Say What?
Judge Rejects Georgia School Board Evolution Stand
ATLANTA (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Thursday ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers challenging the theory of evolution from its textbooks on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution.
In a ruling issued in Atlanta, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said Cobb County’s school board had violated the constitutional ban on the separation of church and state when it put the disclaimers on biology books in 2002.
The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
Where in the constitution exactly does it preclude children from thinking?
If we are to teach our children to accept flawed theories without thinking critically about them aren’t we indeed teaching religion?
In science theories are much closer to laws than they are to hypotheses. They are also dynamic. Laws tend to be “one trick ponies,” describing a discrete natural phenomenon, whereas theories tend to describe a broader phenomenon.
You obviously aren’t too aware of how science work, particularly if you think scientists are so monolithic. Scientists ARE looking for evidence. It is scientists who are working on what are described as the “flaws” in evolution. However, the arguments are NOT about whether or not evolution occurred and continues to occur. That evolution occurred is accepted as fact because the evidence is so utterly overwhelming that it did occur. The disagreement is over the mechanism that drives evolution. Darwin postulated natural selection. With time, that mechanism is being refined.
You are also constructing a straw man argument. No scientist has said that theories are “gospel” (which is very much unlike creationists whose “theory” IS gospel). But that does not stop you from expanding on your strawman argument by asking: “Does that mean every other hypothesis/theory/whatever out there automatically gets dismissed? If you say yes, then you are dogmatic and evolution has become your religion.”
Oh, and no one has said that every other “hypothesis/theory” gets “automatically dismissed,” either. However, there is very good reason to dismiss creationism, because it depends upon a condition that cannot be falsified by evidence: the existence of a higher intelligence, which can never conclusively be disproven by science.
There is plenty of proof for evolution. If you ever bred animals for a particular trait, or roses for that matter, then you have proved evolution.
What hasn’t been proven is that evolution can turn a fish into a frog. However, there is a lot of evidence.
For what it is worth, if evolution is the process that accounts for the creation of life, or the ability for one species to evolve into another, it would not disprove the existence of God. The reason is as follows;
When God created life there would have been a process. If man discovered that process, he would name it. Now let’s assume evolution is the said process. Then all man has done is identify the process. One could view science as looking into the eye of God.
There has been a lot of talk about science on this post. Science is not a religion. Science is constantly in flux, religions are static.
All science doses is give an idea that explains all the known data. If more data is found that contradicts the explanation, then we modify the explanation.
There have also been posts on creating larger parts of matter from smaller parts. This post was about evolution, not about the origin of the universe. My previous comment about God’s process still applies here. What gets me is this is not a science against religion argument. They are not opposed.
Think about it this way. If you are looking for a creation point, or a moment of creation when God made everything from nothing, then science has given you proof for your argument. After all, what do you think the big bang is?
For those that care, I do have a master’s degree in Geophysics.
I hope this answers all the comments that I recived.
Rusty
United States Constitution – Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Text of stickers:
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
I wish I wasn’t so stupid. Then I could be all smart and stuff like those federal judges and find all those fancy words where noone else can see them.
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth’s not a closed system’ it’s powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
-MC Hawking, Entropy
Paul, Paul, Paul,
I knew you were not as rational as you claimed to be, but I really wasn’t expecting this from you. Is evolution a proven fact? No. Neither is Relativity, Newton’s Laws of Motion, Quantum Mechanics, or anything else in Science. Science isn’t math and it never has nor ever will prove anything. For a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable. Theories become accepted as near fact as they withstand the attempts to find holes and disprove them. Evolution has done a remarkably good job explaining the details of biology.
The only reason for those stickers are religious ones, not scientific. Let the scientists teach science and the ministers teach the gospel.
Let the scientists teach science and the ministers teach the gospel.
There’s the problem. Atheist scientists with chips on their shoulders started the fight by attempting to destroy religion. The entire ID movement was not an attack on such scientists, but a counterattack.
The fact that a federal judge is overturning the will of the people in a school district in Georgia shows that the attack continues. Especially since there was no religion mentioned on the sticker and there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids religion in public schools.
Telling someone that evolution is not a fact is not establishing a religion.
I don’t want to get embroiled into the whole Evolution vs Creation debate, but it seems to me that this is less related to that issue than to something more (or less, depending on your personal view) basic. That sticker, regardless of the intent, says something that should probably be on every textbook.
However, who the heck told these judges that they can write our school textbooks? Since when does the constitution apply to this? Argh.
There is nothing – nothing – in the U.S. Constitution requiring “separation of church and state”. What the Constitution does prohibit is the establishment of a State Religion. (See: Church of England).
First, I AGREE WITH THIS, but would add that not only can the state NOT form a “State Religion” it also is PROHIBITED from “restricting the free excercise thereof” – meaning, if I want to read the Bible, pray, and sign hymns at school, and I am NOT disrupting class in any way, shape, form, or fashion, NO ONE CAN STOP ME!
The “establishment clause” is just as I quoted above, to prevent the “state” from establishing a “state religion” (IE – the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, back when Rome was a country and not a city). What that “clause” does NOT say is that no one is allowed to even mention anything religious while on government property, not allowed to pray in school (or at a Presidential Inauguration), or pass out candy canes at school, and so on and so on.
If you were to tell me that I am NOT allowed to wear a Christian t-shirt or a cross pendant, carry a Bible, pray (on my own), or in any way speak of or make reference to my religion while at school, that would be RESTRICTING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF! If you don’t want to hear me pray, move where you can’t hear me! If you don’t like my shirt/necklace, DON’T LOOK! The simpe act of wearing a Christian shirt/piece of jewelry, praying (on my own), carrying a Bible, ect…..DOES NOT force my beliefs on you any more than you wearing a Star of David forces Judaism on me!
I think that there should be NO stickers on any books – is that acceptable? It costs less and is more effective anyway. A textbook doesn’t need instructions on how to think on the front of it. That’s usually “in_the_text” of the book.
Does anyone care that anyone, anywhere with friends on the school board can spend money trying to “advertise” on a public school textbook with a message that wasn’t included by the original publisher? It’s frightening, really.
You can argue one way or the other about evolution or creationism, but the bottom line is that someone on the school board needs a kick in the ass, as does probably everyone involved. It should have never gone to court – I’m sure the left will consider Bush responsible by the time it’s all done. The more I think about it, the more it irritates me.
Lysander: To answer your question:
Not sure if this is a good way to go with this, but ‘ere it goes….
(and one that I find very offensive by the way).
Is it the practice or the practitioners you find offensive? I’m not one of ’em, so don’t go lookin at me with that pitchfork. š
It is not the practice but is indeed the practitioners. If find them a hypocritical lot. (Not all, but MANY). I don’t like anything the preaches judgement and intolerance.
As for the creationists, you have your platform (your church) you can preach about this to your heart’s content in that arena. I don’t understand the objection to teaching evolution, other than it does open kids minds to question what they have heard and consider an alternative. The only thing that it threatens, is your religion.
The reaction to any breath of a suggestion that the theory of evolution may not be perfect, is exactly like the reaction of the authorities in Tennessee when Scopes tried to teach evolution in the first place.
We have come full circle — now the evolutionists are the book-thumping, fire-breathing fundamentalists who will brook no dissent and tolerate no questions.
It is not the practice but is indeed the practitioners. If find them a hypocritical lot. (Not all, but MANY). I don’t like anything the preaches judgement and intolerance.
<holds up a mirror to AJ>
Were you looking for this?
Does anyone care that anyone, anywhere with friends on the school board can spend money trying to “advertise” on a public school textbook with a message that wasn’t included by the original publisher? It’s frightening, really.
School boards are local and (as far as I know) elected. School taxes are also local. So what they want to plaster all over their textbooks should be a concern to noone but the people in that school district.
You frighten too easily. You should be more frightened of power-hungry federal judges and other busybodies who want to tell other people how they should educate their children.
Eric said: “…current Biblical YEC thought is that the different ‘kinds’ saved by Noah experienced a period of ‘rapid evolution’ into the species that are currently observed. For example, instead of saving hundreds of different sets of the various bovine species, Noah only had to save one set of ‘Bovine Kind’ which rapidly spread all over the world, and incidentally evolved into hundreds of species.”
Um, Eric, I’m actually a pretty big fan of AIG….. But I think we’re talking at crosspurposes. The “bovine kind” all developed into, um, bovines of one sort or another. They did NOT evolve into horses or pigs. They kept within their own “kind.”
MACROevoluton is where I have major reservations. How is it that I supposedly evolved from pond scum? How did the pond scum evolve from inert matter? Where are the proofs for amoeba to man?
I am really not trying to be obstructive or obnoxious (or “religious”), but I just can’t swallow MACRO evolution: I haven’t seen/been exposed to compelling evidence which gives me a plausible reason to accept pond-scum-to-man evolution.
Oh, and Paul, see? I do know how to spell your name! PIMF
Lysander: To answer your question:
Not sure if this is a good way to go with this, but ‘ere it goes….
(and one that I find very offensive by the way).
Is it the practice or the practitioners you find offensive? I’m not one of ’em, so don’t go lookin at me with that pitchfork. š
It is not the practice but is indeed the practitioners. If find them a hypocritical lot. (Not all, but MANY). I don’t like anything the preaches judgement and intolerance.
As for the creationists, you have your platform (your church) you can preach about this to your heart’s content in that arena. I don’t understand the objection to teaching evolution, other than it does open kids minds to question what they have heard and consider an alternative. The only thing that it threatens, is your religion.
Here is my problem with this. While my pastor does not preach about evolution, and in fact does not say anything about it, this case was NOT about teaching Intelligent Design, it was simply a sticker which basically said “think for yourself” and that was interpreted as religious, HOW?
I have to echo several other people and compliment Rusty on his explanations.
I had a few things to add on. First, let’s establish the terms used:
1) A “fact” is a generalization from a set of observations or experimental measurements that has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Note that we distinguish observation, which is made passively, from “experimental measurement”.
2) An experiment implies a manipulation of one or more physical quantities in such a way as to test one or more hypotheses. An experimental measurement implies the measurement of a dependent variable (e.g. voltage), upon manipulation of one or more independent variables (e.g. current).
3) A “theory” is an explanation for a fact or set of facts, usually with some experimental or observational predictive power. If it doesn’t have any predictive power, then it is just a description, and not a true theory.
4) A “hypothesis” is a prediction of a particular outcome from a particular observation or experimental manipulation, and usually follows logically from a theory. If you aren’t basing your hypothesis on a theory, then we call it “guessing”.
Given these definitions of the terms as used by scientists, the “fact of evolution” is the body of evidence pointing towards an increase in complexity of life forms over time. See Rusty’s sources for examples, but the facts really overwhelmingly support this process.
When people say “theory of evolution” in lay circles they usually mean the theory of “the origin of man”, which is a very different thing from the more generic “origin of species” which predicts that ecological pressures evoke evolutionary changes in species resulting in generally new, more complex species.
However, this said, evolution as a theory is useful in biology because it provides an explanation for characteristics of species based on the concept of adaptation. The evidence for evolution in the form of adaptation to local “evolutionary pressure” is woven into the pattern of life that we see, and is ever pervasive. Evolution (as fact) is as important to biology as relativity is to physicists.
Putting it bluntly, those of you who argue that evolution has not been established as a fact, simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I like to keep an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out.
If you were to tell me that I am NOT allowed to wear a Christian t-shirt or a cross pendant, carry a Bible, pray (on my own), or in any way speak of or make reference to my religion while at school, that would be RESTRICTING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF!
True, but Constitutionally it only matters if it is Congress restricting the free excercise thereof. A local school board can declare Christianity or Judaism or Budhism or Athiesm the official religion of their public school system and forcibly exclude all others from the premises and it’s completely OK under the US Constitution (although state constitutions may have something to say about that). 14th Amendment doesn’t apply because the First Amendment does not affirm any rights; it is simply a direction to Congress limiting its powers. Heck, the only thing called a right in the First Amendment is the right to peacably assemble.
āThis book contains material on scientific theories. All scientific theories, and scientific thought that may be presented as fact, should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically consideredā
Although the above note is not placed in textbooks by means of a sticker, the statement seems to be implicit, or at the least should be implicit, in any science textbook.
Not to drag on but as to Sue at 10:07
“Congress shall make no law…..” was the founding father’s attempt (IMO) to keep the busybodies from meddling, but I suppose there was nothing said about judges. I guess they have appropriated that service for themselves!
paul…
first of all i agree that we should always teach our children to think critically, to question, and to keep an open mind. yes.
second, we both know that there is an agenda behind the stickers…we all know it.
in an ideal world science is supposed to be all about keeping an open mind, about constantly analyzing and making corrections, based on new evidence.
i agree that some people are as fanatic about their belief in science as others are about religion. fantatics abound.
for me, a great deal of evolutionary ideas and concepts make sense, and help explain some things, but not ALL things. its a good start, but its not finished, or definitive, IMO.
i have nothing against christian creation stories, and i dont think they’re stupid, or useless, and i dont think that people who subscribe to them are insane. creation stories are explanations, and cultures all over the earth have passed them down for thousands of years.
im not sure why creationists feel threatened by scientific ideas that challenge literal interpretations of biblical events, however. that has never made sense to me. as far as i can tell, the most imporant message in the bible is the message of Jesus, not some fanatical belief in a 5600 year old earth. i dont see how evolutionary ideas in any way challenge the message that jesus gave to his followers, and honestly i am always surprised when i see christians get so worked up about this subject. they seem paranoid, as if their religion is teetering on the accuracy of very old, very subjective, and highly editted 3-6000 year old documents. hell, we cant even trust many of our reporters today, and christians want to believe that the early hebrew texts are literal and absolute fact?
never mind the probability that hebrew origin stories were more than likely passed down orally before ever being written down…
christians are a funny lot, and they want to be the only right ones. however, they borrowed a good chunk of their ideas from judaism, which in turn borrowed or incorporated concepts and ideas from others, like zoroastrians and mesopotamians (check out the Epic of Gilgamesh for some neato flood stories and others that are very similar AND PREDATE hebrew texts).
creationists often try to put forth this strange absolute and unchanging truth, which i dont believe in at all. thats the whole faith thing, which is not based on evidence, logic, etc. its faith. scientific truth should always be open to analysis and revision. just ask copernicus and newton.
my 2 cents, nothing more…
Romeocat sez: Um, Eric, I’m actually a pretty big fan of AIG….. But I think we’re talking at crosspurposes. The “bovine kind” all developed into, um, bovines of one sort or another. They did NOT evolve into horses or pigs. They kept within their own “kind.”
That’s what I said. Unfortunately, that still remains a much more rapid rate of variation than has ever been recorded or observed — which is my point. I specifically said that the represented ‘kinds’ evovled into the species we now see, according to the YEC’s. Maybe if I used the completely made up and unscientific term ‘microevolution’ you would have caught my meaning. Whether you call it micro, macro, or marco-polo evolution, the YEC deluge (or catastrophy) theory falls apart like wet tissue because of the vast range of species within the so-called ‘kinds’ that have had only 4000 years to ‘microevolve’ or whatever.
Romeocat sez: MACROevoluton is where I have major reservations. How is it that I supposedly evolved from pond scum? How did the pond scum evolve from inert matter? Where are the proofs for amoeba to man?
Frankly there probably aren’t any proofs you’ll accept anyways, I suspect, so why bother asking? Nevermind there is a fairly clear (though admittedly incomplete) reptile => mammal => primate => homonid => human progression* in the fossil record — I doubt strongly that you even accept the fossil record. Or the geologic record, for that matter.
The incomplete bits in the progression* I gave above don’t bother me. I studied history. Our understanding of what was happening in vast areas of the world are amazingly incomplete even if you just go back a few hundred years. DNA comparisons between species are confirming many of the links that the fossil record has hinted at….while also bringing up some unexpected surprizes. Also the ‘inert matter => pond scum’ link is, as I have said before, not related to evolution. That is abiogenesis, and it is a completely different thing.
* I don’t like that word, it implies ‘progress’ which is NOT how the process works, but it is what I think I am stuck with due to the ‘evolution’ of the English language. If someone else can come up with a better word that recognises causality, but without the implication of improvement, I’d be much obliged.
I used to be an athiest. Now I believe God exists. As a result I’ve had to rethink my beliefs about the origins of life and even the universe. I believed the standard scientific explanations I learned at college, and I still think they are clever, even ingenious theories of how things came to be the way they are. But since they can’t or won’t consider the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, I have to discount them. It’s ultimately a spiritual issue. I can no longer believe that the universe and life on earth just happened without any purpose or reason. It’s rather sad to see this view being forced on people today, especially the young who are more easily indoctrinated. But, I can remember the way I used to think, and understand why the scientists of a nation that is gradually turning away from God, as the US is doing currently, would want to have a theory that can dispense with God (especially the God revealed in the Bible.) However, I still think they are wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God quite strongly. The idea of blindly relying on any ancient manuscript as an infallible scientific reality is what I reject.
Don’t confuse science with atheism. Atheism is as much a ‘faith’ as any religion in so far as it is a belief that cannot be proven or disproven by any scientific means we yet have available. Science is a tool, or a method.
Actually they did map out the entire DNA sequence (of humans, too)…just recently in fact.
Eric, I do appreciate science and the scientific method of study. I just can no longer slavishly follow scientists down a pathway that I think is wrong. Scientists can be wrong and/or misguided.
If you don’t rely on the “ancient manuscript” (by which I believe God has revealed Himself) how do you know anything about God at all? I’m not saying the Bible should be used as a science text, but it does tell us about God. If He did indeed create the universe, then theories which say that life, and even the universe itself, developed through blind chance and meaningless accident, are wrong.
A very nice book book on the subject is Chance and Necessity (a reference to two tenents of evolution: mutation and natural selection). Written by Nobel prize winner J. Monod, it is wide ranging and incisive.
Additionally, Stephen Gould has authored many books which explain evolution.
Hmm, funny thing about science and evolution is, it tends to change when better information comes to hand. maybe not overnight, but it does. “Creationism” ISN’T a BETTER explanation. ( Unless you’re a fundimentalist of course ) The scientific process is how we progress. So far, it’s given us all the wonderful things we currently enjoy…a lot of them, yes, becuase of theories most of us might not understand.
What most people of the western educated world DO understand, that that system has a better chance of explaining things and questing for the answers, than a story written several thousand years ago that amalgamates several religions and apparently speaks of a being ( or a being who’s relatives ) that likes to appear on oyster shells and old toasted cheese sandwiches.
These musings over ID are great and all, but intelligent people don’t get philosopy and science mixed up generally. Philosophically you might even have an argument for creationism, but leave it out of text books, and stop attacking the knowledge that allows us to progress as a civilization.
Faith and logic do not mix. Faith, by it’s very nature is illogical. Stick to one, and let the other be.
I await the papal inquisition.
Mark, Orac and Rusty get it right on how science relies on falsifiable hypotheses. But there are two points to add.
Depending on what you think of the writers’ motives, either (A) the sticker is deliberately designed to fool those who think science is divided into “known facts” and “dubious theories”, or (B) the sticker is written in good faith by people who have no understanding of the difference between “scientific theory” and “unsupported speculation”. I suspect the latter, supported by a healthy dose of “this supreme goal justifies any means.”
Gravity (Newtonian or Einsteinian) is a theory. We can all observe that rocks fall when we release them – but those are just a bunch of discrete and disconnected observations. Any statement that attempts to present a pattern covering multiple cases is a “theory”. One theory of gravity is that everything seeks its proper place. The proper place of rocks is the ground, the proper place of water is the ocean (that’s why water falls into rivers, and rivers flow into the ocean), and the proper place of fire is the sky (see the sun and stars?). In fact, that was the accepted theory of gravity from Aristotle onward, as vigorously supported by the Catholic Church. Another theory is that the Earth has the magical property (shared by no other body) of exerting a constant downward pull on everything near it. This latter theory (“practical gravity”) is good enough for almost all day to day purpose (e.g. computing the lift an airplane must generate in order to fly, computing strength of beams in skyscrapers, etc.)
But is it “True”? Of course not. Neither is Einstein’s theory of gravity, which demonstrably makes false predictions and reduces to pure nonsense if you really push hard. Ask any quantum mechanic.
Aristotelian gravity, practical gravity, Newtonian gravity, Einsteinian gravity: all these theories are somewhat useful, but all are demonstrably False.
The issue in science is not “Truth” but “predictive power”. The theory which does the best job of correctly making falsifiable predictions is the one we use. Not “the belief we hold to be Truth” but “the tools we use”. No theory can pass the Truth test – but (to varying degrees, for varying purposes) many are useful tools in practical contexts.
Atoms are a theory – and only recently (early 1900’s) did unequivocal evidence surface. For most practical purposes, it is quite sufficient to regard matter as continuous and infinitely divisible (even in mixing chemicals, such as household cooking: even a little child can do it with no need for atomic theory). I could multiply theories endlessly to make the point that ALL of science works that way.
In 1979 I saw Marvin Minsky debate a creationist at MIT. First, the creationist gave the standard lines attacking evolution, such as “creation of life by purely physical means is as likely as a tornado hitting a junk yard and assembling a 747!” He went on, in many different veins, for about 15 minutes. Then Minsky stood up, and essentially said that the theory of evolution was useful in deciding how to breed and hybridize crops and animals, creationism was not useful for any practical purpose, and therefore he would use evolutionary theory for practical purposes. And he sat down after about 30 seconds, to a cheering crowd. The creationist was apoplectic.
And that is the issue. Do you wish to defend a religous belief by pointing out how theories fail to meet an impossible standard of Truth? Or do you wish to obtain and use practical tools?
The former is “the indirect approach” (apologies to J. F. C. Fuller) to establishing religous thought, while the latter is science. Hence, the court was absolutely correct.
“This ruling contains material based on jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of truth and justice. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
These musings over ID are great and all, but intelligent people don’t get philosopy and science mixed up generally. Philosophically you might even have an argument for creationism, but leave it out of text books, and stop attacking the knowledge that allows us to progress as a civilization.
You presume that Darwinism is helping us progress as a civilization. You confuse Darwinism with the entirety of science and the scientific method which indeed have been instrumental in civilized progress.
I don’t see Darwinism as helping civilization at all. If anything, it has caused much more harm than good. Below are two examples that should illustrate my point.
Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man (1871):
At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Daniel Dennett wrote in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995):
Those whose visions dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us we will have to quarantine as best we can. . . . If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods–that the Earth is flat, that ‘Man’ is not a product of evolution by natural selection–then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at the earliest opportunity. Our future well-being–the well-being of all of us on this planet–depends on the education of our descendants. What, then, of all the glories of our religious traditions? They should certainly be preserved, as should the languages, the art, the costumes, the rituals, the monuments
Back to Rob Hackney:
Faith and logic do not mix. Faith, by it’s very nature is illogical. Stick to one, and let the other be.
That would be great. Tell that to those “scientists” like Dennett who want to relocate Christians to reservations, or to those like Darwin who want to kill off those pesky negroes and aborigines.
I await the papal inquisition.
If the federal judiciary keeps overstepping its bounds, you won’t have to wait very long.
History shows us that governments which destroy religion go after intellectuals soon thereafter.
I let the Bible tell me WHY, and science tell me HOW.
Problems only tend to arise when people mix up this assignment of responsibilities.
One other note. Very few Christian denominations require an adherence to the dogma of creationism.
(A) A problem with the sticker is that it assumes there are “proven facts” and “speculative theories”. That’s not how science works, even if scientists sometimes act or talk that way. It’s like the difference between a mathematicians speculative insight and the formal proof. To setup that distinction is itself an implicit rejection of the scientific method – quite apart from any particular quibble about evolution. The sticker is the “indirect approach” because it undermines the conceptual foundations of science, rather than directly attacking evolution.
(B) Sue,
You seriously misrepresent Dennett in two fundamental ways. First, he refers to a strictly intellectual ‘quarantine’, somewhat like MoN’s comment “I let the Bible tell me WHY, and science tell me HOW.”
Second, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” is not evolution. DDI is that Aristotelian “essences” do not really exist. For example, there is not bright line between black people and white people. They blend together imperceptibly, like two mountains, even though the peaks of each are quite distinct. Similarly with species, which is why “chicken and egg” puzzles are fallacious: there was no first chicken (i.e. the one which first had the essential, defining characteristics of chickenness), just a gradual change. There is no discrete transition from feathered reptile to bird, or even between non-life and life. Are viruses alive? Prions? Jon Baez has a webpage on subcellular things that are not obviously either alive or not-alive. Another example of DDI: there is no bright line between alive and not-alive. Some things are clearly alive (me) and some things are clearly dead (my first puppy), but it is impossible to give a general definition of “alive” or “not-alive”. Again, though the mountains have clearly distinct peaks, it is very hard to say precisely where one ends and t’other begins.
Evolution is merely one example of things lacking true essences. I could go into quantum mechanical examples, wherein Fock space is found to be a much more parsimonious representation than Hilbert space, but that would require a diversion into quantum field theory. BTW, QFT is just one reason why “atoms do not really exist”, in the sense of being separate from each other and having separate constituents (electrons, quarks, etc.). Paul Teller wrote an excellent book, “an interpretive introduction to QFT”. I suspect a lot of Creationists believe atoms are real, even though they are just a theory (and demonstrably better ones exist).
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is much more profound than evolution, as is evinced by its appearance in such profoundly un-biological areas as QFT.
” … feathered dinosaur to bird …”
It is not the practice but is indeed the practitioners. If find them a hypocritical lot. (Not all, but MANY). I don’t like anything the preaches judgement and intolerance.
Were you looking for this?
Sorry, you’ve got me wrong. I don’t go to a gathering each week and profess to be a Christain (whose purpose is to love, forgive, etc.) and then turn around and spew hate (against gays, anyone who doesn’t agree with them, people who wear jeans to church) etc. In my experience the Christians are the height of hypocrisy.
Smokeeater said: it was simply a sticker which basically said “think for yourself” and that was interpreted as religious, HOW?
Because the ONLY thing they could be implying is that a “God” created the universe.
Sue, if the local school board doesn’t like the recommended textbooks – they need to take it up with the State board of Education.
I don’t disagree with you about the way that the Judicial system is behaving lately, and busybodies, as I indicated earlier, don’t really care about what’s in the book.
The whole thing stems from some group of jackasses affiliated with or directly on the school board who took offense at the material. Instead of simply taking the time to explain to their own kids about the difference and moving on, they made an attempt to thrust a religious message on everyone else and pursue it until it gets out of hand and all the way to the courts.
What would the real benefit have been from this had the school board won? Does it involve tangible benefits for the students in any way, shape or form?
laocoon wrote:
You seriously misrepresent Dennett in two fundamental ways. First, he refers to a strictly intellectual ‘quarantine’, somewhat like MoN’s comment “I let the Bible tell me WHY, and science tell me HOW.”
Strictly intellectual quarantine? You wish. You can keep apologizing for Dennett all you want, but let the good people here decide what Dennett meant from this other DDI quote:
Dennett:
What, then, of all the glories of our religious traditions? They should certainly be preserved, as should the languages, the art, the costumes, the rituals, the monuments. Zoos are now more and more being seen as second-class havens for endangered species, but at least they are havens, and what they preserve is irreplaceable. The same is true of complex memes and their phenotypic expressions. … Shall we deconsecrate these churches and turn them into museums, or retrofit them for some other use? The latter fate is at least to be preferred to their destruction. … And there’s the rub. What will happen, one may well wonder, if religion is preserved in cultural zoos, in libraries, in concerts and demonstrations? It is happening; the tourists flock to watch the Native American tribal dances, and for the onlookers it is folklore, a religious ceremony, certainly, to be treated with respect, but also an example of a meme complex on the verge of extinction, at least in its strong, ambulatory phase; it has become an invalid, barely kept alive by its custodians.
Dennett doesn’t want to merely partition religion from science. He wants relegate religion to a tourist attraction, at best. “Hey Bob, we should take the kids to the Evangelical Reservation this weekend and watch those fundies dance around with snakes! Maybe we can get some of that quaint cross jewelry too, what do you think?”
Back to laocoon:
Second, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” is not evolution.
[stuff about transitions, lines, “dead/not dead”]
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is much more profound than evolution, as is evinced by its appearance in such profoundly un-biological areas as QFT.
That’s great. So because this idea can be applied to many scientific fields, it should be applied to society and civilization as well? Seems to me that the doctrine of keeping religion and science separate is ignored by people like Dennett when science encroaches on religion. And saying something along the lines of “you will believe this or you will suffer consequences,” in my opinion, does encroach on religion.
Interesting discussion.
I think there are serious problems with evolution as a theory for the origins of life.
I think that there are many scientists married fully to the theory of evolution, solely because it is currently the only explaination they have to explain life that removes God.
I think many evolutionists are scared to have the theory questioned, they are just as dogmatic about their religion of science as many a Christian is to their belief.
I think evolution more than anything is proving that our schools have moved away from teaching critical thinking, and moved towards pure indoctrination. If evolutionists believed in criticial thinking skills, they wouldn’t care if evolution and its shortcomings were discussed and they wouldn’t feel threatened by the mere suggestion that there is some other explaination and one that might include some type of God.
Drew wrote:
The whole thing stems from some group of jackasses affiliated with or directly on the school board who took offense at the material. Instead of simply taking the time to explain to their own kids about the difference and moving on, they made an attempt to thrust a religious message on everyone else and pursue it until it gets out of hand and all the way to the courts.
First, I don’t about an “attempt” but I do know that there is absolutely no religious message on the sticker! If you and others want to keep saying that there is a religious message on the sticker, please tell me what the religion is!
Second, so what about “a group of jackasses” on a school board? They are allowed to do anything they want in that school district, and noone else outside of that district has any right (except an invented one) to say otherwise! Why? Because of democracy. If they want to teach that the moon is made of cheese, and the parents don’t agree with it, the parents can protest and/or vote the “jackasses” right off of the board. If that doesn’t work, then it’s easier than ever in this modern age to move to another more hospitable district. Voting with one’s feet, as it were.
What would the real benefit have been from this had the school board won? Does it involve tangible benefits for the students in any way, shape or form?
Yes. It would allow them to be taught in a fashion that the majority of parents in that district want them to be taught.
How about the opposite question: what benefit is there from the judicial intervention? None. If anything, there is harm to our uniquely distributed form of government. It creates a kind of Procustes’ bed, where a group of elites decides that one size of education (or justice, or what have you) fits all, and you’re damned if your legs hang over the footboard.
I think there are serious problems with evolution as a theory for the origins of life.
I think that there are many scientists married fully to the theory of evolution, solely because it is currently the only explaination they have to explain life that removes God.
I think any scientist worth his salt will tell you that evolution is certainly not a theory about the origins of life. It is a theory about the origin of species.
I have a serious question regarding speciation that I thought of last night after reading Jasons post about the mice and fruitfly speciation:
Why hasn’t there been any speciation in humans? (I’m referring to homo sapiens). Please correct me if I’m wrong, but h. sapien has been around for many thousands of years. The “indigenous” people of the Americas arrived via a landbridge some 20,000 years ago. In all that time, why has there been no speciation? I say there has been none because when Europeans arrived inter-breeding was, and is, possible. Seems like in 20,000 years and several thousand generations speciation should occur. Is there a reason it hasn’t? (Like I said, this is a serious question, if you’re only response is “You’re too stupid and unscientific to understand” then please refrain from replying. Thank you.)
“The whole thing stems from some group of jackasses affiliated with or directly on the school board who took offense at the material.”
Hey, if I want to be ignored I’ll just go talk at my teenagers! READ THE ORDER. The sticker was NOT an attempt by the school board to promote creationism. It was an attempt by the school board to placate creationist parents who did not want evolution taught at all. The school board was adamant that it would be taught and was looking for a way to please everyone, which is not out of line given that, even in public schools, parents have the legal right to direct their children’s educations.
What I find disturbing about the order is that their reasoning is based on the idea that the sticker in some way marginalized non-creationists by making them feel like “outsiders.” I can certainly see their point, but theoretically the creationist parents could bring suit for the same reason due to the lack of education regarding any alternate theories on the origins of life. They’ve set up a situation that can’t be resolved.
there is no bright line between alive and not-alive. Some things are clearly alive (me) and some things are clearly dead (my first puppy), but it is impossible to give a general definition of “alive” or “not-alive”
Impossible to give a definition of “alive” or “not-alive”? Really? Let’s see: eats, grows, reproduces = “alive”; doesn’t eat, grow, or reproduce = “not alive”. That seemed simple enough. Now, where did I go wrong?
Good point Elisa about the origins of the sticker, and this decision.
Sean I have wondered the same thing about humans. One of those things that science probably can’t answer.
I think what is troublesome about this decision is that the court has basically seemed to decide that any criticism of evolution automatically has a religious base, that is a big whoops which will have other ramifications than this decision alone.
Thanks, Just Me. I needed to know I wasn’t invisible š
I’d also like to add how disturbing I find it that complex theories like evolution are apparently being taught BEFORE the students are taught the basics of science, such as what “theory” means in scientific terms. If everyone is clear on what “theory” means in science then the stickers become moot.
(A) I’ll respond non-belligerently to belligerent comments. Some of my ancestors were forced onto real reservations by the US Army, and that’s not what Dennett is talking about.
Second, read what you quoted: “The latter fate is at least to be preferred to their destruction.” He is not advocating the destruction; he is describing how people have behaved in the past and are likely do so again. They lurch from one extreme to another: one year the Church and Monarchy are ruling society with an iron fist, and the next year they reject everything and the Jacobins are burning the churches and proclaiming the Church of Reason. Dennett is clearly bemoaning the loss of culture which he values. You, he, and I may value it for the same or differing reasons, but we all value it.
Third, churchs in Europe already are pretty much museums, attended only by an ever-dwindling population of pensioners, and maintained by the State for their ‘cultural heritage’ value. The situation Dennett describes came about a long time ago, and I don’t recall seeing any “Catholic Reservations” the last few times I was in France. I don’t like the situation of Christianity in Europe, nor would I agree with people who advocate it, or who criticize Americans for going to church too much.
I’m not defending Dennett’s every word as you implied (I disagree with a lot); I was disagreeing with the assertion that he advocated separate reservations for religious folks. Besides, who ever said I was non-religous? Whoever said I was anything but pro-Christian? In short, be careful about shooting at people you do not know well: you might be shooting at one of your natural allies.
(B) Responding to Sean. It’s obvious that a rough definition catches most of it: most of the mountain is pretty obvious. The problem comes in making a precise technical definition. “Eats, grows, reproduces” comes close, but you can immediately get into the typical gradeschool debate as to whether or not fire is alive. It eats the raw material around it, grows like wildfire, and reproduces by sending out little bits of itself. Sounds kind of like a slime mold (or even the life cycle of a forest). And what about crystals of a compound? It consumes the raw material around it, grows by producing new crystalline structure, reproduces, etc.
And what do plants “eat”? Light, H2O and CO2. As long as they are in a suitable environment, they grow. But they don’t “eat” in any discernible sense.
“Growth” is obvious, but it gets a little unclear what counts as “eating” and “reproduction”. What’s the difference between “eating” and “consuming” – except to say that living things “eat” while crystals and fires merely “consume”? Then you are back at a circular defintion: living things are those which do what living things do. Useless.
The usual objection to the fire and crystal examples is that they have no stored record of their own structure, hence every ‘offspring’ is just a perfect static duplicate of the ‘parent’, with the structure dictated by basic chemistry.
One might almost say that they are not alive because they lack the ability to pass on their structure, possibly modified, to their ‘descendents’. That is, they are not alive precisely because they could never evolve.
Many people say viruses are not alive, as they are usually seen as strictly parasitic and unable to exist on their own. They are just a bit of DNA wrapped in a coat of protein molecules. They have to be in a bath of the right chemicals (like a plant?). Also, their chemical structure is simple enough that they crystallize like minerals when dried out. And yet, Spiegelman’s Monsters (google it) lived completely outside any other organism, and evolved at a furious rate. And viruses have been completely assembled from raw chemicals – at which point did they suddenly become ‘alive’?
What about things like prions? These are just individual bare proteins that reproduce. They have a internal record sufficient to reproduce their own structure, they consume chemicals from their environment, and they reproduce until they completely choke a cow’s brain and produce mad cow disease.
But wait … they are just one bare protein, a mere chemical with no structure (no nucleus, no cell walls, etc.) Even a virus is vastly more complex (DNA wrapped in proteins).
The usual objection is that they can not live on their own; they have to be inside the right part of the right animal. Unless they are placed in just the right environment, they disintingrate. But wait … isn’t that “eating” in exactly the sense in which a tree “eats”? After all, all a plant needs is raw energy and a bath of two simple chemicals.
If you have a set of chemical reactions, that feed each other in a cycle of reactions, each of which accelerates and catalyzes one of the others, is that life? Such “autocatalytic sets”, or ACS, are not hard to create (even at random; google it) – but how are they essentially different from a much larger ACS that relies on light, H2O and CO2? Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is that there is no “essential” defining difference in many cases, including this one.
Anyway, “eats” and “reproduces” is a start, but it is very, very hard to fix the problems with those rough, common sense definitions.
sean sez: Why hasn’t there been any speciation in humans? (I’m referring to homo sapiens). Please correct me if I’m wrong, but h. sapien has been around for many thousands of years. The “indigenous” people of the Americas arrived via a landbridge some 20,000 years ago. In all that time, why has there been no speciation? I say there has been none because when Europeans arrived inter-breeding was, and is, possible. Seems like in 20,000 years and several thousand generations speciation should occur. Is there a reason it hasn’t?
This actually isn’t that dumb of a question. 20,000 years is about 1,100 generations give or take a couple hundred, not ‘thousands’ but ‘a thousand.’ But that is just quibbling, in a way. There are several issues with speciation: isolation with resulting inbreeding, environmental changes, and a lot of time. The population that lived in the pre-columbian Americas was fairly large from the beginning. There were also successive ‘waves’ of immigration from Asia, which led to a number of communities with different ‘gene pools’ living in different areas. There was still a certain amount of travel throughout both continents, which kept the several gene pools from getting too isolated. Humans are deeply conditioned against inbreeding — the incest taboo is very strong in most cultures.
Impossible to give a definition of “alive” or “not-alive”? Really? Let’s see: eats, grows, reproduces = “alive”; doesn’t eat, grow, or reproduce = “not alive”. That seemed simple enough. Now, where did I go wrong?
What about a virus? A virus eats nothing, does not grow, and can only replicate by invading another cell. However, it is at least based on a DNA or RNA fragment. Prions aren’t even made up of any genetic code, they are just rogue protiens. Again, they don’t eat or grow, either.
If you were to have a virus get into your bloodstream, but it wasn’t a virus that could be taken into a human cell, then it’ll pass right though you because it is inert. Unliving. But if a virus gets into your cell, then it takes over the cell and reproduces. No eating, no growing, just rapid reproduction. Even then, is the virus alive, or not?
Elisa wrote:
I can certainly see their point, but theoretically the creationist parents could bring suit for the same reason due to the lack of education regarding any alternate theories on the origins of life.
they could i suppose, but they would be on less than solid ground in doing so.
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
-from the american heritage dictionary
the biblical creation story isnt a theory, as there is no evidence that proves or demostrates any of it. of course, someone can say that the sun is evidence enough or something like that, but really there isnt any empirical evidence that points to those 3-6000 year old documents as containing the literal truth about the creation of the earth.
granted i have a hard time with teaching current evolutionary theory as absolute fact, and thats not how science is supposed to be taught anyway. copernicus had some ideas that made sense, but galileo really hit the nail on the head. darwin and wallace had some good ideas, but gould and eldridge, and others, have refined things more so. i dont doubt that more people will come along and figure things out that make some current ideas obsolete. it happens, and thats whats good about science.
for me evolution doesnt explain the beginning of life as well as it explains the diversity. the beginning part is still pretty sketchy, but then, its more efficient than “Let there be light.”
the christian creation story is interesting. its an origin myth that dates back 3 thousand or so years, created by pastoralists in the desert. i just dont understand the modern christian insistence on the literal truth in those texts. is that really what they should be worried about? does a 4.6 billion year old earth really challenge the sermon on the mount, or christian philosophy? i dont think so, but what the hell do i know?
One tradition states that Lao Tsu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star, was carried in his mother’s womb for 82 years, and was born as an old man.
is that literally true? does it matter? does the fact that the origin story isnt true invalidate the wisdom of Lao Tsu and Taoist thought? Nope.
i dont know why some christians get so worked up about all this. nobody has all the answers, but some people have some pretty good ones.
Sean wrote:
Impossible to give a definition of “alive” or “not-alive”? Really? Let’s see: eats, grows, reproduces = “alive”; doesn’t eat, grow, or reproduce = “not alive”. That seemed simple enough. Now, where did I go wrong?
I’m mostly on your side, Sean, so don’t hate me for doing this…
Fire. It consumes (eats), grows, and reproduces, and “dies.” Is fire alive?
(A really old trick answer from a really old broad here.)
Point taken, r.a. – there are currently NO other viable scientific theories regarding the origin of life. Creationism and ID are religious/philosophical theories. But the creationists could still argue that point – that the only theory on the origins of life being presented to their children is the scientific theory of evolution.
I’m not advocating any particular course of action in terms of what is taught, I’m just interested in the potential legal ramifications.
well, virus reproduces, so I’d say on a very basic level it is alive, yes. My definition was eats, grows, or reproduces. Any one of them defines life at its most basic. Otherwise you have nothing more than an inert chemical.
As for the speciation of humans. This is where my ignorance shines. I understood that the land bridge to North America disappeared 20,000 years ago. Unless there is some theory that people in boats crossed the oceans some 10,000 years ago, I would think the entire North American population would speciate from the rest of the world, same for the indigenous people of Australia.
It sounds from your explanation Eric that speciation only occurs with very small populations of animals that are inbred. Is that right?
Problem is that you assume that people who have issues with evolution want creationism taught. Some might, but most people like me who object to evolution being taught object to it being taught the way it was taught to me, which is that it was taught as a basic dogma.
I never had a single teacher or proffessor tell me where the weaknesses in the theory were-something I think should be part of the general teaching of the theory. Also, much of what was used as examples of evolution are now known (and some were known then) to be false examples-like the peppered moths, the horse evolution, etc.
The scientific community seems to be so wedded to the concept that evolution is the only explanation out there, that they are threatened by anyone questioning the theory, when there are holes all in it, especially when you get to the part where you try to explain how non living particles turn into people and other animals. These holes should be discussed openly and honestly in all science classes where the theory is taught. Students should be able to look at this information, think about it, and reach their own conclusions, but the general position at this time, and as indicated by this decision is that any and all questioning of the theory is religious in nature and shouldn’t be brought up.
Seems to me the scientific community is more into indoctrination than teaching young students critical thinking.