Missouri Anti-Evolution Bill

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

But what is a right-minded science teacher to do if he or she is required by law to teach ID as a competing theory to evolution?

---

Simply don't. Point out that ID is connected to religious doctrine, not science, and thus will not be discussed in this classroom. This is not discrimination against ID as you don't discuss the conjugation of Spanish verbs in biology class, either. Linguistics isn't science and thus will not be discussed in this classroom.Would you rather a teacher tell a student directly that his religious view of the world is wrong? We already have the stupid rap from the Chick tracts and the ACLJ that teachers are doing this. We don't need to prove them right. And it's amazingly rude and inappropriate to do so.Instead, we simply teach them the facts as we understand them and that means evolution.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain writes me:

quote:

---

It's a common enough opinion that the oil companies have suppressed automobile engines that get 100 miles to the gallon in order to maintain their oil profits.

---

True, but that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't seriously threaten the teaching of science. You seem to be of the opinion that creationism and ID aren't serious threats either. I hope you're right.You're making an excellent case for having logic classes at the high school level, btw, something I certainly wouldn't oppose.

quote:

---

And he's not a stupid person, but how do you get past that?

---

I don't know, but that's what we've got to deal with. One way or another, we've got to teach kids to think critically. Obviously, we haven't been doing a very good job of it, which would suggest that something needs to change.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Rrhain asks me:

quote:

---

Would you rather a teacher tell a student directly that his religious view of the world is wrong?

---

No, I wouldn't. I was thinking merely of shooting down the ID theory in science class. I conceded this point to you earlier. However, I think it is somewhat idealistic to expect every science teacher to ignore the law, however wrong that law might be. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I doubt there are many Scopes around these days who would be willing to go to jail standing up for what's right. I think the vast majority of teachers are probably going to obey these laws.

quote:

---

Instead, we simply teach them the facts as we understand them and that means evolution.

---

I'm with you, so long as we can have those logic classes to teach critical thinking. I really think that's got to be done somewhere.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's a common enough opinion that the oil companies have suppressed automobile engines that get 100 miles to the gallon in order to maintain their oil profits.

---

​

True, but that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't seriously threaten the teaching of science.

---

Oh, really? The physics of efficiency don't have anything to say as to whether or not such an idea is even rational to begin with let alone ridiculous from a "conspiracy" point of view? Do you really think that someone who understands the nature of scientific inquiry would be likely to consider a "conspiracy" regarding any amazing breakthrough? The problem is not that it is being kept quiet. The problem would be how could you possibly keep something like that quiet? We're talking practically free energy! We're talking Nobel Prize!

quote:

---

You're making an excellent case for having logic classes at the high school level, btw, something I certainly wouldn't oppose.

---

No, no! BEFORE high school. You need to learn this in junior high and sixth grade. You need to start learning this in elementary school. Heck, even Sesame Street caught onto this. I will never forget how amazed and impressed I was at the Children's Television Workshop when they had a segment where Ernie had a "little game" he was going to play with Cookie Monster. He had a box. Sticking out of a slot in the box was a plank. There was a cookie on the end of the plank in the box. If you pushed down on the plank, it would rise up and put the cookie right near a hole in the top of the box. But, the hole in the roof was too far away from where the plank stuck out for you to hold it down with one hand and get the cookie. There was, however, a brick near the box.You can see where this is going. The game was that Cookie could have the cookie if he could get it out of the box. And sure enough, Cookie first tried by simply reaching through the hole in the top of the box, but he couldn't reach. Then he figured out that pushing the plank down put the cookie near the hole and he tried getting there as fast as he could, but he couldn't get there fast enough to reach it.And then, that wonderful Sesame Street word appeared: Cooperation. Oh, Ernie! Could you hold the plank down? No, Cookie. You have to do this on your own. Hmmm...Cookie then sees the brick, figures out that he needs to put the brick on the plank to keep it down, and then he gets the cookie.That's the sort of thing we need to teach our children from a very early age. As they get older, the "games" we make them play become more and more complex until by the time they start dealing with junior and senior high, they're ready for the deep analysis of biology and chemistry and physics. The first chem lab I had in both high school and college was the five solutions lab (first lab has all the bottles labeled and you create a table of how each one reacts with each other one...precipitate, smell of sulfur or ammonia, etc. Second lab has the bottles unlabeled and you use the data you acquired before to determine what each bottle contains.) That's a lab on procedure, not chemistry. It should have been done long before you got to such a level. You should be expected to know that stuff already by the time you are 17. It isn't that hard.But does the fact that we have failed our students miserably mean we have to compound the problem by giving credence to things that have no reason to even be considered? It isn't like we make students come up with physical models of the Ptolemaic solar system in order to knock them down. That would be a waste of time.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

I doubt there are many Scopes around these days who would be willing to go to jail standing up for what's right. I think the vast majority of teachers are probably going to obey these laws.

---

Not at all. There are plenty who would. In the many discussions in school boards regarding this, teacher after teacher has stood up to say that they could not, in good conscience, teach creationism in any form as actual science and would have to disobey the law.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Scopes, the would be hero who in effect fought to teach eugenics to children, and lost.What about teaching people selfish gene theory, with associated evolutionary psychology? I think you should be more worried about that, than teaching intelligent design. A theory which at least correctly establishes decision at the point of creation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

Not at all. There are plenty who would. In the many discussions in school boards regarding this, teacher after teacher has stood up to say that they could not, in good conscience, teach creationism in any form as actual science and would have to disobey the law.

---

If that's true I'm delighted to stand corrected.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

[breaking my rule about Syamsu...]Syamsu responds to berberry:

quote:

---

Scopes, the would be hero who in effect fought to teach eugenics to children, and lost.

---

That was the goal. The point was not to have the law overturned at the local level since that would only set a local precedent. It was to get it overturned at a federal level so that it would have a national significance.And that's exactly what happened. It was overturned on appeal.

quote:

---

What about teaching people selfish gene theory

---

What makes you think it's a bona fide scientific theory? You are confusing colloquial and scientific definitions. It's an interesting hypothesis that needs a lot more work before it rises to the level of a true theory.And you are confusing colloquial and scientific definitions of "decision," too.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain writes me:

quote:

---

The physics of efficiency don't have anything to say as to whether or not such an idea is even rational to begin with let alone ridiculous from a "conspiracy" point of view?

---

Yes, of course it would. But as you say, people believe it. They believe there is a conspiracy among automakers to supress this technology. The idea stands quite apart from whether or not such a technology would win a Nobel prize, which, again, of course it would.I remember first hearing of this conspiracy theory when I was about 12, during the Arab oil embargo of the early 70s. I can still remember having a conversation with my mother about it. Oddly enough (or maybe not), she's a mathematician like you and I seem to get caught up in the same sorts of arguments with her that I do with you.

quote:

---

But does the fact that we have failed our students miserably mean we have to compound the problem by giving credence to things that have no reason to even be considered?

---

Ideally, no. But the system we have today doesn't seem to be ideal. I'm not saying that the idea of shooting down ID in science classrooms is the best solution, but it's better than teaching ID without any challenge. Of course it's best if we teach critical thinking, but Sesame Street notwithstanding I'm not convinced that we're doing a very good job of that.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

You are mistaken, sort of. The conviction was overturned on appeal on a technicality, but the law was upheld, until the 1960's when it was challenged again, and overturned.What scientic definition of decison? You must be reffering to intelligent design science, since it is all but absent in evolutionary science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

How ironic.It sounds like you think we should teach students things that make them feel good about themselves. Do you really expect people that learn the selfish gene theory to go out and say, "Hey my genes are selfish so I should be too"? That is not how we as a society would want people to act toward one another, and learning how our genetic material works is not going to change that.It would be unethical to teach someone something just to get them to act a certain way. From your post it seems you want people to be taught propoganda instead of truth. If you have so much faith in the establishment of decision you should at least have the respect that students who are taught things will at least use their knowledge in productive ways. The purpose of teaching is not so the student believes in what they are being taught, but for them to understand what they are being taugh.

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

No I'm just saying you should be more worried about the ideological content on the evolutionist side, rather than on the creationist side. As with eugenics, the ideology on the evolutionist side is much more menacing than anything creationism ever put forward, you should be very worried about it. The idea that things like the selfish gene theory, and associate evolutionary psychology, would somehow automatically be dissolved by a "self-correcting" science, misses the point that science so becomes a vehicle for evil, and science can hardly correct evil.It would certainly be very useful to students, to learn about the creation of things from the point of view from where they are decided. A tremendous gain in knowledge. Intelligent design in it's principles presents much the value of the historical view, of unique decisions, in stead of the generalised view of evolutionists, of laws and forces. I don't see the attached ideology of reference to God as owner of that decision as very menacing. I believe you are contorting to see any real menace in it, while the menace is much apparent on the evolutionist side."In general the chinese are not as attractive as caucasians." This is something you might read in evolutionary psychology as an objective statement, although they also say that this fact may change according to changes in the conditions on which the fact is based. See my point about menace being on the evolutionist side?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I really hope it is not the purpose of schools to indoctrinate certain ideologies into the young. You cannot teach children how to treat other human beings, or that their actions have consequences toward other people. Empathy cannot be taught, only experienced.That is why children should be taught scientific truths so they can understand the world around them and know when they are being fed ideological bullshit. Science is not driven by ideology but by objective experimentation of nature. Science is gaining knowledge and the knowledge that is gained by its process. Science has no interest in evil because there is not a science that studies evil. There may be people that do harmful and cruel things, but they are defined as evil so they can be separated from the "good" people. By labeling some people evil, the underlying cause for what they do is banished in the word and the problem is not corrected. Science is not the evil, it is the ignorance on how to apply the science that can cause harm. The only true evil in this world is the suppression of knowledge.Don't you understand that unless we allow people to use all the tools available we limit the amount of extraordinary things these people can accomplish. Giving someone a screwdriver and telling them it is a hammer is not going to allow them to accomplish what they want to get done. Should I really? Tell me what is so great about creationists' ideological content that I don't see. Is it the lies that it speaks in the face of empirical evidence that shows that it is false? Or maybe it is just that creationism is perpetrated by religions and religions have a monopoly on "good". Science will do more to help alleviate the pain of the poor than any fraud like Ghandi, Billy Graham, or Mother Teresa.This message has been edited by Kevin, 01-06-2005 04:17 AM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

quote:

---

The idea that things like the selfish gene theory, and associate evolutionary psychology, would somehow automatically be dissolved by a "self-correcting" science, misses the point that science so becomes a vehicle for evil, and science can hardly correct evil.

---

Thats just absurd emotive rubbish. If you want to find evil, go look in George Bush's eyes, that great RELIGIOUS man and his bloodthirsty crusade.

You have to talk like: science *should* not be driven by ideology but by objective experimentation of nature. You simply assume that there is no ideology on the evolutionist side, which is false.Do you have a historical view of the universe, of life? If so name just one significant turningpoint in the history of the universe, or of the history of organisms.Well maybe you are able to name one point, probably you aren't, but in any case you too well enter into a creationist mode of thinking, when thinking about things that way. It is very valuable.Why do you suppose that you don't have a developed historical view like that, how did you get to be so ignorant? The reason is the ideology of evolutionists, which you are blind to.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu