Nothing. That is one of the inherent potential problems in a democratic society–persuade enough idiots to be stupid and you can do anything.
Up until ID, the courts were a decent barrier against Creationism. Given the incomprehensibly stupid comments of Scalia the last time the Creationists made it to the SCOTUS, I can only hope that the other eight have sufficiently scientifically literate assistants that the Supremes come down on the side of science.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer polls on this issue have been truly disheartening. (I am hoping to get the School Board leader of this effort thrown out next election (I live in her district), but after seeing the polls, I have little hope of success.)
I’m one of those who wink at the idea of “evolution by intelligent design”, so when I read about proponents of “intelligent design as an alternative to evolution” in the public schools, I always wonder what the heck they are talking about. ID could be identical to my own views (which are compatible with conventional science, althought admittedly include ‘god of the gaps’ thinking) or it could be biblical creationism. There’s a huge difference, yet they never actually tell how they think natural history unfolded, let alone provide any evidense for it. It’s all politics.
So my first question is, what are the details of ID ‘theory’?
Secondly, should revolutionary scientific hypotheses be hashed out at higher-level scientific venues such as research labs, universities, and scientific journals, rhather than local school boards and high schools?
The answer to the first question would require a separate thread, IMO, since a) there’s a lot (of verbiage) to it, and b) Apo has indicated that such is not the focus of this thread.
As for the second, I think the issue is that nothing is being hashed out at the school level; the vocal proponents wish to force the teaching of their “theories”, not validate them in a scientific arena. Presumably, then, they wish to validate them through public opinion: if it’s taught in a science course, it must be science! On the other hand, it may be that because they haven’t been validated in the scientific arena, they wish to try their hand at convincing the more gullible (or, perhaps, merely naive) Teeming Miilions that they know “The Truth” about evolution.
At any rate, school boards should not cave in. It has been argued time and time again that what these folks are selling ain’t science, but rather politics and religion (and, probably, the politics of religion).
“Darwin’s Finch” eh? You must be really into this subject. Is your house called the SS Beagle?
Anyway, I just wanted to respond that this is still being argued at the higher level, in Universities. I just finished an Archaeology class that had discussion forums much like this one and the Science/Creationism debate was one subject. You’d be amazed at how much backward thinking went on in this thing! It’s obvious that the high schools in Utah (where I live) aren’t teaching evolution or aren’t teaching it properly (big surprise). People who consider themselves intelligent still don’t even know the basic principles of evolution. I 100% agree with teaching evolution in schools, and teaching it correctly! This so-called “Creation Science” is an oxymoron because science must be proven by the scientific method, and creationism cannot. If the students were better trained on evolution we would get less stupid questions on the straight dope column than the ones that I have seen in the past, atleast! i.e. “Why are there still apes?” and those who claim that there is no proof of evolution! No proof??? I just want to smack some people who have so many “facts” and so little knowledge, to say that there is no proof when they have obviously not picked up a basic textbook on the subject.
As for Kansas, it makes me wonder about that place (no offense to residents). Isn’t that where the scopes trial took place so long ago? Oh wait, that was Brown v. BOE. . . .
I think the public should not decide because they are just as dissilusioned as the people who push the creationist arguement. I also think that 90% of the population are complete idiots and the 10% who have some brains don’t have any say in politics!
Call me a jerk, I can take it!
**In the world there is a vast amount of evidence for the theory of evolution. If further evidence is discovered, the evidence may then indicate a different theory, such as spontaneous creation by an omnipitant being.
Many people say the bible states that God faked this evidence for his own purposes, which will be for our good in the long run, and we cannot believe things simply because they are the best explanation for what we see, but must only believe what many people say the bible states.
I am unfortunately forbidden by law to tell you if you should believe what many people say the bible states, or what is most suggested by the evidence. Ask your parents.**
QueenAl:Shade, is that what you believe teachers should tell their students???
Well, I was playing devil’s advocate. And you could try and slant it less (I’m bad like that) and say ‘the bible says’ instead of ’ a lot of people say the bible says.’
But doesn’t it state both sides position fairly clearly?
Shade, IMHO it gives too much credit to the Intelligent Design side (I can’t see there ever being evidence for spontaneous creation by an omnipotent being), but in the contested schools in Ohio, it would probably be a reasonable compromise. Sadly though, I doubt it would satisfy the parents in this lawsuit.
Mr2001: Good point. It was only intended to satisfy these two sides. You could work on a more general version ("…for instance, the bible…")
QueenAl: I would say, for instance, a great voice in the sky who answered prayers and claimed to be a creator would be evidence (not conclusive) for creationism/ID. Or if there were animals that clearly couldn’t have evolved or been engineered.
I don’t think there will be such evidence, and I don’t think these were good examples, but I admit the theoretical possibility of evidence for creationism/ID.
I actually thought I was too hard on it - believing whatever someone says is in the bible is a bit extreme for fundamentilists.
Great point. It is unfair to teach creationism in school in more ways than it just being NOT SCIENCE. We would exclude a certain portion of society that is already a minority (and probably already excluded anyway). It’s just like the issue of prayers in schools, whose prayer is it going to be?
You may or may not like Dawkins – personally I don’t very much – but in his role as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, I am very glad he has got his teeth into Emmanuel. And its enough to make you chew your foot off that Blair stood up and defended Emmanuel! I wish that git would pick better times to show off his Christian virtues.
I have a suspicion at the back of my brain that the notorious Brian Souter is somehow involved in this school, probably as a donor. I’ll try and dig up the proof.
My view on this is that there should be no compulsory religious education in schools. As religion is faith, we should let kids come to believe whatever they want, then they will have faith. I don’t think that you can have religious instruction in schools that is not indoctrination. Kids get told things in schools and accept them, especially very young kids. I am sure that no reputable religion would want to practice indoctrination.
But that is not really important. What is crucial is that “nothing in science makes sense except in the light of evolution” as Theodore Dobzhansky said. Unless you want a generation of individuals that are unable to deal with science, especially biology, you must teach evolution. Whether or not, ultimately, ineffably, it is right doesn’t matter so much as the fact that it works, as does our whole understanding of biology, which is built upon evolution. That doesn’t mean banning religion, there are loads of brilliant scientists, and probably evolutionary theorists, as far as I know, that are commited Christians.
The education of kids suffers if you stop teaching evolution.
So that when they all scurry off to private schools where the parents can dictate Young Earth Creationism, our educational system will become more reliable? Interesting concept.
longjohn
Interesting link, thanks.
I don’t know an awful lot about Dawkins work or ideas, except his book “The Selfish Gene”, but it is actually good to see someone with the balls to take a stand against Christian dogmas being force-fed to children. Most would back off at the risk of upsetting the status quo.
I just wanted to quote an ungainly sentence from the link kindly provided by longjohn for Emmanuel College, which frankly seems like an educator’s nightmare:
Looks like according to them “proper fullness” in “learning” is achieved not simply by torturing the English language in marketing blurbs, but by (paraphrase coming up) setting the teaching of subjects within context (??) for the discussion of Christian values and revelation.
And this is supposed to be a school providing students with an “enriched diet of Science, Mathematics and Technology.” I’d hate to see the curriculum at the religious schools.
