ACLU Sues School Board

[Doe, John]

The ACLU on the side of science.

[Brady Yoon]

When will Bible thumpers learn?

[Maksutov]

=D> =D> =D> ACLU and AUSCS!

Then there's the poll on that page:

What's your view on evolution theory and education? 44672 responses
Alternatives to evolutionary theory should be given equal weight in science textbooks.
33%
Alternatives should not be mentioned in science textbooks.
50%
Neither response reflects my view.
17%
Not a scientifically valid survey.

Even if not scientifically valid it shows that at least 33% of the folks responding to the poll would love to drag us back into the Dark Ages.

[mike alexander]

Oh, crippety. First I can't go to Texas, then Florida, then Ohio. Now Penn's Woods.

[Swift]

=D> ACLU
And yes, I'm a card carrying member.

[Ut]

Ok... I don't get it. So, they want to teach religion in schools. To make "everybody happy", they try to do it in the most generic way possible -- i.e., Christian dogma, but with "God" replaced with "some higher being". So, why don't they just institute religion classes? Teach science in science classes, and religion in religion classes. Is that really so hard to do?

[Nicolas]

Religion is a separate class in Belgium... I thought it was the same there??

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by mike alexander

Oh, crippety. First I can't go to Texas, then Florida, then Ohio. Now Penn's Woods.

Unfortunate yes, suprising no. There are some churches in PA where I grew up that were burning Harry Potter books a couple of years ago. Before that they were burning rock music albums when that was all the rage.

I hadn't realized that this ID nonsense had already infiltrated the PA school systems.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Religion is a separate class in Belgium... I thought it was the same there??

The US constitution requires a separation of church and state. So, for example, there is no official state religion in the US. It also means that the government can not fund the teaching of any particular religion (because doing so would in effect support that particular religion). Government funded public schools usually do not have any classes in religion.

[Donnie B.]

Originally Posted by Swift

The US constitution requires a separation of church and state. So, for example, there is no official state religion in the US. It also means that the government can not fund the teaching of any particular religion (because doing so would in effect support that particular religion). Government funded public schools usually do not have any classes in religion.

Nitpick: The Bill of Rights (which comprise the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) forbids the establishment of religion -- i.e. the introduction of a state-mandated religion. Over the years, court decisions have interpreted this to mean that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. However, this wall is not entirely opaque. For instance, the U.S. Senate has an official chaplain who offers a (somewhat generic) prayer at the beginning of each session.

The current ID battle is (in my opinion) another attempt to breach the wall by religious folk who feel threatened by schools teaching evolution. Another, I might add, in a long series of such attempts. And as in all the previous cases, it will have to work its way through the courts before it's finally resolved.

The odd thing is, even after the Supreme Court rules on such matters, some parts of the country seem to be able to simply ignore the ruling and continue merrily onward. There was a story a few years ago about a school somewhere in the South (Texas, maybe) that still had prayers in the classroom, long after the courts had ruled that unconstitutional. And so it goes...

[Edited to add:] I should also mention that the courts have ruled that public schools may teach courses in comparative religion and/or the history of religion, as long as no particular religion is given special favor or emphasis.

[Sticks]

But I thought that the Anthropic Cosmological Principal and especially the Weak Anthropic principal, (devised by atheists), indicated that the the universe appeared to be designed for mankind :-?

Would the ACLU ban any mention of this important piece of scientific work?

[Ut]

No, the anthropic principle pretty much says that we observe the universe to be as it is because it is a place conductive to us being here to observe it.

It's:

How convenient of Earth to just happen to have water! A substance that we need in abundance!

vs

How convenient of us to need water to live, when the Earth just happens to have it!

[TimH]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Unfortunate yes, suprising no. There are some churches in PA where I grew up that were burning Harry Potter books a couple of years ago. Before that they were burning rock music albums when that was all the rage.

<emphasis mine>
If someone is opposed to something in a book, isn't burning that book just about the stupidest thing to do? You have to buy the book before you can burn it, so you put money in the author's pocket allowing them to make more of the books you just destroyed.

But trying to think logically is probably a bit tough for anyone so messed up in the head that book burnings sound like a good idea.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Donnie B.

Nitpick: The Bill of Rights (which comprise the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) forbids the establishment of religion -- i.e. the introduction of a state-mandated religion. Over the years, court decisions have interpreted this to mean that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. However, this wall is not entirely opaque. For instance, the U.S. Senate has an official chaplain who offers a (somewhat generic) prayer at the beginning of each session.

Nitpick on the nitpick...

Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" when refering to the First Amendment in 1802. The courts have agreed.

James Madison (the architect of the Bill of Rights) while President insisted that employing a Congressional chaplain violated the First Amendment. Congress didn't agree.

[mike alexander]

TimH wrote:

If someone is opposed to something in a book, isn't burning that book just about the stupidest thing to do? You have to buy the book before you can burn it, so you put money in the author's pocket allowing them to make more of the books you just destroyed.

Yes and no. The idea of a book burning is to involve the participants emotionally, to get them 'all hetted up'. It is the action of physical destruction that is important, and cost issues are secondary.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Ut

Ok... I don't get it. So, they want to teach religion in schools. To make "everybody happy", they try to do it in the most generic way possible -- i.e., Christian dogma, but with "God" replaced with "some higher being".

"Christian dogma" is the most generic way of teaching religion? Tell that to the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. I trust that was a joke.

Originally Posted by Ut

So, why don't they just institute religion classes? Teach science in science classes, and religion in religion classes. Is that really so hard to do?

If you mean a class where religion is studied objectively, then this was being done when I was in high school. The classes were called social studies and world history. We got to study all religions in their historical context. Most of it was pretty bloody.

But for the kind of religion classes you are probably referring to, these are already available. The institutions providing this instruction are called churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc.

[beskeptical]

MSNBC had a Pat Buchanan talk round discussing why ID should be allowed in classes alongside evolution. They gave the same tired arguments about evolution just being a theory among multiple theories.

No matter how often it is explained that the theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity, the old argument just keeps resurfacing, "It's only a theory".

Then there was the tired old statement that ID was as legitimate a scientific theory as evolution from chance events. They had a person presenting the science side who was less articulate than he could have been. He did keep referring to the 'scientific process' but never described why such a process differed from the religious process.

We have to articulate, one, why the scientific process is not the equivalent of 'belief'; and, two, why ID needs some evidence to be introduced as a scientific theory. In its current state, ID is a mere hypothesis. While the evidence for random chemical events leading from inorganic to organic is mounting every day.

I think that is the argument we should take rather than just explaining ID is religious, not scientific. Show me the evidence. And don't show me 'improbability' as evidence unless you are willing to look closely at genetic science and advances in the origin of life research first.

[Mokele Mbembe]

I hadn't realized that this ID nonsense had already infiltrated the PA school systems.

Oh yes, when I was a senior (2 years ago) in HS, I was prevented from writing a term paper in English class on evolutionary theory because "it's still very contraversial." Suuuuuuure it is.

[archman]

None of this garbage makes its way into state universities, at least in Texas. Biology departments stop "creative design" at the door, and we instructors go merrily on teaching evolution without batting an eye. What this high school nonsense DOES do is confuse students and retard their ability to learn biology properly.

I am constantly astonished at the amount of political sway non-biologists have over the teaching of biology in public school systems. It's like Richard Hoagland advising you astronomers about how to perform your research. It's simply absurd.

This only bolsters my impression that the average american knows as much about science as a grapefruit.

[Waarthog]

The thing I find amusing about the whole debate is that I went to a Catholic High School and we were taught the creationist myth in Theology (specifically our Old Testament class) while all the science classes stuck firmly to Darwinian Evolution with no mention of the Creation myth (this even in the classes taught by Priests). Now in the interests of full disclosure, we did discuss the fusion of the two and the various aspects as Social science and its affect on history etc, but only in that context. Also, this school was run by the Jesuits, so that might explain things.

[Enzp]

My brother in law, who isn't really all that stupid, doesn't believe in evolution. Has all the standard arguments, but he doesn't approach it from a religious point of view, he thinks in terms like, "Those scientists think they know everything. I hate that."

He asks for transitional species, and if you point them out, he asks for ones between those. it never ends. And then there is the we-never-witnessed-it-so it can't be known argument.

Not to trot the arguments out, but there are plenty of people out there who think that way. My former business partner believes in a new earth. I point out things like carbon dating techniques, and his response is, "How can a machine that hasn't even been around 50 years tell us the earth is millions of years old? Doesn't make sense."

My wife doesn't believe we can translate Egyptian heiroglyphs or the Maya ones. She tells me those scientists are guessing and assuming something because it fits their expectations and they have no idea what the stuff really says.

Bottom line here is many people don't believe we know what we know. It boils down to, "Oh they are just saying that."

ID and other such crap filters into school boards because we wait until it happens. It doesn't happen overnight. We don't pay attention to who is running for the board, and we don't do it ourselves. We don't go down and read the texts until someone on the news reports the ID is now in there. Even well meaning souls often cluck and say "I can't believe they are teaching that stuff." and continue drying the dishes.

The assault on our schools by the American Taliban is every bit as real as the one with bombs by the other guys.

Try this. Any time you come upon an "information" counter or if a waitress or sales clerk asks if you have any questions, smile and ask the young person there, "What is the capital of Nebraska?" Or if that is where you are, pick Ohio or Texas. I'd say Vermont, but that one is too hard. I have been doing that for fifteen years now and exactly ONE person has known the answer without asking someone else. One person told me she wasn't very good at social studies and didn't know the answer. Or try something like, "If you took a 30% pay cut and then got a 30% raise, you'd be back where you started, right?" You will find no one can answer the simplest thing that should have been learned in school.

And we expect them to understand science? Critical thinking skills are absent. THat ignorant teenager working at the mall will be an ignorant parent soon enough, and when someone asks them if it seems only fair that ALL the theories be taught, they will say, "Well, sure." It's just a theory, right? They don't really know that stuff, right?

The only way to win this war on our collective minds is to take to action. Here we are largely preaching to the choir. Talk about the same stuf with your neighbor or your friend. Join the school boards, go to PTA, and yes, contact your congresman.

[mid]

Originally Posted by beskeptical

No matter how often it is explained that the theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity, the old argument just keeps resurfacing, "It's only a theory".

As supposed to the guy on Radio 4 this morning that was pointing out how ID barely even qualifies as a hypothesis, let alone a proper theory yet...

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by mid

As supposed to the guy on Radio 4 this morning that was pointing out how ID barely even qualifies as a hypothesis, let alone a proper theory yet...

What about the guy who was on after him, the Emeritus (retired) Philosophy Prof who used to be an Atheist but isn't any more saying ID is just as valid as Evo?

I suppose the ID crowd couldn't find a Biologist to agree with them.

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by mid

As supposed to the guy on Radio 4 this morning that was pointing out how ID barely even qualifies as a hypothesis, let alone a proper theory yet...

What about the guy who was on after him, the Emeritus (retired) Philosophy Prof who used to be an Atheist but isn't any more saying ID is just as valid as Evo?

I suppose the ID crowd couldn't find a Biologist to agree with them.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Ut

No, the anthropic principle pretty much says that we observe the universe to be as it is because it is a place conductive to us being here to observe it.

It's:

How convenient of Earth to just happen to have water! A substance that we need in abundance!

vs

How convenient of us to need water to live, when the Earth just happens to have it!

Hey there UT. I'm not at all familiar with the anthropic principle, but the 2 sides of your comparison strike me as being equal. Wouldn't a better second statement be, "we are here because the Earth has water"???

[captain swoop]

Or there is Douglas Adams puddle.

The water thinks the hole he is in has been made to fit him perfectly.

spell edit

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

What about the guy who was on after him, the Emeritus (retired) Philosophy Prof who used to be an Atheist but isn't any more saying ID is just as valid as Evo?

I suppose the ID crowd couldn't find a Biologist to agree with them.

Is this the same guy who I saw a news article about recently? If so, his conclusion is not scientific, and, as pointed out, he's not a science prof. Philosophy is a different animal. Finally, this individual's beliefs have nothing to do with anyone else's.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Or there is Dougkas Adams puddle.

The water thinks the hole he is in has been made to fit him perfectly.

=D>
Wow, what a great way of expressing the counter argument. If our biochemistry used liquid ammonia chemistry rather than water, we'd think "great universe, good thing the creator put in all this liquid ammonia".

[Donnie B.]

Originally Posted by Swift

=D>
Wow, what a great way of expressing the counter argument. If our biochemistry used liquid ammonia chemistry rather than water, we'd think "great universe, good thing the creator put in all this liquid ammonia".

Reminds me of a great old cartoon. It's the stereotypical guy-crawling-through-a-burning-desert scene, except the guy is a little green man crawling away from a crashed saucer. The poor creature is clutching at his throat, gasping, "Ammonia! Ammonia!"

[Donnie B.]

Originally Posted by archman

This only bolsters my impression that the average american knows as much about science as a grapefruit.

Actually, I'm sure the average American knows more about grapefruit than about science... :wink:

[I know, I know, that's not how you meant it... but it made me chuckle]