Gah.

[pyrephox]

As someone who is planning to go into education in South Carolina, the ongoing attempt to push intelligent design into our classrooms is of intense interest to me. And, of course, you know my opinion of intelligent design's validity. So, when I read this story from our local paper, it makes me wish to weep.

"A lawmaker pushing to give teachers alternatives to evolution won’t identify the people he has asked to advise a state panel.

State Sen. Mike Fair has invited two experts to advise the school reform oversight agency, which is evaluating the standards for teaching the origins of life.

Fair said he promised the two advisers he would protect their identities to minimize scrutiny of their views and credentials prior to their appearance before an EOC subcommittee next week..."

Now why, I must wonder, if these to are experts in their fields, would they wish to MINIMIZE scrutiny of their credentials? If they have good credentials, relevant to the science of evolution and the practice of public education, then they should be proclaiming them loudly and proudly. Credentials sell opinions...unless, of course, you don't have any.

"Fair has emerged as the leading voice to modify lesson guidelines for high school biology by advocating for the inclusion of language that gives teachers more leeway in discussing alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Fair insists he is not advocating teachers present lessons about creationism, which draws on the Bible to explain the origins of life, or “intelligent design,” a relatively new theory challenging evolution because it cannot fully explain some of life’s mysteries."

...then what /is/ he proposing? What 'alternatives' does he wish to teach? The world sprung from the loins of the Great Mother Goddess (God, if I were a teacher who did not value my job, I would /love/ to teach that as an 'alternative')? For that matter...

It's not Darwin's theory! Darwin was one of the /original/ theorists, and certainly the father of evolutionary biology, but the theory of evolution has gone far, far beyond his work. It has been adapted for new evidence, expanded, revised through experimentation and study, and held up through decades of intense scrutiny by brilliant minds of many different disciplines. Evolution, in some form or fashion, is the /only/ theory we have that adequately explains what we see in the world around us. "God did it" is not an explanation. It tells us nothing about our world, it gives us no areas for exploration, and it helps not at all with the development of new technologies and knowledges. It's not a bloody alternative, no matter how you phrase it, or what kind of mealy-mouthed pretty psuedo-scientific language that you put it in.

Damn it all.

Comments

[bimmer1200.livejournal.com]

..it's science. Science is the study of natural phenomenon.

Exactly. Nothing you wrote in that paragraph disputes my point. I'm saying that science is by definition anti-theistic. Now, the Priest can say he believes god created the universe and set the world in motion and that's that, but that's deism, not theism. Once you start saying that god interferes, even occassionaly, you're making statements that run counter to science. In other words, if science is true, then god either doesn't exist or it is marginalised. And if that is true, you're striking at people's core beliefs. And it rankles to have to pay to have your children taught things that cut at your core beliefs. I'm not saying I agree with the attitude, just that it is understandable, and if we had choice in where your kid goes to school you can alleviate some of that.

"Social Justice" is not, and has never been, a codeword for income redistribution and socialism.

Yes. Yes it is. Social justice does not stop at the examples you gave. It's a ideology that extends to many areas, that in every poli/sci class i had where the term came up was/is best described as socialism and income redistribution. It's a political term, and it's definition is essentially, leftist/progressive ideology. Which is fine for a teacher to hold as an individual, but requiring teachers to pledge to uphold that ideology would be no different than requiring them to pledge to uphold sharia, or anarcho-capitalism, or my own individualist libertarianism.

(Che Gueverra, however, would be a political statement, not a religious one. I certainly have heard of schools that have banned all religious items to be worn, rather than allow someone to wear a pentacle. In those cases, Che would not fall under the ban, because he's not religious.)

According the SCOTUS, this is an irrelevant distinction. It's viewpoint discrimination and violates the First Amendment. Allowing political speech, but not allowing religious speech is as much discrimination as it would be to allow t-shirts with a cross but not one with a pentacle.

My point in mentioning this is to point out the ways in which Xtians feel marginalized. Are they being a little paranoid? Yeah, but the religion has a built in martyr complex, and it's not surprising that minor things like this can make them feel that way. And that feeling is further aggravated by the lack of control, input, and influence in how their children are educated.

And if intelligent design is taught, in an elective philosophy or political science class, we've already covered that I support that. I do not support, in any shape, form, or fashion, it being taught as physical science. Because it's not.

But as you pointed out, even when taught in that context, it's being challenged. Of course it isn't physical science and should not be taught as such, but the reason it's an issue at all is because parents have no choice or control over their kids education. Or they feel that way.

Now, having said that, I don't have an objection to teaching evolution, then offering in the science class an explanation of ID. Then pointing out how it (ID) isn't science and using it as an illustration of what science is and isn't. Being familiar with a theory doesn't mean you believe it. I'm familiar with the geocentric solar system theory. That was part of my astronomy classes. It's bad science, but it's still taught in science class because it can illustrate scientific principles. In fact, as science is about questioning and observing, I'd prefer that when I have children that they be taught evolution, but have a section discussing the whole debate. It isn't unknown in science class for this sort of thing to be addressed. Whether it's Galileo or Darwin or the Scopes trial, science history and the controversy around it is as much part of teaching science as the actual theories and facts.

[pyrephox.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Nothing you wrote in that paragraph disputes my point. I'm saying that science is by definition anti-theistic.

Science is not /against/ gods, though. If anything, it's respectful in acknowledging, "We cannot explain supernatural phenomenon. Thus, we will explain /only/ what we can observe from scientific methods, and leave the supernatural to those better equipped to deal with it."

...okay. If social justice is an ideology that can only be interpreted one particular way, then I can only say that I am all for a just society, and I don't think anything else will come useful from discussing that. We're using the same words, but I'm pretty sure they're coming from two different languages.

The SCOTUS would be correct. However, it doesn't stop the fact that if a school's written policy has 'no religious items', then Che wouldn't fall under that, and therefore could be safely worn until someone sued. (Although most people wearing Che shirts today probably have no idea who he was, what he did, or what his political positions were.)

I can sympathise with the small minority of Christians who feel that they are being oppressed (although it's kind of silly in a country where Christianity is the most popular religion, and there are only a handful of politicians across the entire nation who aren't, in fact, Christian). However, my sympathy ends at the point that they start attempting to cripple our already not-terribly-good science education.

And if the ID folks /wanted/ the kind of instruction that you describe, I'd have no problem with it. We learned the different atom theories in Chemistry, the geocentric theory in Earth Science, as you mentioned. But they want to 'teach the controversy': portray ID as a viable criticism of evolutionary theory. And it's not. They purposeful rely on most people's ignorance of evolutionary theory in order to create straw men to knock down. They misrepresent scientific papers, misrepresent their own credentials, are dishonest about their intentions, and have not one, /one/ credible study to the entire political movement. They're fundamentally dishonest. I have more respect for Young Earth Creationists than I do for ID: at least the former aren't weaseling about it.

[bimmer1200.livejournal.com]

Science if fundamentally a materialist/naturalist world view. It's not that, as soem would like to say, it leaves the supernatural to the theologians. It ignores the supernatural as not real. If it can't be observed (directly or indirectly), and it isn't a repeatable phenomenon, then it isn't real. And theism rests solidly on supernatural, unrepeatable phenomenon. I mean, definitionally, it's about miracles. Science is also inherently skeptical. Theism isn't. It's inherently about taking things on faith, the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen.

And yes, we're using different defintions of what Justice is. Regardless, trying to make a teacher commit to a particular political ideology, is wrong. And that's what many colleges and universities are doing. Justice, during the enlightenment and as embodied by our Constitution is the idea of the law treating everyone the same. Not ensuring equal outcomes.

However, it doesn't stop the fact that if a school's written policy has 'no religious items', then Che wouldn't fall under that, and therefore could be safely worn until someone sued.

Two quick things on this. The policy wasn't 'no religious items'. It was no disruptive items. They claimed that the christian t-shirt would be disruptive due to the viewpoint it represented. But let's stipulate the policy is as you say. That still doesn't diminish my point; which was, schools are doing many things to make Christians feel marginalized. Some of that is Christian overreaction, but some of it is justified. And it comes from a misinterpretation of the Constitution and the establishment clause, and an entire section of SCOTUS jurisprudence resting on extra-Constitutional sources.

One last thing, and then i've had my say on this. They aren't misrepresenting themselves. As Multiplexer points out, ID or the Watchmaker theory is a very old one. The first time I encountered it was in High School from a teacher who was both a Christian trying to reconcile her beliefs with the evidence supporting evolution. I later heard the same/similar theory from an astrophysicist giving a talk out our University on faith and science. It's an old idea, and while some YECs are attempting to adopt it, those are really two different but allied camps. They aren't being intellectually dishonest. I could make the accusation that you're relying on most people not understanding that to swipe at a strawman, but I don't think you're doing that. I think you just didn't realize how long that theory has been around.

[pyrephox.livejournal.com]

I know that the hypothesis has been around a long time. (It's not a scientific theory.) However, the proponants of ID /are/ intellectually dishonest. They misrepresent the findings of real scientists, and misrepresent their own credentials, in order to make it look like ID has scientific support that it entirely lacks. Exhibit 1, from the Discovery Institute, the most active organization of ID proponants.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

They claim a whopping 4 peer-reviewed scientific articles that show support for ID...for a very /old/ theory, that's not exactly impressive. And it gets even less impressive when you actually look at what's there.

Stephen Meyer is, for the record, a geophysicist, not a biologist. His article in that journal was published contrary to the normal practices of that journal (without multiple peer-review mandated by the journal's constitution), and the Biological Society of Washington has published a statement (http://www.biolsocwash.org/) essentially apologizing for the inclusion of that work, calling it 'not up to the standards' of the journal.

The Max Planck Institute has published disclaimers on Lonnig's work, but he's the most solid thing that they have.

Wells admits that he went to school from seminary specifically to "destroy Darwinism" (http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm) at the order of Reverend Moon. Also, this article is published in Biology Forum, a journal of theoretical biology. The articles within do not reflect the results of actual experiments, but rather hypothetical experiments that illustrate the authors' theories. Also, you will notice that the /actual/ abstract here (http://www.tilgher.it/(4mi0go45sj1fyc45wkyl4455)/index.aspx?lang=eng&tpr=4) is different in the end from the 'quoted' abstract on the Discovery Institute page, which is set off as if to reflect the actual words of the paper. The Discovery Institute suggests that a true experiment has been defined and ran successfully...that's entirely untrue. A theoretical experiment has been designed, and never run.

Two of the 'peer reviewed' books in that section were not, in fact, peer-reviewed. Popular trade books are largely useless from a scientific perspective...they're published based on the number of copies they're likely to sell, not the rigidity of their research, and classified according to what the publisher wants to classify them as.

...I was going to say more, but discovery.org is no longer opening for me. I think it's down for the moment. But I don't have the list of articles before me. More later, once I can get it back in shape.