New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 13, 2004

Will Wilkinson selects a better solution to Cobb County's evolution brouhaha.

Comments

|12.13.04 @ 2:07PM|#

Ah....good ole Cobb County, how I miss you. D.C. just isn't the same.

Anyway, from the acticle:

"But the Cobb County controversy is not really about the merits of the theory of evolution, or whether all the alternatives are, as the ACLU argues, motivated by religious faith. The bigger fight is about who gets to impose their beliefs on whom."

Exactly. Which is why neither side (evolution vs creationism) in this debate is any more correct than the other.

|12.13.04 @ 2:15PM|#

That's inane. Let me rephrase it:

"But the Cobb County controversy is not really about the merits of the heliocentric theory, or whether the geocentric alternative is, as the ACLU argues, motivated by religious faith. The bigger fight is about who gets to impose their beliefs on whom."

One day I expect the evolution vs. creationism fight to occupy the same position of 'Haha, people in the past were stupid' as flat-earth and geocentricism does today.

The only people who buy 'OMG it's just a *theory*' as a valid attack on the core principle of modern biology are... nitwits.

Because, uh, Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum are also 'just theories'. Turned on your computer lately? Those theories, they work pretty good, huh?

Randy|12.13.04 @ 2:21PM|#

You could not be more wrong Matt. Clearly evolution is, not just more, but flat-out correct. Creationism, for the most part, is beyond proof. It is faith that sits behind creationist theories. And faith counts for zero in a scientific outlook.

|12.13.04 @ 2:24PM|#

Well. . . there used to be this quaint notion that the truth should be taught in school and evolution has a greater likelihood of being something approaching the truth than the idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago, the process being exactly as stated in a 2000+ year old religious text.

But anyway, perhaps seculars should encourage fundamentalist types to have their way, crippling the education and earning potential of their children. Less competition in the job market for your kids if they get something resembling a decent reality-based education.

The only problem is the fundies vote and have no particular problem using the state to impose their will on others. So it would be nuts for seculars to unilaterally disarm in this particular culture war.

|12.13.04 @ 2:25PM|#

I guess from a libertarian perspective, one should be free to choose whatever they so desire, so Wilkinson's article makes sense from that point of view.

However, I'm not so sure promoting "choice" in this instance would be, in any way, beneficial for the kids. I don't think I'd like a "choice" presented in a classroom of whether there's adequate evidence that the earth is round instead of flat. How could you, with a straight face, allow a sticker to be place on science textbooks stating, "The round earth idea is a theory, not a fact. This material should be considered with an open mind."

I think there has to be limits on how much parents can play russian roulette with their kids future.

|12.13.04 @ 2:34PM|#

What a brilliant article. Why not just do away with public education requirements all together?

Get the government totally out of the business of education. If parents don't want their kids forced in to the education prisons of the public system, let them opt out.

Then come back in two generations, and see what you have sown.

|12.13.04 @ 2:34PM|#

I like the analogy of a 'Menu Board'.

|12.13.04 @ 2:39PM|#

I'm not talking about the merits of either evolution or creationism. I could care less. Taking money from me and then teaching my children a theory of which I don't approve strikes me as quite unlibertarian.(They are still my children right? They don't completely belong to the state yet do they?). Other people's children are not my property, and my children (when/if I have kids) are not the property of the state or anyone else.

This entire fight is a merely a squabble between parties over how to divide their stolen loot. Neither side is any more correct than the other. It's that simple.

David|12.13.04 @ 2:40PM|#

"Maybe there ought to be warning stickers on the public schools."

The best quote from the article

|12.13.04 @ 2:41PM|#

"Then come back in two generations, and see what you have sown."

The horror! Given freedom, some will make poor choices!

A parent who wants his kid to learn about creationism does not automatically reject all scientific learning or the scientific method. Who says their beliefs have to be internally consistent?

|12.13.04 @ 2:49PM|#

Wilkinson's article is so stupid because it calls for doing away with educational standards without doing away with public funding.

Nitwit children are not free. They are dependents.

Matt when you grow up and have kids you'll find it useful that people have agreed to create and pay for a system that teaches your children to read, write, and do arithmatic while you and your spouse are gone all day working to make ends meet. School boards are elected, and levies to fund schools are voted on, after all.

|12.13.04 @ 2:50PM|#

Matt, this isn't a choice between white or wheat bread, or paper or plastic.

Would you object to some schools teaching that the earth is flat?

|12.13.04 @ 2:54PM|#

Wilkinson's analogy makes sense in as far as the choices that I make have little or no effect on others. But the quality of education that the boy or girl next door receives does impact me. If I'm going to go to a doctor to diagnose my illness or hire an engineer to build my bridge, I want a person who has a good training in the sciences, and that starts in school.

Even if little Tommy is not going to be a doctor, it is still in my interests to give him a good education consisting of critical thinking skills and the ability to form logically sound arguments. Those skills depend in large part on the understanding of science and the scientific method, so that needs to be part of an education.

The stickers seem to encourage "critical thinking", but I agree with the ACLU that by singling out that one subject does a disservice to scientific education. It implies that other areas of science are _not_ in dispute, which is not accurate, and that the theory of evolution is on the same level as your aunt Mabel's opinion that strawberry jam is better than grape jelly -- it's just an opinion so take it or leave it and it really doesn't matter.

The moment that intelligent design becomes a scientific theory (and the standards are there for everyone to see---science is not a secret cabal) then we address teaching it in the schools. But at the moment it amounts to "look at all this complexity in the world that we don't have a good explanation for...someone/thing did it!" But _how_ did he/she/it do it? And what made the person/thing/whatchamacallit? Until there are actual scientific theories, with testable hypotheses, ID does not belong in school nor should the stickers be on textbooks.

If a parent wants to instruct his or her child in the ways of The Creator, then by all means do so. But that belongs in the home.

|12.13.04 @ 2:56PM|#

This is meant as kindly and constructively as possible...

But you're starring into one of the rough spots in capital-L Libertarian philosophy. Human nature is not wholly rational, and so a philosophy that assumes we are perfectly rational will lead to these kinds of pragmatically bad conclusions.

|12.13.04 @ 2:58PM|#

Trainwreck:

I'm not 12, I am "grown up."

I disagree with Wilkinson about vouchers (I say no "public funding" or government-mandated standards), but that doesn't make his other argument any less correct.

And I'm sure you do find it "useful" for the government to subsidize the cost of your child's education by taxing those of us without kids, whether we have "agreed" to it or not.

|12.13.04 @ 3:01PM|#

Evolution/natural selection as a theory raises questions. Man has yet to create life from nonliving matter. Whipping up a vat of primordial ooze and replicating this would be rather nifty. There is the question of the fossil record which seems to show startling "jumps" in evolutionary development. And what of the record of creatures with partial developments or of failed mutations?

To treat evolution as factual as the roundness of the earth strikes me as glib. We prove the roundness of the earth many ways (including those wonderful photos from space). We cannot prove evolution in the same manner though we can find evidence to support the general theory. A fair and critical examination of the evidence, however, raises intriguing questions. The problem I have is with the so-called scientists who treat the Darwin's theory as an article of faith.

I agree with school choice, but I also believe that public schools (if they must exist) should challenge students to think critically and question every orthodoxy.

|12.13.04 @ 3:03PM|#

kmw:

"Would you object to some schools teaching that the earth is flat?"

In a free market, I would have a choice to put my child in a school that taught material that I tought would provide him with a quality education. Schools that taught the earth was flat would not be in that category.

|12.13.04 @ 3:05PM|#

And I guess take this a little more firmly...

Evolution and natural explanations for the origin of life are sufficent in the eyes of the people who study biology. Evolution is by some measures the most successful scientific theory in history. I am personally more certain about the truth of natural evolution than I am about quantum mechanics or relativity.

|12.13.04 @ 3:07PM|#

I am also "grown up" and don't have children either. But I still have an interest in educating the children of others, because they are the ones who will be making decisions in the future that will affect me.

Late at night, after I've had a few shots of Grey Goose, I often wonder what life in these United States would be like if all of our politicians had received an education that instilled in them a love of truth. It's too late for the current crop, but maybe not for the young ones growing up now. Unfortunately, the message sent by these stickers are that truth doesn't matter -- it's all just someone's opinion and your opinion is just as good as someone else's, so let's take a vote!

|12.13.04 @ 3:09PM|#

Matt,

I'm actually talking about someone else's children in someone else's school, instead of your own.

Would you object to "Billy" down the street going to Flat Earth Academy?

|12.13.04 @ 3:12PM|#

Jose Ortega y Gasset,

There is enough evidence available that one can prove biological evolution without the fossil record. DNA is more or less a living roadmap of where we came from.

|12.13.04 @ 3:14PM|#

Matt,

Your children aren't your property. It's true you have a lot of authority over them, but that authority doesn't (and in my view, shouldn't) extend to the power to make them stupid. That's not "choice." In 20 years, when your kid has grown up dumb, he won't have chosen to think God make the earth in 6 days.

|12.13.04 @ 3:18PM|#

Quippl:

"I am also "grown up" and don't have children either. But I still have an interest in educating the children of others, because they are the ones who will be making decisions in the future that will affect me."

Fine, but don't force me to pay for children that you have "an interest" in educating. I don't have that interest.

kmw:

"Would you object to "Billy" down the street going to Flat Earth Academy?"

No. It's none of my business. Also, do you really think there would be a huge market for schools that taught the Earth was flat?

|12.13.04 @ 3:21PM|#

Steve:

"Matt,

Your children aren't your property."

That may or may not be true. But they are most certainly not your property or the government's property are they?

|12.13.04 @ 3:21PM|#

matt,

It doesn't matter if 10 kids or 10 million kids are sent to flat-earth schools. Every single kid who goes to the flat-earth school is being harmed by his parents, through no fault of his own.

|12.13.04 @ 3:23PM|#

"Parents would then be free to put their children�s education in the hands of schools that reflect their beliefs, not the beliefs of school boards, curriculum committees, and the teachers unions."

I'm all for rolling back the power of the state when it comes to acting on facts that could be interpreted in various ways. This is not one of those times.

Schools don't teach "beliefs" they teach basic fact and method, most notably the scientific method and critical method in the enlightenment tradition. These aren't the bloody "beliefs of the school board" and they're weren't acquired bloody overnight! These are hard won gains that took centuries of struggle against precisely this kind of dark ages mentality.

I also find disturbing the idea that education ought to be subject to some sort of Social Darwinism where "markets" decide the truth. There's already a market within the liberal education tradition. It's called the "market of ideas." The Creationists already put up their fruitcake stand, and no one bought it. Now they can fuck off.

If they want "intelligent design" in the school cirriculae, there's plenty of room for it in Mythology and Religious Studies.

|12.13.04 @ 3:28PM|#

But of course, you steve, know what's best for other people's children, and it's not flat earth school, right?

You still didn't answer my previous question: Are other people's children your property?

|12.13.04 @ 3:28PM|#

Also, do you really think there would be a huge market for schools that taught the Earth was flat?

You're right, market economics ultimately sort things out. How big of a market do you suppose there is for a creation scientist in oh... say, a DNA forensics lab?

But I digress. The market for true science-based careers is rather small. There are a lot of fields one can work in without much scientific education.

|12.13.04 @ 3:34PM|#

I though that was a great article.

And then I see bunch of idiots posting on this thread. (I am just learning about libertarianism myself, but this is an easy one)

I read the article, and I read a man saying "do you want to be able to choose your bread or do you want someone else to force that choice on you?"

And the comments that I read on the thread can be summed up as;

"this argument is preposterous, I and all reasonable people know that wheat bread is the best. It is proven to be the best, and I can't allow anyone else to make the wrong decision and choose anything but wheatbread"

God Damn people. Is public school really that good???? WTF? Have the people that have been making choices for everyone else done such a good job that they we should continue on this same path?

I will let my neighbor choose to send his kid to a school that teaches creationism, and even flat earth shit. Because I will bet every dollar I own that on average the kids will have a stronger chance of learning to read, write and do math. They will be overall much better educated, and they will figure out WHY creationism is right or wrong for themselves, instead of being able to recite it.

REMEMBER A LACK OF FREE CHOICE CAN ONLY BE A GOOD THING IF YOU ARE CHOOSING FOR EVERYONE ELSE (And guess what, you aren't)

Will Wilkinson|12.13.04 @ 3:36PM|#

I wrote a post on my blog a few days ago that touches on some the concerns of ya'll up in here. I think there's reason to believe that the improved educational quality of a private or voucherized system would lead to lessened susceptibility to religious dogma, even if many more students were educated in religious institutions. I think this is counter-intuitive at first, but plausible on reflection.

|12.13.04 @ 3:40PM|#

kwais;
"Because I will bet every dollar I own that on average the kids will have a stronger chance of learning to read, write and do math."

Maybe it's my apparently horrendous public school education, but I can't exactly see what the teaching of Creationism has to do with how well a person learns the multiplication tables. Unless of course God would "intelligently design" the skills in the heads of the children who learned his preferred method?

|12.13.04 @ 3:42PM|#

The scientific method can't really be applied to creationism without disproving the theory. That's because it's religion. Creationists will believe regardless of what the scientific evidence shows. It's a narrow interpretation of an ancient text, and not one shared by all adherents to Christianity. It's belief, not science.

And parents are perfectly free to homeschool their children or send them to a private school if they want. What we as a society provide is a free public education. Parents aren't required to send their children to public schools. They're taxes that pay for education aren't a direct subsidy of their own children's education but part of the community good.

|12.13.04 @ 3:45PM|#

matt,

No, I don't think your children are my property, or the government's. I think your children are their own property, though until they become adults I guess you could say that property is held in trust -- some of the rights they'll have as adults are waiting to be claimed.

What does this have to do with the flat-earth school? Well, un-libertarian though it might be, I think a decent education is something that every kid has a right to. If the parents stand in the way, the state should use its power to guarantee that education.

That doesn't mean we have to have government-run schools. But the schools we do have should be open to all and should have a minimum standard of competence -- kids should learn to read, should learn that the earth is round, creationism is bunk, etc. I don't think that makes your kids state property.

|12.13.04 @ 3:49PM|#

Will Wilkinson said:

"I think there's reason to believe that the improved educational quality of a private or voucherized system would lead to lessened susceptibility to religious dogma..."

I'm 100% certain you are correct. However, what is the cost to the poor sods who are in the wrong part of the educational bell curve? Do they end up as clergy?

Highway|12.13.04 @ 3:51PM|#

Why do we assume that children now will be making decisions for us in the future? Why will I not be making my own decisions? Are we assuming that everyone will be infirm in their future, and require others to make basic decisions for them? Or are we assuming that 'the government' will take over all decision-making, leading to these current children weilding what amounts to dictatorial powers over any senior citizen?

Futhermore, exactly what bearing does Origin of Species have to do with ANYTHING else in modern life? Even the 'creationists' accept the genetic basis of characteristics of beings. Is someone who decides to go into the field of genetic research going really going to limit themselves to their grade school generalist teaching? No, they're going to have a lot more instruction about the subject.

Additionally, why does the 'consensus of scientists' mean so much in this discussion, yet similar consensus in climatology roundly dismissed? There are significant holes in BOTH subjects, yet in one they're glossed over as things we haven't figured out yet, while the other's holes are used as reasons to pooh-pooh the theory. Is the presence of god on one side part of that?

Personally I think Wilkinson's right on the money in that the ONLY reason this debate is so hot is the forced inductance into public schools and the forced funding demanded of everyone. Since there's only one school, everyone fights over it. Since the actual teaching means so very little, everyone fights over it. And since it will never be proven where we came from, everyone fights over it.

|12.13.04 @ 3:51PM|#

Evolution as a theory appears to be useful on two levels. First in its value to biology, and second as a method of teaching what scientists mean when they grant the label "theory" to something. Creationism has the proud label of "faith", and competes in a different environment.

Public education has a lot more support behind it then just the parents. Whole families are involved not just the parents (many private school educations are funded by the grandparents). The business commmunity is generally supportive. Public education also adds a huge premium to my property's value since people are willing to pay a premium to be in the school district so count me in. Even though I pay the Arch-diocese of Denver to teach my kids that I'm going to hell (which of course they are right about).

To me the issue remains the federal government involvement in my local schools. Some municipalities will do dumb things. Some will even do a few things that ought to be stopped (there are limits, slavery for instance). The only check I have against those lousy ideas from being passed on to my, obviously above average, community is the expectation that Colorado can make its own laws independent of Virginia and Kansas.

|12.13.04 @ 4:03PM|#

If the hillbilly counties of This Great Nation choose to keep their kids ignorant (by teaching Creationism, or by discouraging girls from pursuing careers and achievement in the public sphere), what would that mean for my (soon to be) well educated, coastal-elitist daughter?

Will she have more opportunity, because of the decreased competition for good jobs? Or will she have less, because of the reduction in economic growth caused by the unnecessarily high numbers of dimwits in the work force?

|12.13.04 @ 4:05PM|#

That's not to say I don't cherish - cherish - their strong moral values.

|12.13.04 @ 4:06PM|#

Highway it's a defining characteristic of human beings to search for the origin of life.

Some people believe it was all described in a book written a few thousand years ago.

Others think other books written by other men describe the origin of life.

|12.13.04 @ 4:09PM|#

The Blowhard said:

If the hillbilly counties of This Great Nation choose to keep their kids ignorant (by teaching Creationism, or by discouraging girls from pursuing careers and achievement in the public sphere), what would that mean for my (soon to be) well educated, coastal-elitist daughter?

You call someone on the carpet for racism in the Hillary thread, then turn around and go after "hillbilly counties"? Bask in the glow of your hypocrisy. There are PLENTY of metropolitan catholics and born-agains that are teaching creation. And if you have been paying attention to the headlines, they're trying to make inroads in metropolitan areas.

Not that I would expect you to pay attention, given your complete lack of understanding of most issues.

|12.13.04 @ 4:09PM|#

Learning about evolution won't help dimwits make correct change at the MickyD drive-thru. Let's worry about the semiliterate graduates who are innumerate. Creationism can be addressed afterward.

|12.13.04 @ 4:14PM|#

Joe,
This is one situation where I've observed first-hand the effects of a "fundie" based education. (Distant relatives.)

Let's just say almost any job market would thank them for diminishing the competition. If I recall correctly, out of around a dozen of them, only one isn't in manual labor. And he's a pastor.

|12.13.04 @ 4:14PM|#

Of course, creationism isn't the only alternative to evolution. Some of the people who write books on "intelligent design" have this in common:
1. They're tenured professors at universities.
2. They believe the universe is about 12 billion years old.
3. They do not quote scripture or promote a particular detailed view of the "designer".
4. They're a lot smarter than most of the journalism majors who sneer at them.

|12.13.04 @ 4:24PM|#

Steve:

"Well, un-libertarian though it might be, I think a decent education is something that every kid has a right to."

So now we have a right to life, liberty, property, and....education? What about a right to health care, or a right to a good job, or a laundry list of other state-sponsored "rights."

Look, I'll say this as plainly as I can: You don't have a right to force me to provide for your children, or my children, what your definition of a "decent education" does or does not include.

|12.13.04 @ 4:28PM|#

"Intelligent Design" is not an alternative to evolution. It's an alternative to the notion that evolution is unguided. It's also impossible to disprove so it's much more of a philosophy than a scientific hypothesis. It's something that people in the biological sciences (most of whom believe in God, but understand the notion of faith well enough that they don't feel the need to look for evidence to support their religious beliefs) generally consider to be not worthy of their time.

|12.13.04 @ 4:28PM|#

Back in about 1750, when Ben Franklin was beginning his "political" stage of life, he tried to convince Pennsylvania Germans of the wisdom of "public" schools. Instantly recognizing Franklin's ulterior motives, the Germans told him to shove it.
Unfortunately, bad ideas don't stay dead, eh?

|12.13.04 @ 4:29PM|#

The Mad Hungarian said:

2. They believe the universe is about 12 billion years old.

In talking with pastors and lay fundies, I've come to realize that most now accept the scientific community's given age of the universe.

Where they steer back to dogma is when it comes to the earth, and it's path to current status.

Given how slowly even the most religiously motivated have accepted the approximate age of the universe, in another 200 years there probably won't be much debate about whether or not DNA mutates at a predictable rate.

|12.13.04 @ 4:30PM|#

OK, a few things:

First, obviously all schools should be privatized, yadda yadda yadda.

With that out of the way, as long as these public schools do exist, there's a strong case to be made that they should at least teach things that have been, well, tested against experiments, observations, and computations. As opposed to teaching whatever nuttiness the creationists are spewing. (And I say that as a practicing Catholic and soon-to-be Ph.D in physics. So don't anybody accuse me of being an atheist who sneers at religion just because I mock the creationists.)

Now, Mr. Paine's Goiter said:
There are PLENTY of metropolitan catholics and born-agains that are teaching creation.

I've met a few Catholics who seem skeptical of evolution, but remember that the Catholic Church made its peace with evolution a long time ago. Even in the 1950's, when my mother went to a Catholic grade school in Middle America, evolution was regarded by the priests and nuns as a long-settled matter.


Now, as to the warning labels themselves:

Believe it or not, in some sense I couldn't care less, and I think the ACLU is idiotic to fight the labels. Yes, I know, the labels are a step in the wrong direction, because they single out evolution from all other subjects for a special admonishment on skepticism. The thing is, although they took a step toward the line, they didn't quite cross it yet. It might be a bad idea to single out evolution for such admonishments, but they didn't actually inject any religion (or religion masquerading as "creation science") into it yet.

It's tempting to identify an enemy and oppose any and all things that the enemy might propose. (Not that anybody on this forum would ever do such a thing, of course...) But until the enemy actually crosses the line, it's best to refrain from going to court.

Finally, I'd actually have no objections if biology teachers simply dispensed with the whole thing with this 90 second announcement:

"We're going to talk about scientific theories on the origin and development of living organisms. Now, some here might, for various reasons, object to these theories. Some might even argue that these theories are wrong because nobody can go back in time millions of years to see what actually happened back then. Well, whatever one might think of those objections, the fact is that the theory of evolutions provides a way to explain all known data in terms of natural phenomena. It also enables us to understand evolutionary phenomena observed on human time scales, such bacterial resistance to antibiotics, insect adaptation to pesticides, and animals adapting to new predators. Because this theory enables us to understand the things that we observe, we will use it to explain the things that we observe. Some might argue that it does a poor job of explaining past events, and that's something you are free to debate all you want outside of class, but biology class isn't for finding out what happened in the past, it's for understanding observations, and evolutionary theory does a superb job there. So, let's start by talking about cells..."

Now, some of the more philosophically-inclined types on this forum could quibble with the wording of that disclaimer, but the general idea is a good summary of what most scientists think: We don't know what actually happened millions of years ago, but we sure know that it looks like there was a gradual process of descent with modification. And those concepts enable us to explain a great many things, so we run with it and save the philosophical questions (can one truly know what happened in the past?) until somebody builds a time machine.

|12.13.04 @ 4:36PM|#

In regard to "intelligent design":

Of course, creationism isn't the only alternative to evolution. Some of the people who write books on "intelligent design" have this in common:
1. They're tenured professors at universities.
2. They believe the universe is about 12 billion years old.
3. They do not quote scripture or promote a particular detailed view of the "designer".
4. They're a lot smarter than most of the journalism majors who sneer at them.

All these things are true. But now consider this: A very good friend of mine is also a physicist, and he was raised by religious fundamentalists. He remains a devout Christian, even though he now accepts that the first two chapters of Genesis are to be taken as allegory, not history. He has tried his best to find good arguments from the "intelligent design" (ID) community. Every time he finds a good one we discuss it.

After being confronted with the best that my colleague could find, I remain convinced that ID is a somewhat more sophisticated form of "God of the Gaps". They raise some very good questions, but they don't provide many answers.

|12.13.04 @ 4:37PM|#

According to last month's National Geographic 44% of Americans believe the Genesis version of creation. This is too high a number to be accounted for by Republican hillbilly fundies.

This also seems to have little impact on economic well being. After all, when was the last time you had to display any knowledge of the origins of life in your job? (biologists shouldn't answer). By the way Brigham Young University has a world renowned dept of molecular biology.

Now however embarassed I may be to have to share this country with so many people who believe something that I believe to be false I accept it. The level of inumeracy and economic illiteracy (both fostered by the public education system) are far more disturbing to me. And far more likely to impact economic well being.

That said, the sticker being placed on Cobb County textbooks is basically untrue so should not be placed there. However I feel about public schools if they teach science they must teach that which meets scientific tests. And in the case of the origins of life that's evolution. If parents wish to teach their children something different they need to do so.

|12.13.04 @ 4:39PM|#

Steve -

I know you're back and forth with Matt, but I have to jump in here because you seem to be dealing with the trees while not understanding the forest.

Flat-earth, creation, whatever, you don't have a right to decide what "proper" education is. And if you believe you do, because you have a better understanding than others, think about where that leads (preferrably before responding).

You wrote -

I think a decent education is something that every kid has a right to. If the parents stand in the way, the state should use its power to guarantee that education....kids should learn to read, should learn that the earth is round, creationism is bunk -

Whether I agree or disagree with creationism (and someone rightfully pointed out these two things can be believed at the same time) - it's not up to you, or whom ever you think you can appoint, to decide what "kids" should know.

Think of it this way, I think all childern should understand manors and be able to carry on a decent conversation about current events. Anyone with a real job now knows that these two things send you almost as far as real knowledge, even in fields such as computers. Of course you need the requisite computer knowledge as well, but after all, we are talking about teaching kids how to cope with the world as it is, not necessarily "job" skills.

So, if I think you're an ass, and the cirriculum is up to me, and I think you will teach your childern how to be asses, then the state should have the power to remove your childern in order to ensure they don't hurt their future earnings power due to not being able to play nice with others.

|12.13.04 @ 4:40PM|#

Goiter,

Yawn yawn yawn. Bask bask bask.

You care way too much about my posts.

|12.13.04 @ 4:41PM|#

"This entire fight is a merely a squabble between parties over how to divide their stolen loot."

You said it.

|12.13.04 @ 4:42PM|#

joe,
This is the correct answer:
"... less, because of the reduction in economic growth caused by the unnecessarily high numbers of dimwits in the work force?"

|12.13.04 @ 4:44PM|#

If education is privatized, then I assume it will be paid for by parents for children.

Will it also remain compulsory? (Until what age, etc?)

If so, then how does a compulsory requirement to pay for a child's education fit into the Libertarian political philosophy?

If not, then how does the ability of parents to deprive their children of education mesh with Libertarianism?

|12.13.04 @ 4:45PM|#

I have never understood why the religious don't make the following argument ...

"God put the fossils in the earth to test our faith."

I'm sure they could find a passage in the Bible to support this. Revealed religion was an unfortunate development. Greek and Roman mythology made much more sense.

"Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est."

"Certum est, quia impossible est."

QFMC cos. V

|12.13.04 @ 4:48PM|#

"By the way Brigham Young University has a world renowned dept of molecular biology."

Interestingly, they also have a number of respected evolutionary biologists. The Mormon church (at least the mainstream one), as near as I can tell, doesn't have a problem with evolution.

|12.13.04 @ 4:50PM|#

"1. They're tenured professors at universities.
2. They believe the universe is about 12 billion years old.
3. They do not quote scripture or promote a particular detailed view of the "designer".
4. They're a lot smarter than most of the journalism majors who sneer at them."

5. They're not Biologists and most work in the social sciences.

|12.13.04 @ 4:52PM|#

Lincoln-

Careful there. A few of them are biologists. The most prominent is Michael Behe.

Which is not to say that I'm impressed by his theories. But creationists delight in small factual errors by critics.

|12.13.04 @ 4:53PM|#

Thoreau:

Another disclaimer your teacher should throw out there:

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not explain the origin of life.

|12.13.04 @ 4:54PM|#

The Cobb County case was featured on Penn & Teller's "Bullshit." Watching the fundies try to stretch and reach to claim that "Intellegent Design" is a science was both hillarious and very scary. When the School Board passed the resolution mandating that creationism be taught alongside evolution, the rednecks started to whoop and cheer like Ku-Kluxers at a lynching. Sometimes, I find it frightening that these bible-beaters are allowed any political power at all.

Yeah, yeah, in Libertopia all schools would be private and the fundies could choose a creationist schools. The trouble is that it isn't likely to happen soon, so we have deal with the fact that public schools are are reality and that there are certain constitutional prohibitions regarding what can be taught in our taxpayer-supported schools.

Biology classes should be devoted to teaching biology, which supports Darwinian theory. "Intellegent Design" is not science no matter how much the fundies spin it. I wouldn't mind if the creation myth was taught in an elective class on comparitive religion, but IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Keep it out of our science classes!

|12.13.04 @ 4:54PM|#

No, but the modern synthesis does give a pretty good idea of what that origin must have looked like.

|12.13.04 @ 4:55PM|#

Fabius, I've seen that argument made.

I applaud the effort, but attempts to parody fundamentalism are doomed to failure.

|12.13.04 @ 4:56PM|#

"I have never understood why the religious don't make the following argument ...
"God put the fossils in the earth to test our faith.""

I unfortunately don't have a citation for you, but I have seen this argument made. The version I saw was made decades ago, and since then creationists have gotten considerably more sophisticated about making more scientific-sounding arguments that can convince scientifically illiterate and semi-literate people that they have a scientific theory (intelligent design is a good example).

I'm still amazed at how many still pull out the old 2nd law of thermodynamics crap though. That one was stale when it was new.

|12.13.04 @ 4:56PM|#

Fabius, the problems of evolution (especially human evolution) for Christian theology are numerous.

If God had made the world to look as if it were old but it were really young, then God would be deceitful.

If humans evolved from a non-human primate, at what stage did God decide to ensoul those primates?

And so on...

|12.13.04 @ 4:57PM|#

"I have never understood why the religious don't make the following argument ...

'God put the fossils in the earth to test our faith.'"

They have. Hang around the creationist WWW sites.

|12.13.04 @ 5:01PM|#

While some may find it amazing, I know many persons who are devoutly religious and yet who are quite successful financially and/or professionally. While I have done any research on this subject, I would guess that one's religious beliefs have little correlation to one's economic success. Whether Joe's daughter believes in the myth of creationism or the myth of successful public housing will have little to do with her contribution to the economy.

As for schools, I note with interest that the Jesuits (with whom I studied) provide an excellent quality of education. Should the State dictate what is taught in schools? My response is "no." As a general rule, the parents should choose. Parents have a strong incentive to ensure children receive a quality education. This is why many affluent parents choose private schools. Many African-American parents understand this and strongly support school vouchers. Unfortunately (for them) the school unions frown on choice so the children of poor, inner city families continue to receive lousy public school educations.

|12.13.04 @ 5:02PM|#

As per usual I open my mouth without reading the article. Of course I feel like I'm in good company.

As to the simple solution, I agree with vouchers and would welcome them. Other ideas that might make sense and aren't even in conflict:

- First and most obviously (since it works within the current system) pay attention to who is running for school board, and vote accordingly.
- Second, limit the scope of school boards or even better kill them off
- Give the Home and School Group, PTA, PTO veto authority over (or some other check) over the school boards decrees.

|12.13.04 @ 5:03PM|#

Now, Mr. Paine's Goiter said:
There are PLENTY of metropolitan catholics and born-agains that are teaching creation.

I've met a few Catholics who seem skeptical of evolution, but remember that the Catholic Church made its peace with evolution a long time ago. Even in the 1950's, when my mother went to a Catholic grade school in Middle America, evolution was regarded by the priests and nuns as a long-settled matter.

I was raised catholic in a heavily catholic area. So much so, that our biology teacher read a disclaimer about evolution, then excused those that didn't want to participate in the lessons. They did other replacement lessons about genetics.

Then, in a public high school mind you, she actually followed up her lesson on evolution with her own lesson in creation, and this was completely acceptable.

Of course, this was 15 years ago, but it was suburbia to a decent-sized metro.

Some catholics may have settled it, the Franciscans for example. But the benedictines have not. Not by a long shot. I'm not sure where the jesuits stand.

|12.13.04 @ 5:04PM|#

"Taking money from me and then teaching my children a theory of which I don't approve strikes me as quite unlibertarian.(They are still my children right? They don't completely belong to the state yet do they?)."

The door swings both ways. I don't want MY taxpayer dollars taken away to teach mythology regardless of whether or not I have a kid in a public school. However, the fact of the matter is that public schools exist no matter how much we dream of a 100% private education system. Now you would think that would result in an en paase, but the First Amendement makes it pretty clear that those tax dollars aren't supposed to be used to promote anyone's particular relgious views.

I win and the fundies lose--thank goodness.

|12.13.04 @ 5:06PM|#

Goiter,

Yawn yawn yawn. Bask bask bask.

You care way too much about my posts.

Nah - just your credibility, which you lack. People don't forget your stances and statements because it's a new thread. You can't take both sides of an argument and have credibility.

Of course, you only cement that by not answering the question, which you've done time and time again here.

|12.13.04 @ 5:10PM|#

So they already made that argument. Damn.

Why can't God deceive us? Didn't he deceive Abraham about the sacrifice?

"Ensoulment" reminds about the arguments over 'homoousion' and 'homoiousion'. No offence to Christians but, come on, would a truly benevolent God make the incorrect answer to such an obscure argument a heresy and hell-sending offence? I can understand the difference between Mars Ultor and Iovus Optimus Maximus but the Trinity makes my head spin. It's as if the early churchmen took the worst parts of jewish legalism and polytheistic mult-aspect godheads and mixed them together to form the most perplexing and non-sensical religion ever.

I strongly recommend everyone try the Roman gods. You won't go to heaven but they've been known to protect and prosper those who follow them.

QFMC cos. V

|12.13.04 @ 5:10PM|#

"I win and the fundies lose--thank goodness."
-Akira

"This entire fight is a merely a squabble between parties over how to divide their stolen loot."
-Me, from upthread

You might not be so glib if you weren't on the team currently winning the squabble.

The point: I don't want my tax dollars going to support either. Pay for your own child's education.

|12.13.04 @ 5:13PM|#

Mr. Goiter-

I went to a Franciscan school, as did my mother, so that might explain it. I know very little about the Benedictines. Given what I know about the Jesuits, I think it's safe to assume that they signed off on evolution quite a long time ago, given their scholarly inclinations.

What's funny is that as somebody who was raised in a Franciscan environment I sometimes feel out of place when I go to a Catholic church run by a different denomination. A Jesuit parish that I went to for one summer (I was living in a different city for an internship) didn't bother me, but I just felt out of place in a Paulist parish. As an undergrad, the Newman Center was run by a very liberal Diocesan priest, but it was OK because every Sunday he served up a heaping portion of guilt. What's funny is that when I told him that he makes me feel guilty every Sunday he actually felt guilty about it. He was trying to be hip and liberal and modern, and he didn't realize that in doing so he was foisting liberal guilt on us in the same way that the old-school church foisted a more conservative type of guilt on its parishioners. I guess the lesson is that people who try to rebel frequently morph into whatever they're rebelling against.


Somebody else wrote:
I'm still amazed at how many still pull out the old 2nd law of thermodynamics crap though. That one was stale when it was new.

Believe it or not, I know a guy who got his Ph.D for studying phase transitions, a subject where entropy is crucial. But he was raised in a fundamentalist family (not the same guy that I described earlier, but his brother), and he tried to use the 2nd Law crap on me as well. What's sad is that he didn't even try to do it in a slick manner. My work doesn't require as much understanding of entropy as his, so if he'd wanted to he could have easily overwhelmed me with sophisticated-sounding arguments and sent me away crying. But he just brought out the old straw men.

|12.13.04 @ 5:14PM|#

That doesn't mean we have to have government-run schools. But the schools we do have should be open to all and should have a minimum standard of competence -- kids should learn to read, should learn that the earth is round, creationism is bunk, etc. I don't think that makes your kids state property.

No, Steve. Apparently standards are oppressive. Kids should be free to learn that the world is 5000 years old and that condoms usually don't work. Telling local municipalities otherwise is first step on the road to serfdom.
------------------------------------------------

Teaching kids to KNOW because they BELIEVE instead of BELIEVE because they KNOW is not the an acceptable foundation for any education, public or private.

The idea that allowing religion free reign on education through the channel of market forces will eventually result in a rolling back of religious dogma is frighteningly optimistic. And it's based on an overly bright view of human nature that Wilkinson expressed very clearly when he commented:

I think there's reason to believe that the improved educational quality of a private or voucherized system would lead to lessened susceptibility to religious dogma, even if many more students were educated in religious institutions.

This is essentially the crux of the argument. And I have to say this view strikes me as completely unrealistic given what we know about the virulence of religious memes on young children's brains and their imperviousness to later change.

The key fallacy here is the view that a standards-free system will, in the long run, expose students to the kind of thinking that will make them *less* open to belief-over-knowledge. Whereas it's completely obvious that those who call for such a system are social *conservatives* that want to *protect* their children from exposure to such ideas. Why would anyone believe that a system run on indoctrination via parental dogma and shielding of children from scientific thought would produce good results?

I think Wilkinson's right on the money in that the ONLY reason this debate is so hot is the forced inductance into public schools and the forced funding demanded of everyone.

Except that this has been happening for a hundred years now. The ONLY reason this debate is so hot NOW is because religious-based conservatives fuck like rabbits and outbreed everyone else. They may not believe in Darwinism, but they're its most faithful practitioners.

|12.13.04 @ 5:16PM|#

Re: vouchers

I fear that vouchers will become a way for the gov't to control private schools.

|12.13.04 @ 5:17PM|#

thoreau,

I studied evolution at a jesuit college so I'd guess they're at peace with it. They seemed to be, but then they drank a lot too.

|12.13.04 @ 5:17PM|#

Is this where I can come in again with my obsession with devolution or should I just stay out of it.

|12.13.04 @ 5:21PM|#

Fabius: "Why can't God deceive us? Didn't he deceive Abraham about the sacrifice?"

I'm sorry, I should have written *systematically* deceive.

|12.13.04 @ 5:24PM|#

Public schools teach modern environmentalism which, from my perspective, is difficult to distinguish from religion.

Crichton speech

The logic behind Pavel's argument is the same behind every statist impulse. The government must impose standards because if they do not, terrible things will happen. When applied to education, this simply ignores the incentive parents have to ensure children have a high quality education. It also ignores the excellent record of success posted by private religious schools who, by the way, manage to produce far more engineers, doctors and scientists than priests.

|12.13.04 @ 5:24PM|#

I should mention there's a funny article in the reply to this