They'll see right through that shit. There's nothing more annoying to a kid than when you can tell an adult knows the answer but won't give it to you. And thus the seeds of skepticism are firmly planted....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is most disconcerting is how the 'intelligent design' clowns seem to misunderstand and misuse the word 'theory'. It's as if they equate 'theory' with 'coffeeshop musings' without any regard for the scientific process underlying the theory. A simple logic class would help these students realize that 'exposing' admitted gaps in the theory of evolution only proves that there is missing information but at the same time does not let religion off the hook. Sometimes I am tempted to think that teaching 'intelligent design' side-by-side next to evolution would help bury these thoughtgoons once and for all but doing so would only legitimize faith as science. Religion belongs in a philosophy class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huckabee states:

But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people. But it’s not the only view that’s held. And any time you teach one thing as that it’s the only thing, then I think that has a real problem to it."

Does this mean that Arkansas would allow the Satanic Bible and Bible to be presented side-by-side in a comparative literature class? Afterall, the so-called devil wouldn't exist without God, and I can't quite think of an entity that might have a more opposing viewpoint. We know the answer to that one (hint: it's not yes) which only exposes just how disingenuous this argument is. If you want to push religion in the schools, make it an elective and put it in the context of a philosophy class. Then maybe the Christians out there would FINALLY see how much of a socialist Jesus truly was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Couching institution illiteracy in the guise of trying to present
all "salient" viewpoints is just the latest in a long line of attempts to control humanity by the religious hucksters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America is drowning in a sea of ignorance and stupidity and the Bushies are holding our heads under the water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And yet by and large they buy into social darwinism and the notion that bird flu can evolve before their eyes.

Anyway, this kind of willful stupidity is just one more indication that this country is being pushed around by cultists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dictators & demogogues as different as Shrub & Stalin have rewritten bio-science--not to mention technology--in light of ideological and strategic priorities. In fact, most regimes do it, to some extent, and will probably do more of it in the future. Science, to say nothing of public education, is too essential to modern societies not to control, as is history and every other field of inquiry that can change minds & lives.
Whatever ignorant followers may believe, I don't think the leaders of the Christian Right misunderstand science any more than the leaders of Moslem Right misunderstand the recent history of Europe's Jews. Secular progressives better not dimiss the funny accents, ideas, or clothes of our opponents but should study their successes in order to defeat them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There was this ex-pro footballer turned geologist (there're not all boneheads) who I would see sometimes at a health spa in Midland, TX, where HE comes from; Crawford is just a façade. The whole economy of that region is based on oil; ergo, geologists. One day, we got on to the subject of Creationism v. Evolution. It was during the mid-eighties so there was no ID back then. Anyway, he went on to tell me that some of his colleagues were Creationists; that is, guys who studied 100 million year old rocks (like, REALLY old) subscribed to the doctrine of creationism. How they accomplished this prodigious feat, I have no idea. Compartmentalization...hermetically sealed no doubt? Like Inuits not believing in snow.

NB: According to a book by Stephen J. Gould, evolution is not a theory but a FACT. It's Natural Selection that's the theory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I believe everyone should read Darwin's Black Box... because anyone with an ounce of knowledge of science would spot in a heartbeat how utterly the case for ID fails to live up to scientific standards for what constitutes a scientific theory... as well as how it fails to meet the demands the book itself sets up for Neo-Darwinism... all while the author claims to believe in common origin and physiological evolution.

The entire argument breaks down into "It is very complex and there are no accurate descriptions of how certain things could form (which is true, but still doesn't fully discredit evolution)... so it must be the Deus Ex Machina of "ID"... nevermind that there is no explanation of WHAT caused ID, HOW it worked, WHERE that force/being came from, etc...

ID is a fuzzy conclusion in the face of demands for real answers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I heard a re-cap of Condi talking about the situation in Iraq. She said the great work of society building we are doing there has to evolve.
Does that mean it isn't divinely ordained?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Derkacz, I'd lke to hear from you on this, but here goes...

The problem isn't just right wing fundies. THe problem is society-wide--and infects the left as well. It's a retreat from rational, scientific-method based knowledge.

Let me explain: recently here on alternet, an article was posted by a blogger on the use of CO in preserving meat. Never mind the actual physical chemistry of CO. CO is a toxic gas, so using it is bad for you. QED!

But that isn't exactly how it works. Reasoning by analogy, which is what that was, is no substitute for science. But on the left side of the spectrum there is a vague distrust of science in general that sometimes spills over into rants about the establishment et. al.

Or the Cassini mission -- remember that? Cassini was NASA, which is the government, which has lied to people before (or withheld information) abou tnuclear power. Cassini has a nuclear power source, ergo the thing should not be launched. That kind of reasoning made me go "aargh!"

Point is, while there are very real issues to discuss, oftentimes many leftists I know lack a basic knowledge of what a theory is just as much as their right-wing counterparts.

When nobody understands science, then people like fundamentalists can step in easily.

Now, I think there are a lot of reasons for this. Let me outline a few:

1. Specialization. A lot of humanities majors I met go through four years of college and haven't taken math or science since the middle of high school. Since most colleges make you pick majors pretty early these days, and the requirements to fill them eat up a lot of schedule time, as lot of fields such as humanities have more stuff to learn than before, it's ahrd to get a nice, balanced diet of education in many fields. But I still think it is far, far easier for a scientist to learn to write well than it is for a humanities major to be a scientist, because there is a rigor in science that many humanities curricula lack. To put it another way, you can't bullshit differential equations or say "I think the answer is X, because my politics/philosophy/identity say so." (The rigor of science also makes it a lot easier to present clear, concise thoughts with a logical progression. When I edit the writings of a kid right out of college, I can immediately tell if they have had a science background and if they read much).

2. Post-modernism. Nothing I can think of has done more damage to science education than this, besides underfunding. Postmodernism is basically anti-science when people try to apply it to physical worlds--and yes, I have seen this kind of stuff happen, notably in an old Lesbian Literature class I took years back. "Science is gendered," I would hear. Uh, Boyle's law? Maxwell? As I recall it doesn't matter what your sexual politics are, you still fall at 9.8 meters per second squared in one gee.

3. Underfunding. Getting a grant to do basic science is more of a problem than ever before. This doesn't make the career prospects in science very good. Engineers, yes, computer software programmers, yes, but not scientists. The loss of talent is now making itself felt as the number of qualified sciene teachers has shrunk dramatically--providing a rich ground for fundies since the people teaching science in your local high school are often converted English or Gym teachers. (No disrespect intended to either).

Combine these three things, and it is no wonder that the fundamentalists have rushed to fill the void. It is no accident that the same country that produces these folks makes healing crystals a big seller and the Psychic Friends Network a very profitable enterprise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you know, like the "Theory of Gravity." Jury's still out on that one, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can all theorize as to what theory is. Theoretically, theory is just theory, so perhaps theologists theorize theory correctly, theoretically speaking. After all, how did so many 2-leggers on our planet get the 2 legs, walk upright and think out of their prehistoric asses? My theory - too much of the washing of the brains - but that's just a theory too! Oops!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Borrowing my subtitle from an insightful essay by Stephen Jay Gould in his anthology, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983), pp. 253-262, let me state the obvious and state it simply.

A fact is a discrete item of information that has been observed with such repetition and consistency that it would be perverse to withhold at least tentative assent to the proposition that it is an objectively accurate datum.

A theory is a statement concerning relationships among one or more facts in which a proposition is affirmed that seeks to explain how these facts cohere. Theories are often asserted as propositions of correlation or, optimistically, of causality.

Facts can be disproven. Theories can be disproven. No scientist worthy of the name would cling to a fact or a theory that is demonstrably false.

Both facts (data) and theories (connections among facts) are susceptible to scientific testing (falsifiability). Theories are not whimsical speculations, Ronald Reagan's epistemological constructs to the contrary notwithstanding. Accordingly, Darwinian evolutionary theory has, like other connective notions, been subjected to rigorous scientific testing and analysis. When necessary, it has been modified in accordance with new information (Niles Eldredge and Steve Gould's work on "punctuated equilibrium" being a case in point).

The basic elements of Darwin's theory, however, have remained in place and can, for all intents and purposes, be considered to have been "proven." At the very least, the bits of pertinent data (the fact that species do, indeed, evolve) are beyond reasonable doubt.

Creationism, intelligent design and related supernatural notions that either deny evolution as fact (things change) or as theory (and this is how they change) remain outside the domain of science and might best be considered not even elements of theology (much less natural science) but of superstition and folklore.

End of story.

Can we now get on to dealing with some of Jesus' propositions? They are nicely set out in the "Beatitudes." They are not scientific propositions but ethical ones. They urge us to treat one another with kindness. They urge us to do what we can to reduce poverty and to end war. As a fine phrase attributed to Jesus (John 10:10) puts it: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

Putative Christians who choose to intrude into what Gould called the "magisterium" of science would do better for themselves, their "saviour" and humanity at large if they were to focus their attention and activity on the good and true normative propositions of their theology and not on the irrational, intolerant, dyspeptic and cruel principles and practices that make me cringe and would (if I may be so bold as to speculate) make Jesus himself run for cover.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]