways we can do this is to stop listening to what people who have zero training on the subjects want taught, to throw out the silly religious nonsense and lies, and focus on reality.

 

As you can probably see, I'm heavily biased toward science.

 

You don't get to democratize reality, and truth is not decided by how many people believe in something.

 

Again, we don't teach the stork theory of childbirth, so why is this any different? (hint: it's not!)

 

 

I appreciate your concerns about tax dollars and people having a say in how they get spent, but that's a completely separate issue. Right now, those dollars are being spent to pay teachers and to buy books, and I want those teachers accurately representing reality, and those books to be based on evidence and falsifiable predictions.

 

 

There is a site I like which handles issues such as this, and they do a far better job of providing information and perspective than I can. Check it out, spend some time clicking through the pages:

 

About National Center for Science Education

Creationism versus Evolution - Background

 

 

Perhaps the correct solution would be to teach no theory related to speciation. Just point the kids to a list of all related theories and tell them to go determine what they think is right.

Absolutely no friggin way! Then the religiots would win. I'm not willing to dumb down the truth because it conflicts with some morons personal belief system. Nature/reality care not what we do or do not believe.

 

I think I summed this up better way back at post #34 of this thread. I'll repeat that here:

 

 

 

 

Science is not a democracy. It's not about having multiple views, it's about having the most accurate one. Every theory is given a chance, and it is discarded once it's proved it's lack of worth.

 

Creationists have been given every opportunity to support their belief scientifically, and they have failed each time.

 

It's like they're bragging about being an amazing soccer player, who should have every right to be on the field with the champs, but each time you put them in front of the net, they miss the goal.

 

Most of us have just been smart enough to recognize that they'll never hit the goal, and we've chosen instead to spend our time watching the folks who actually know how to play.

 

 

Also, Steve, I don't think most kids yet have the working knowledge or mental capacity to separate the wheat from the chaffe all by themselves. At some point, we really do need to designate an expert in the field to point them in the right direction. If we show them a bunch of garbage theories, too many of them will think they are right because they align with the wishful thinking they've been taught since being indoctrinated to their parents religion.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

But for all the science and empiricism backing up Evolution, you still accept public education financed by property taxes and income taxes as a valid institution without having a valid theoretical base to it. There is, after all, a reason that it sucks so bad and it doesn't have anything to do with Evolution or I.D.

 

I happen to think that everyone should have a PC. I think the government should make and distribute PCs to everyone. Free. Well, they'll build them with tax dollars and then distribute them for free. But everyone should have one whether or not they use it.

 

Of course, the quality might go down just a tad. Oh well.

[CraigD]

The blatant disregard for the wishes of people who have different worldviews is one of the reasons that public education, as discussed in this thread, is flawed. If the folks whose ideas were not being represented in the school system had the option of not paying for the schools, then I'd have zero problem with teaching evolution as the one and only cause of speciation, etc. But nobody gets to opt out. If someone is getting screwed, something is wrong - or am I the only one that sees that?

I believe Steve misunderstands US constitutional and public law.

 

To the best of my knowledge, it contains no provision prohibiting “getting screwed” – which I gather in this context means being required ones children to study curriculum offensive to one. The Constitution assures that legislatures and other branches of government cannot do certain things to individuals, such as force us to quarter troops, or imprison or execute us without “due process of law”, express our views (“freedom of speech, or of the press”), or engage or not engage in any particular religious ritual (“the free exercise [of religion]”). Beyond a fairly small but categorically broad lists “privileges and immunities”, Congress and the legislatures of the various states can place many sorts of requirements on us, including, that we attend school in which we are exposed to material offensive to a few or many, paid for with taxes collected from the offended and un-offended alike, so long as it is neither religious (nor, by broader principle of common law, illegal). The only remedy we have against such offense is the political process. We can vote for new legislators (and, where elected rather than appointed, school board members) to repeal the laws enacted and change the policies subjecting students to these offenses. If desired, we can even elect legislators who will legally end public education altogether, leaving education entirely to private individuals, as was the case in the US prior to around 1850.

Does anyone remember the cry, 'No taxation without representation!'?

With the exception of educational resources provided by the federal government (eg: “No Child Left Behind”) to US citizens of US districts and possessions (eg: The District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands), US citizens vote for the state and federal representatives that determine our taxes and the policies of our public schools. Therefore, I don’t believe this cry applies to the situation we’re discussing.

 

But, and this is another major problem I have with public education, our kids are taught what to think, not how to think. And this whole thread is a perfect example of that.

This objection illustrates, I believe, a common misconception about US law. The most fundamental US law – the Constitution - in no way guarantees all Americans a good public education, nor even any public education.

 

That public education is provided and required is due to the actions of our elected legislatures and school boards. Were a majority of legislators and a sympathetic executive (governor on the state level, the President on the federal), or a large majority of legislators supporting such a policy to be elected, public education could simply be ended, with or without a corresponding reduction in taxes, and, as was the case prior to about 1850, individuals or collections of individuals or local government be entirely responsible for their and their children and neighbors’ private educations.

 

An interesting and, I think, encouraging postscript to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case is that 8 of the 9 members of the Dover school board were defeated by candidates with stated positions opposing the teaching of ID in the 11/8/2005 election following end of the trial and preceding the decision of the case. Another is that, despite accusations of “left wing” bias from such pundits as television show host Bill O’Reilly, the judge in the case, John Jones is a declared Republican, appointed by Republican President George W Bush. It appears that even self-defined religious social conservatives object to the teaching of Intelligent Design in public school.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD:

This objection illustrates, I believe, a common misconception about US law. The most fundamental US law – the Constitution - in no way guarantees all Americans a good public education, nor even any public education.

Your erudition amazes me Craig. Honestly.

 

But we are equating the U.S. Constitution to truth, aren't we?

 

Incidentally, I would probably not send my children to a school which taught I.D. as the cause of the evolution of species. Just so you know.

 

My objection to this thread is it accepts as truth or fact that Public Education is valid - and the only proof of that is the fact that a voting process created it. So, am I to accept it as truth because of the fact that enough people voted for it?

 

It seems amazing to me that on the one hand all of you argue for 'Evolution' based upon the preponderance of evidence proving it, while on the other you accept the idea of Public Education based upon a vote. With nothing to back it up except a majority at the time the vote was taken.

 

But then again, human action is outside the bounds of truth I guess. Is that what we're saying here?

 

Let me go further with this, please. Science has abdicated the humanities to religion because we believe we cannot objectively measure such things as goodness or evil. Not having a way to do that 'empirically', we just tossed up our hands and said, 'Here Religion. You take it. It's too f@#king hard for us to figure out."

 

And then, when a band of religious f#$king fanatics declares war on another band of fanatics, you sit back and say how bad religion is. And please understand that I agree with that. It is bad. But the real crime was when 'science' abdicated the humanities.

 

You scientists are bitching about something you caused.

[Moontanman]

Real science takes another hit. Myth has won yet again!

 

New legal threat to school science in the US - opinion - 09 July 2008 - New Scientist

[Nitack]

Real science takes another hit. Myth has won yet again!

 

New legal threat to school science in the US - opinion - 09 July 2008 - New Scientist

 

Wow... this is scary crap. Rather than mandate that ID must be taught, they simply give teachers the ability to teach it alternative theories to evolution.

 

I am sure it will still be struck down the moment a teacher tries to teach it and a kid's parents sue though. In a public school a teacher is an extension of the government. It will violate the establishment clause and die another fiery death.

 

How much money has to be wasted fighting the Evangelists attempts to use classrooms as a vehicle for indoctrinating people? Can I sue the Discovery Institute for damages to the education of my children because of all the public funds that had to be used to fight their pseudoscience?

 

STOP PUSHING YOUR FALSE GOD ON ME! "Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here. "