New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | September 30, 2005

Jacob Sullum has a solution for the irreducible complexity of religious issues in public schools: Separate school and state.

Comments

|9.30.05 @ 9:30AM|#

a federal judge in Harrisburg has been called upon to decide whether intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. Once he has settled that controversy, perhaps he can tell us what killed the dinosaurs and whether there are civilizations on other planets. . . .
But the origin of life . . . has no obvious relevance to the guilt of murder suspects or the liability of pharmaceutical companies.

Shame on you, Jacob, for such sloppy thought processes. The origin of life is not on trial here; it's whether or not ID is legitimate science. And by the standards of science--testability and such--no, it is not. It makes no statements of its own; all it does is point out real or alleged gaps in evoutionary theory.

|9.30.05 @ 9:39AM|#

Here�s my idea: take a state that�s not doing so well in education anyway (say, Mississippi) and make them the experimental land where public schools are eliminated. See how long it takes for Mississippi to then overtake all the commie public school states as the leader in education. Or stop the experiment after 200 years, whichever comes first.

|9.30.05 @ 9:50AM|#

!!!! You mean to say that keeping things simple, clear, concise, and uncomplicated could . . . possibly . . . be . . . while not perfect . . . the best solution for the most?

Nice. If we can only convince our foreign-policy snafu-entanglement-interventionist mucker-uppers, our tax "incentives" (go to a no-break flat tax), our Social Security Status-joes (PSA - you save what you put in), etc. . .

|9.30.05 @ 9:52AM|#

First, why wasn't Marshall Fritz mentioned? He's been beatin' this drum for years.

Second, you want a no-cost way to improve public schools a hundred percent overnight? Every teacher across the land gets the attention of the students (That may be the hardest part.), then makes this announcement: "Who doesn't want to be here? Okay, get the hell outta here!"

|9.30.05 @ 9:54AM|#

To expand on Jennifer's comment, Darwinian evolution is NOT a theory on the origins of life, but rather of speciation. That's dishonest in the mouths of creationists, ignorant from the pens of journalists, and sloppy from the keyboard of Sullum.

|9.30.05 @ 9:57AM|#

Something else occurred to me (and I'm hoping Thoreau weighs in on this later): while kids should certainly be told what questions evolutionary theory hasn't been able to answer, the way the ID proponents want to do it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest: talking about the problems before the theory has been fully taught.

I think of it like this: there's no question that babies (embryos, rather) are formed from the meeting of a sperm and an egg, which come together and then create a new life. But there are some details of this process we don't yet know about--certain details about cell division, say, or just how much influence the mother's hormones have on the developing baby.

The ID approach to arguing "gaps" in evolution would be akin to a group of "Intelligent Gestationists" who oppose the sperm + egg theory and try to muddy the waters by telling kids "Scientists still can't explain the effect of hormones on the developing fetus!" and "Scientists can't fully explain the process of cell division!" before they ever even get around to talking about what scientists do agree on concerning the embryos, or explaining all the evidence that does support the theory that sperm + egg = pregnancy.

Jeff P.|9.30.05 @ 9:59AM|#

Liberal arts profs have wanted compulsory science dropped from high school for years now, I say we do so. Drop science, math, etc. There should be one principal with enough balls to rewrite the course roster to consist of ID, Ebonics, mid-80s revisionist history, girls-only Home Ec, tether ball, and serve ONLY junk food for lunch.

theOneState|9.30.05 @ 10:01AM|#

This is really too bad. My teachers were all strict adherents to scientific principle and would never have ventured out and offered non-scientific analysis to server their narrow political views.

No, wait...that was only one of my teachers.

Seriously, this is really absurd. I joke about my teachers, but I recovered nicely, and I'd rather they decide what to teach (at least you get a diversity of views that way). So leave ID out of the science hall, but let the philosphy or political science or "society" teacher talk about it if she wants.

I think you can do that w/o cleaving the schools from the government. (I wouldn't mind that, either, just to be clear.)

|9.30.05 @ 10:02AM|#

Jennifer is right, Sullum is wrong, the judge is not being asked to make a scientific judgement about the truth of Darwin's theories vs. the Discovery Institute's. He is being asked to make a legal judgement about whether teaching ID involves religious indoctrination.

And this is hardly the first Constitutional case that involves touchy subject matter.

ed|9.30.05 @ 10:03AM|#

My oh my, how God's powers have waned, that he must be sneeked in through the back door like this.

ed|9.30.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Er, sneaked.
Jeez, the one time I don't spell-check...

|9.30.05 @ 10:08AM|#

I'm just waiting for thoreau to arrive with his "there should be no public schools, yadda yadda" dismissal, like he does every time I bring this line of reasoning up in an anti-ID thread (which inevitably devolves into an anti-Christian one).

|9.30.05 @ 10:09AM|#

1) I like Jennifer's point about intelligent gestation: We don't understand every step in the process of embryonic development yet. Should we conclude that the gaps are filled by supernatural intervention?

2) The issue is even narrower than whether ID is real science: I read the Dover disclaimer (sorry, can't find the link at the moment), and I gotta say, it's pretty damn innocuous. I'm not here to defend it, I certainly wouldn't put it in a science classroom if the issue were up to me. But, really, the actual disclaimer is so innocuous (google it yourself and read it) that I don't know if it's worth fighting over. There's a difference between concluding that something isn't worth fighting over, and saying that you like it.

Yes, yes, I know, the disclaimer is step 1 towards something worse. Well, I gotta say, the disclaimer is so tepid, so mild, it might be better to save the ammo for step 2. Even compared to other disclaimers this one is particularly innocuous.

Again, let me emphasize that I would not put this particular disclaimer in a class if I were the one writing the curriculum. But I have to ask myself: What if I taught at a private school, and I had a lot of money in the bank (so resigning in protest was a viable option) and the principle, in response to parental pressure, urged me to make this very mild disclaimer? Would I resign in protest?

Really, look for the actual disclaimer. It's more honest than the "just a theory" ones. It's still not great, but I wonder if this is really the right battle to fight.

|9.30.05 @ 10:11AM|#

crimethink-

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm probably going against the current on this thread, so at least I surprised.

And I think we all agree that private education would solve it. But, at the same time, that's not really the issue at hand. So if I dismiss that solution it's because I want to get to the issue in front of us, not the issue we'd like to see in front of us.

|9.30.05 @ 10:11AM|#

ed, I thought the same thing about the "ceremonial deism" argument in regards to "...under God" and opening prayers: since when do Christians treat God like a bunch of red, white, and blue crepe paper, hanging from the rafters to class the joint up?

|9.30.05 @ 10:13AM|#

"while kids should certainly be told what questions evolutionary theory hasn't been able to answer, the way the ID proponents want to do it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest: talking about the problems before the theory has been fully taught."

That's the place where I'm at, and the middle point that neither side in this debate is willing to acknowledge. There are gaps in the evidence for evolution. That's why there are currently at least two different versions of the theory. To state that is eminently scientific. Encourage the student to ask questions. Then make them try to figure out how to get the answers.

The problem with the way the ID people are working it is that it is blatantly trying to sell the creation story - which has almost zero empirical support. Having looked at the book that ID people support (something to do with Pandas), it isn't about asking questions, it's about advancing Judeo-Christian creationism.

But, that just makes it all the more apparent to me that Jacob is right - democracy is not the best way to provide education.

|9.30.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Really, look for the actual disclaimer. It's more honest than the "just a theory" ones.

No, it's not too bad, but I still find dishonest the notion that it be mentioned first and foremost before the theory of evolution is ever taught, just as it would be dishonest to start a class on human reproduction with a disclaimer that the "sperm + egg = pregnancy" theory still can't account for a lot of the details of how a fetus develops in the womb.

Phil|9.30.05 @ 10:16AM|#

And in addition to Jennifer's and joe's comments, there's this: More generally, I'd like to see a high school curriculum centered around real controversies, not just in science but in history, law, economics, and other fields of study.

If you're waiting to see a real controversy in science, keep waiting, because ID ain't it. It's been a PR coup that ID-peddlers have managed to convince an unscientific public, with the complicity of a lazy journalist corp, that it is. PZ Myers and Red State Rabble are your go-to-guys here.

Whatever the merits of an argument about getting the government out of schools, many of which I support (yes, yes, not all of them, I'll hand in my decoder ring), the end result would almost certainly be a lot more stupid people, a lot more politically divided America, and a lot more stratification and loss of mobility between classes. Imagine the Alternate History that would be taught in a far-left or far-right wing school. I can imagine Rush Limbaugh Junior High teaching as a matter of fact that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons, and Noam Chomsky Prep teaching that Americans Are The Real Terrorists, and the whole country being a lot worse off for it.

ed|9.30.05 @ 10:16AM|#

I think they are just petrified at letting it go, Joe. Just in case.

Jeff P.|9.30.05 @ 10:21AM|#

ID v. Evolution would probably have reletively little impact on public ed, at least compared to most of rubbish they teach kids these days. I'm not condoning it, I'm just wondering where the "war of ideas" was when the rest of the codified ignorance was put into place.

|9.30.05 @ 10:24AM|#

thoreau,

In regard to "intelligent gestation", you're comparing apples and oranges. Sperm and egg uniting to form a zygote has been observed to occur countless times.

While natural selection and short-term evolution have also been observed, that's not the question here. The question is, if we assume that at some time long ago, there were only single-celled organisms, can evolution alone explain the current biodiversity on this planet? And that is something unobservable unless one has access to a time machine.

Which is not to say that evolution is necessarily invalid, or that ID is any better, since it too is essentially unobservable. But please don't act as if evolution is experimentally confirmed; it is more like history than biology in that regard.

|9.30.05 @ 10:25AM|#

I take Mr. Sullum's point in his two opening (and unredacted) paragraphs to be that, even though courts occasionally need to weigh the scientific merit of proffered evidence for purposes of legal admissibility, they should not be engaged in scientific disputes beyond that limited question for the obvious and simple reason that they lack the requisite expertise to do so. If that is indeed his contention, I find nothing at all sloppy in his "thought processes" in those two paragraphs, notwithstanding the dubious scientific status of Intelligent Design.

Phil|9.30.05 @ 10:29AM|#

And in addition to Jennifer's and joe's comments, there's this: More generally, I'd like to see a high school curriculum centered around real controversies, not just in science but in history, law, economics, and other fields of study.

If you're waiting to see a real controversy in science, keep waiting, because ID ain't it. It's been a PR coup that ID-peddlers have managed to convince an unscientific public, with the complicity of a lazy journalist corp, that it is. PZ Myers and Red State Rabble are your go-to-guys here.

Whatever the merits of an argument about getting the government out of schools, many of which I support (yes, yes, not all of them, I'll hand in my decoder ring), the end result would almost certainly be a lot more stupid people, a lot more politically divided America, and a lot more stratification and loss of mobility between classes. Imagine the Alternate History that would be taught in a far-left or far-right wing school. I can imagine Rush Limbaugh Junior High teaching as a matter of fact that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons, and Noam Chomsky Prep teaching that Americans Are The Real Terrorists, and the whole country being a lot worse off for it.

|9.30.05 @ 10:31AM|#

But please don't act as if evolution is experimentally confirmed; it is more like history than biology in that regard.

It's been observed in the real world. Just yesterday, for example, the BBC had a story about how the AIDS virus has been getting less lethal. Evolution has an explanation for why this should be: a virus that is TOO lethal will find it hard to spread; the less effect a virus has on a host body, the more effectively the virus will be able to spread to other hosts.

But what would be the ID explanation for this? God feels pity for the gay people?

|9.30.05 @ 10:31AM|#

I think that it should be stressed in teach the theory of evolution it does not explain the origin of life..., as far as we know, life only comes from life...

Timothy|9.30.05 @ 10:31AM|#

ID can't be a legitimate "theory" being that there's no evidence to support it, and that in science "theory" connotes things that are facts. For instance: the theory of gravity, the theory of special relativity, &c.

I guess that means the question comes down to if ID is a legitimate hypothesis. Well, obviously, because it isn't falsifiable, it isn't.

Therefore, ID is merely conjecture. Do we really want conjecture (even mild speculatory disclaimers) in science classrooms? I say, no, we don't. Presuming, of course, that public schools will continue to exist despite our protestations.

|9.30.05 @ 10:32AM|#

DA Ridgely,

Good point, though that hasn't dissuaded the courts from upholding Roe v Wade, based as it was on Justice Blackmun's embryological musings. Which of course have been shown to be utterly mistaken in the intervening years, but we can't let science get in the way of a good decision, can we?

Phil|9.30.05 @ 10:35AM|#

But please don't act as if evolution is experimentally confirmed; it is more like history than biology in that regard.

So is astrophysics. So what?

|9.30.05 @ 10:35AM|#

I thought this tread was about separating school and state.

|9.30.05 @ 10:36AM|#

quasibill, "That's the place where I'm at, and the middle point that neither side in this debate is willing to acknowledge. There are gaps in the evidence for evolution."

Every course - biology and archaeology - I ever took that mentioned evolution included references to the incompleteness of the record. What's more, there is a vigorous debate going on between Darwinian "genetic drift" vs. "punctuated equilibrium," and I'm sure this is mentioned in classes as well.

There is a characature being pushed by creationists of biologists and teachers as fanatic gatekeepers, hiding these disputes from their pupils, but that is a misrepresentation of what is actually going on in classrooms.

In the politics of projection, the righties are once again assuming that the mainstream acts just like them.

|9.30.05 @ 10:37AM|#

crimethink,

I would think Roe v. Wade is merely one more excellent example why black judicial robes are poor substitutes for white lab coats.

RJT|9.30.05 @ 10:42AM|#

I have always thought religion should be a SEPERATE elective course, not fused into other classes. But one can't deny the impact religion has had on history, so there should be a coursse, the problem there is what kind of religion, all religions? Yes, all.

|9.30.05 @ 10:43AM|#

Jennifer,

Yes, natural selection has been observed many times. ID and natural selection can coexist.

But, as I stated before, all forms of life on earth evolving from a single source, without intervention from an intelligence, has not been observed. Like history, it is not conducive to experimental research.

To offer a libertarian-friendly example, we can design an experiment to prove that increasing government involvement in a coercion-free economy will reduce its efficiency. But we cannot design an experiment to prove that the New Deal caused the Depression to last as long as it did.

|9.30.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Yes, natural selection has been observed many times. ID and natural selection can coexist. But, as I stated before, all forms of life on earth evolving from a single source, without intervention from an intelligence, has not been observed.

So then apply Occam's Razor to this: is it simpler that natural selection goes only so far before an intelligent designer takes over, or that the natural selection we've already seen continue on?

Besides, if you apply the "it hasn't been observed" argument, then ID and evolution are equally worthless.

|9.30.05 @ 10:49AM|#

The Dover statement:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

The case is not even about whether ID will be taught; it is about whether or not this statement will be read to the kids before they are taught about Darwinian evolution.

Phil|9.30.05 @ 10:54AM|#

But, as I stated before, all forms of life on earth evolving from a single source, without intervention from an intelligence, has not been observed.

Neither has the converse, yet Occam's Razor suggests which of the two is the less complicated and likely suggestion.

Like history, it is not conducive to experimental research.

It doesn't have to be. The more that biologists discover about each form of life on Earth, its history, development and connections, the more they can develop an increasingly-coherent theory that at no point requires the intervention of an outside "intelligence."

To offer a libertarian-friendly example, we can design an experiment to prove that increasing government involvement in a coercion-free economy will reduce its efficiency. But we cannot design an experiment to prove that the New Deal caused the Depression to last as long as it did.

Given sufficient knowledge of the initial conditions and parameters, we can certainly construct an appropriately sophisticated model that can do exactly that.

Garth|9.30.05 @ 10:55AM|#

I am writing from the year 2112: Schools were privatized quite some time ago. Turns out the breeding population enthusiastically desired religious based education and eventually the vast majority of schools went that way. The minority secular parents found that they could not muster the resources to found many schools of their liking and most of their kids either home-schooled or went to the majoritarian-opinion private schools.

We are now last in research, science, math, and literature -- though we are first in Bible Comprehension -- on the planet.

There is a silver lining: we have solved the immigration problem. No one wants to move here anymore since we are so relatively poor.

|9.30.05 @ 10:58AM|#

crimethink, experimentation is only one method by which hypotheses can be tested within the scientific method.

The other is observation. We have observed plenty of evidence supporting evolution, and not a single shred of evidence refuting it.

|9.30.05 @ 10:59AM|#

Wow, Phil and I thought of Occam's Razor at roughly the same time. Coincidence--or proof of a higher force at work?

Timothy|9.30.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Man, I propose my theory of divine graviation, I'll use the same disclaimer:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Newton's theory of gravitation and eventually to take a standardized test of which gravitation is a part.

Because Newton's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Divine gravitation is an explanation of the attraction of objects in space that differs from Newton's view. The reference book, "Of Planets and Spheroids," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what divine graviation actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the reasons things fall to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

Does that sound damn foolish to you? It should. And so should ID.

M1EK|9.30.05 @ 11:10AM|#

Please, for the love of God, why can people still write this:


"But if they were not compelled to pay for government-run schools, they would be in a better position to choose schools that reflected their values and preferences, and the compromises they made would be voluntary, instead of terms imposed by the winning side of a political battle."

without immediately explaining how they'd make sure that the kids of parents who didn't have the money (or didn't want to pay) would also be educated?

Because, and I can't emphasize this enough, public education is NOT for the parents.

Phil|9.30.05 @ 11:11AM|#

Jennifer, let's start a church devoted to worshipping the tenets of William of Ockham. We'll be called Occamites. Then, when the theocrats accuse science of taking the place of religion, we can proselytize to them, plus maybe suck up some of those faith-based funds.

|9.30.05 @ 11:18AM|#

Garth,
At least you are on topic, but it's silly, isn't it, to assume religious schools would only impart Bible comprehension.

|9.30.05 @ 11:24AM|#

Can I be a high priestess, Phil?

|9.30.05 @ 11:29AM|#

Amazing. The Dover disclaimer manages to make the common mistake that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life.

Jeff P.|9.30.05 @ 11:30AM|#

Situation where the genetic make-up is altered:
Dog breeding; Cat breeding; Horse breeding; Plant hybrids; Most modern forms of yeast; The last two dozen breeds of rose; More than half of all vaccines; industrial aloe; Almost all of the current crop species of tobacco, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, carrots, lettuce, pumpkins, pears and grapes; All industrial composting methods (except worms).
None of them occur in nature. All involve genetics. All of them, despite some of the exact details still being unknown, are processes that are measurable and repeatable.
All are forms of selection.
Hence, all are theoretical. Giggle.

ID adherents have decided that this War of Ideas needs to be fought with legal wrangling and outright force. We've seen the same thing with abortion.
Before long, someone will have been killed in the name of ID. ID adherents will say "that's not what ID is about!"

|9.30.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Jennifer,

While, to use joe's handy phrase, the crimethink in your head may be arguing for ID, the crimethink in the real world is not. If you reread my posts, you will discover that I note that ID is also not experimentally verifiable.

Garth,

Then maybe you secularists should start breeding.

|9.30.05 @ 11:39AM|#

"Mommy, why does America hate Jesus?"

|9.30.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Crimethink--

I wasn't arguing against you, but against the argument you presented.

|9.30.05 @ 11:42AM|#

M1EK,

Quite true, public education is not for the parents, though I might point out that public education, as currently institutionalized, does not result in an educated public, either. My own flavor of libertarianism leads me, however reluctantly, to favor public taxation to support public education precisely because too many parents couldn't or wouldn't spend the money otherwise. That said, however, there is no reason in principle why state operated schools should be the de facto monopoly to provide that public education. The overwhelming majority of parents want their children to be well educated. Given viable options, including options that might include religious perspectives, most would enroll their children in schools at least as well suited to provide a decent education as the public schools do now. Moreover, in a market where such schools actually had to compete for enrollment, the overall quality of schools would rise over time. Couple that with the elimination of much of the tendentious political and legal battles over public school curriculums that invariably arise in a one-size-fits-all model and it's as close to an ideal solution as I can imagine.

|9.30.05 @ 11:46AM|#

Because, and I can't emphasize this enough, public education is NOT for the parents.

It might be nice to think it is for the children but right now it seems to be for the teachers unions.

|9.30.05 @ 11:53AM|#

Given viable options, including options that might include religious perspectives, most would enroll their children in schools at least as well suited to provide a decent education as the public schools do now.


1. By definition, a religious school doesn't give as good of an education as a secular school, because the religious school will teach some of the religious fairy tale fluff.

2. The parents that want their children to get a religious education are doing so because they, themselves are ignorant.


If the goal of public education is to educate the populace as well as possible, then it is necessary for education to be objective, and to be taught without input from the parents, since parents are not educators, and may or may not be well-educated themselves (hence the thousands of parents clamoring for "Intelligent Design".)


If your goal is to keep the masses happy, then yes, let them choose the crap that their kids are taught, and watch society as a whole degrade even further as parents choose to put their kids into "religious" schools.

|9.30.05 @ 12:13PM|#

By definition, a religious school doesn't give as good of an education as a secular school, because the religious school will teach some of the religious fairy tale fluff.

However, in my experience, religious discussion is much more free in private schools. I attended a Catholic high school where matters of faith could be openly debated and criticized in religion class. Students were free to admit what the did or did not believe without the teachers terrified of upset parents initiating a call from the superintended.

|9.30.05 @ 12:15PM|#

ahem ... superintendent

Akira MacKenzie|9.30.05 @ 12:25PM|#

Like many here, I too believe that public education has its many flaws. A completely privatized educational system is a nice pipe dream.

At the same time, I don't think that Garth and Frank are wrong. Without a viable secular alternative, there will be no market incentive for religious schools to teach anything but religion. Given that believers far out number non-believers, I doubt that many private secular schools will crop up in a 100% privatized future.

I might generally believe in free enterprise, property rights, and economic freedom, but I'm not so naive to think that it's a perfect system that will always come up with a solution. At least the public schools have a constitutional safeguard against the direct teaching of religion. That is, as long as the government respects that separation of church and state. That's why this PA trial is so important. So while I certainly think there is some room for private alternatives to state-run-schools, I�m afraid that if we loose the public schools, we�re going to loose it all to those who think that the Genesis myth is science.

As long as the fundies continue to promise an American theocracy, it is a mistake for libertarians to entirely abandon public education just yet. We have to ask ourselves what we want more: Absolute capitalism or freedom from something just as bad as economic statism.

M1EK|9.30.05 @ 12:31PM|#

"though I might point out that public education, as currently institutionalized, does not result in an educated public, either."

Oh, bullshit. I went to public school, as did essentially everybody I know who ended up in high-tech. My stepson just moved from an excellent public elementary school to an excellent middle school; and my son will be attending a different excellent elementary school in a few years.

Half of the hysteria about public schools is not based in fact but instead a calculated wedge with which to push a religious agenda.

|9.30.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Frank, Akira:

There are plenty of purely secular private schools right now: country day schools. Why even more wouldn't spring up if most schools were private is beyond me.

|9.30.05 @ 12:35PM|#

Half of the hysteria about public schools is not based in fact but instead a calculated wedge with which to push a religious agenda.

As an atheist opposed to much about religion, I nonetheless have to disagree. Stories about zero-tolerance policies used to expel six-year-olds found in possession of plastic knives isn't religious propaganda. Nor are stories about illiterate kids pushed up through the grades via social promotion, nor the idea that many schools today are more concerned with PC than actual facts.

That having been said, ID is bullshit. If we have public schools, they should be teaching facts, which are not decided by majority vote.

|9.30.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Frank, you have to be kidding me. Have you ever bothered to compare the academic achievement of kids in Catholic schools and compare it to public schools?

Georegetown, by definition, provides an inferior education?

Get a grip.

|9.30.05 @ 1:16PM|#

From the Dover statement:

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves."

This is a giant non-sequitur. Darwin had no explanation for the origin of life. And it doesn't seem Intelligent Design does either since they don't claim to be young earth creationists.

It seems to me as part of teaching evolution ID can be used. Show Behe's arguments and how they have been thoroughly rebutted. The same with Dembski. Although it may involve some science that is well beyond high school, it can be taught broadly.

The other part of the statement, that Of Pandas and People is available is obvious. Any parent can purchase the book and let their child read it and/or discuss it with them.

|9.30.05 @ 1:33PM|#

There are plenty of purely secular private schools right now: country day schools. Why even more wouldn't spring up if most schools were private is beyond me.


Very simple: Most people in the US believe in some kind of religion with a large percentage of our populace being fundamentalists. The fundamentalists are rapidly growing in numbers and will continue to (uneducated people tend to reproduce much more than educated people). I'd love to see the stats concerning the number of private schools that are secular vs. religious now and 10 years ago.


Right now, kids of fundamentalists that cannot afford a private religious school are going to public school where they are taught facts. That is a GOOD thing, no matter what the parents say, if you're talking about society as a whole. If fundamentalists will continue to breed like rabbits, the least that we, as a society, can do is to make sure that their kids are at least exposed to a real education. Sure, they may get brainwashed at home, but if there were tons and tons of religious schools out there, the US would be even more full of Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs than it is now.

|9.30.05 @ 1:40PM|#

Please, for the love of God, why can people still write this:


"But if they were not compelled to pay for government-run schools, they would be in a better position to choose schools that reflected their values and preferences, and the compromises they made would be voluntary, instead of terms imposed by the winning side of a political battle."

without immediately explaining how they'd make sure that the kids of parents who didn't have the money (or didn't want to pay) would also be educated?
(emphasis mine)

Because there is a distinction between government funding of education and government running the schools. One could make a good case that the private sector would under-educate poor children so we need some government funding. But that is certainly not an argument for government-run schools.

|9.30.05 @ 1:40PM|#

Frank, you have to be kidding me. Have you ever bothered to compare the academic achievement of kids in Catholic schools and compare it to public schools?

Georegetown, by definition, provides an inferior education?

Get a grip.


No, I haven't. But I'm not talking about academic achievement, necessarily, because academic achievement in a Catholic school is different than academic achievement in a public school (I attended both). I'm talking about indoctrination vs. a real education.


And yes, let's look at Georgetown. Take the real education portion of the cirriculum there. Place it in a secular school. The education, by definition, would be better at a non-religious school because there'd be -zero- indoctrination. Granted, there doesn't appear to be much of it at Georgetown, but that's not the point. The point is that the education there is inherently inferior with even one required religious class than at a school with the same staff, students, and facilities that does not require a religious course.


Of course Georgetown still offers a decent education. This isn't black and white. I'm simply saying that by the very definition of religion, a secular school (all other things being equal) will always offer a better education than a religious school.

|9.30.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Because there is a distinction between government funding of education and government running the schools. One could make a good case that the private sector would under-educate poor children so we need some government funding. But that is certainly not an argument for government-run schools.


Again, this depends on what the goals of public education is. If the goal is an educated populace, then poor children with government-funded private schools will more likely get a much worse education because it's much more likely to be run by fundamentalists. If the goal of public education is to give everybody access to what they call an "Education", then sure, let the gov't fund it, and let people go to Jesus School or Everything Hemp School.

|9.30.05 @ 1:48PM|#

If the goal is an educated populace, then poor children with government-funded private schools will more likely get a much worse education because it's much more likely to be run by fundamentalists.

Why do you think that? If there were no government run schools, I am quite certain that the private sector would step up to open many non-religious schools. All that voucher money out there to be spent and you don't think many enterprising people might not see an opportunity to serve those who prefer a secular education? You can't assume a static model of private education if we are talking about such a major change.

|9.30.05 @ 1:56PM|#

Uh, Frank, Tim McVeigh was an atheist and pro-choice and was bothered by what he considered a racist attitude towards Iraquis by the army in GWI. He was not a part of any fundamentalist christian orginization. His parents were catholic so presumably he was raised in that faith but appears to have rejected it.

And you are a presumptuous, elitist, arrogant jerk.

|9.30.05 @ 2:00PM|#

"By definition, a religious school doesn't give as good of an education as a secular school, because the religious school will teach some of the religious fairy tale fluff."

Yep. That's why upper class parents (many of whom aren't Quaker or ever Christian) spend over 20 large per year to send their kids to Friends Central instead of sending them to the free secular Philadelphia public school system. Because they are, by definition, inferior. Yep. With that kind of logic, you'd probably be promoted to principal right away in the Philly schools...

And for those who say the market wouldn't provide for secular schools - that's EXACTLY why markets are better than democratic governments. Markets serve niches. If there is someone willing to pay for a service, another person will find a way to provide it. Meanwhile, if so many people in this country want education to be equivalent to bible school, what's gonna stop them from implementing this in public schools? Judges? Who appoints them?

Long run, even in your dystopia, you're safer with the market than with the public schools.

|9.30.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Frank, please stop making us atheists look like pompous assholes. I swear, between you and Hakluyt, the theists are going to launch a pogrom against us. And I'll be hard-pressed to blame them.

|9.30.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Stories about zero-tolerance policies used to expel six-year-olds found in possession of plastic knives isn't religious propaganda. Nor are stories about illiterate kids pushed up through the grades via social promotion, nor the idea that many schools today are more concerned with PC than actual facts.

And such stories typically end with the six-year-old back in school, parents demanding an end to social promotion, and ridicule and I expect eventual withering of PC. None of these things are reasons to eliminate public schools.

That's why upper class parents (many of whom aren't Quaker or ever Christian) spend over 20 large per year to send their kids to Friends Central instead of sending them to the free secular Philadelphia public school system. Because they are, by definition, inferior.

Apparently you didn't read the part about "all other things being equal".

|9.30.05 @ 2:20PM|#

RE: eliminating public schools

Even forgetting about the religious angle for a moment, you have to ask yourself if you think it's a good idea to introduce a race to the bottom in education. (Not all schools are going to compete to be the best.) In Libertopia, a lot of kids will get a better education than they do now, while vast masses will get little or none. Would you really want to live in an America with greater masses of uneducated young adults than now, with no prospects for employment?

|9.30.05 @ 2:22PM|#

"Apparently you didn't read the part about "all other things being equal"."

Well, then, that kind of deflates the whole point of "by definition," right?

Funny thing - many Catholic schools in Philly - such as the one my wife attended - spend less per pupil than the Philly school district. Yet people are clamoring to get into them, and willing to pay for the chance. So it seems that even "all things being equal" doesn't really cut it very well either.

Again, just to be clear, I'm no big fan of organized religion. But trying to say that religious schools, as a category, are inferior to public schools fails the sniff test.

|9.30.05 @ 2:27PM|#

"In Libertopia, a lot of kids will get a better education than they do now, while vast masses will get little or none. "

Wrong. That's just not how it works in the real world. All of the local private schools provide free scholarships to underprivileged students. Even the top end ones that cater to the super students. Furthermore, I would expect you, as someone who clearly values access to education, to spend the money you're saving from having to pay taxes to support our troops in Iraq, Germany, Korea, etc. as well the money you save from not having to pay taxes to build brides to nowhere in Alaska, and many, many other worthless government expenditures on charities that would pay for either free schools or scholarships for disadvantaged students.

Heck, even in poverty ridden West Africa, the private schools provide free education to the truly disadvantaged. And you think we would do worse here?

|9.30.05 @ 2:28PM|#

Rhywun--

My point, in the bit you quoted, was that, despite claims made here, a lot of complaints about public schools are not religious propaganda.

|9.30.05 @ 2:31PM|#

you have to ask yourself if you think it's a good idea to introduce a race to the bottom in education. (Not all schools are going to compete to be the best.)

Huh? In what other area of private business do you see this? How could this happen if parents are free to send their children to the school of their choice? There is no reason to assume that would happen, and every reason to assume those that don't provide a good education would soon be out of business as parents move their kids to schools that do. As a private business competing for students, unlike public schools today, they simply couldn't get away with providing a sub-par education.

|9.30.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Funny thing - many Catholic schools in Philly - such as the one my wife attended - spend less per pupil than the Philly school district.

So you fight the teachers' unions - you don't just throw away the whole system and cross your fingers. I might note that Catholic schools can be choosy, too - they don't have to take anyone they know will be more costly to educate.

|9.30.05 @ 2:35PM|#

In a trial that began this week, a federal judge in Harrisburg has been called upon to decide whether intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. Once he has settled that controversy, perhaps he can tell us what killed the dinosaurs and whether there are civilizations on other planets.

i stopped reading after this point. a more appropriate second sentence would have been, "Once he has settled that controversy, perhaps he can tell us what color the sky is and whether babies come from storks."

|9.30.05 @ 2:35PM|#

Playing along with utterly abstract scenarios here... The religious schools just end up producing unemployable monkeys. The secular private schools are the only ones turning out educated folks and their graduates are the ones who get the jobs.

The religious schools start going out of business. Some parents might want their kids to recite Koranic or Levitical laws in their sleep, but they also want them to do something besides sit around the house; alumnae are unemployed and can't afford to send their kids to Holy Pasta Monster Day School even with the tax vouchers. Sure, some of the secular school people will convert and send their kids there, but it probably won't be enough.

|9.30.05 @ 2:38PM|#

I might note that Catholic schools can be choosy, too - they don't have to take anyone they know will be more costly to educate.

Problem is, public schools don't just take those who are more costly to educate--they take on those who are impossible to educate. When I taught high school, my classroom was above the hard-core special ed room--we're talking kids with such severe levels of retardation that they reached the age of 18 or 19 without even learning how to speak. So what the hell were they doing in high school in the first place?

And with public schools, you're basically expected to sacrifice the cream of the crop in an attempt to make something useful out of the rancid skim milk. Dumbed-down curricula are just one part of the problem.

|9.30.05 @ 2:54PM|#

And with public schools, you're basically expected to sacrifice the cream of the crop in an attempt to make something useful out of the rancid skim milk.

Well, that was not my experience. I had a large choice of public high schools, and I got into the one my mom wanted. My classes were for the most part more challenging than anything I got later in college. Oh, and we had a whole floor of special-ed kids, too.

In what other area of private business do you see this?

I see it in every area of private business. It's usually called "you get what you pay for".

|9.30.05 @ 2:58PM|#

I had a large choice of public high schools, and I got into the one my mom wanted.

You were in New York City, right? They have a little more choice than the average one-school town.

|9.30.05 @ 2:58PM|#

i don't really want to get too involved, since i'm actually somewhat busy at work today, but...

The religious schools just end up producing unemployable monkeys.

how do you figure?

|9.30.05 @ 3:00PM|#

brides to nowhere in Alaska
I hear the male-female imbalance is rough.

Frank, please stop making us atheists look like pompous assholes. I swear, between you and Hakluyt
I'm going to play thoreau here and postulate that perhaps Frank is a new sock puppet of Jean-Gary, Hakluyt from the Deep. He's shown incredible discipline, refraining from telling people to stop embarrassing themselves or opining about Martin Luther.

|9.30.05 @ 3:01PM|#

Herman-

I am retired from speculations about identity. Feel free to fill my shoes, but I'm done with it.

crimethink-

People have observed that embryos develop in wombs, but nobody has ever proven that every step of the process unfolded as a consequence of natural phenomena rather than divine intervention. One could always posit that somewhere along the line God has to intervene (and, being omnipotent, He does it every single time).

Indeed, one could suggest that the concept of "ensoulment" comes close to such an intervention. The idea is that at some point something supernatural interfaces with the brain, crudely speaking.

Serious question: What if somebody wants to teach "ensoulment" during the section on embryology?


As to the Dover statement:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

So far so good. The only part I'd argue with is the part about the theory not being a "fact." I don't know how the philosophers of science would define the terms, but in the parlance of a working scientist, "facts" are strange things. "Fact" implies rock solid, undeniable, certain. We scientists try not to be too certain about anything, and stick to how much we can honestly conclude from the data. So if somebody wants to say "Evolution is not a fact" I'd agree 100%. But I'd want some further context to accompany that statement.

Still, so far so innocuous.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

The above paragraph is true enough in some sense. ID is an explanation. Not a tested one, maybe not even testable. But it's an explanation nonetheless. Also, I think it's dangerous to associate all of evolutionary thought with a single name. Darwin's ideas would be worthless if they hadn't been validated by the work of countless other scientists.

So, it's lacking in context but not really wrong. The bigger problem is that it's pointless. But it's so innocuous that I wonder whether an epic legal battle is even more pointless.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

No problem with the "open mind" part. I would argue that the people drafting that statement don't actually know what an open mind is, but that's their problem.

Overall, the statement in question seems innocuous. Now, I realize that there's a lot of baggage and code words in it, and one could argue that intent matters so it shouldn't be in a school. And maybe that's legally correct. I don't know. But I think that this disclaimer is the wrong battle to pick.

|9.30.05 @ 3:02PM|#

Oops, the first 2 paragraphs of the Dover statement both should have been indented. Sorry about the formatting mistake.

|9.30.05 @ 3:08PM|#

You were in New York City, right? They have a little more choice than the average one-school town.

Rochester, NY. There were, I dunno, around 10 high schools. Everyone has a neighborhood school, but all schools have some special programs, so in theory, you can choose any one of those. And by the way, I very much disagree with the American system of "school districts". Kids who live in a one-school town should not be restricted to that school.

|9.30.05 @ 3:08PM|#

zach-
I'm starting with what I think are the presumptions that Frank and Akira were making and going from there.

|9.30.05 @ 3:16PM|#

ah, forgive me for trying to come into the discussion late.

|9.30.05 @ 3:25PM|#

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.

If that's the demand, why not just put together a short reading list of books on creation myths, some ID texts, stolen Scientology material, etc, and make it available to "interested" students? :)

|9.30.05 @ 3:30PM|#

"So you fight the teachers' unions "

While the unions surely deserve their share of the blame, they are far from the only, or even the most, culpable actors in the tragedy. The school district administration is so byzantine that an org chart is impossible to draw - not that anyone would know what their position in the system is in the first place. On top of that you have the sweetheart contracts that are bid out to politically connected contractors to do basically nothing.

The whole concept is fatally flawed. Concentrating on the unions is kinda like treating an Ebola victim for a nose bleed.

|9.30.05 @ 3:50PM|#

And in the case of science vs. religion, I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 100ft away from science at all times.

|9.30.05 @ 3:54PM|#

I agree with Thoreau - by and large, the statement is innocuous and not entirely inconsistent with a scientific approach. However:

"The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves."

That's the sentence that makes the whole thing bunk. Really. Pick up the book sometime. I did, and that's what convinced me that this case is about pushing a specific religious agenda. Some of the claims made in the book are very dubious, and are clearly references to the Old Testament.

As much as I'll agree with the point that it's fair to question evolutionary theory, there's no way you can make a scientific case that the Old Testament is actual history. That's a line that can't be crossed without leaving the realm of science far behind.

|9.30.05 @ 4:02PM|#

The whole concept is fatally flawed. Concentrating on the unions is kinda like treating an Ebola victim for a nose bleed.

well, you've already said that teachers' unions "deserve their share of the blame" - as in, they have a hand in causing the problem. nose bleeds are not part of the cause of ebola, but simply a symptom, which makes your analogy inappropriate.

honestly, i'm libertarian on most issues, but i haven't really decided what i think about public education. so i don't want to get involved in this too much, but i reserve the right to call foul a little bit. :)

|9.30.05 @ 4:10PM|#

"so i don't want to get involved in this too much, but i reserve the right to call foul a little bit. :) "

No, it's not a perfect analogy. So sue me :)

The point is that the nosebleed is a problem. I don't like having them. And technically, you could stop the nosebleed (or maybe not, I'm no physician) without treating the real problem, and the patient is still going to die.

I still think it works. You can get rid of or fix the unions, but public schools are still going to, at best, underperform.

|9.30.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Somehow or other I got dragged into this debate with my mom the other night. Her position is that the gaps in the evolutionary tree make the whole thing suspect. So I asked her if she thought all humans were related to one another. Black, white, Inuit, whatever, our genetic code is 99.9% identical. She conceeded that we're all related. "But how do you know?" I asked her. "There are gaps in the geneological tree. You can only trace your ancestors back about 500 years to some Irish, Welsh, and German dudes." She considered this for a minute and decided that she believed it because it just seemed right to her. So, being the sarcastic bastard I am, I insisted that it made every bit as much sense to believe that she and I are descended from the beneficent Flying Spaghetti Monster. "We should be teaching kids in school about our Noodly Father." Of course, she thought this was absurd. Why? Because I have no proof. "So where's the proof of intelligent design?" I asked. "Well, it just doesn't make sense to me that we're related to trees and frogs."

After countless conversations like this with folks like my mom who believe in some form of creationism, I've concluded that there's really no way to change their minds. Evolution just "doesn't make sense" to them, and they don't want it to. Creationism does make sense to them because it's just magic. It just happened. God or Allah or FSM or whoever just put people here and that's that. No explanation needed. The proof is that they belive it and it "just feels right" to them.

I don't think this conflict is resolvable. If the ID proponents get to put their label on evolution texts we'll be back in court in a year because they'll want an ID text in the classroom. (But, to be fair, at least we'll get to put a warning label on it!) Then they'll want Darwin out of the classroom altogether. And why shouldn't they? They're paying for the schools just as much as the rest of us are. There is no middle ground here. To the ID adherent, evolution is every bit as fishy as ID is to biologists. I know, I know, we should be trying to find realistic ways to advance the libertarian cause without pissing off the rest of the population, but I don't see one. The only resolution to this particular conflict is private education. If someone has a better one I'd love to hear it.

|9.30.05 @ 4:21PM|#

quasibill-

No arguments here. My central question is whether that reference to a book that references the Bible is really enough to make it a worthwhile fight. There's a difference between being right about something and being right about something that matters enough to make a federal case out of it.

Also, I've got my own ideas for a disclaimer. If I could give whatever disclaimer I wanted I'd probably say something about how there are obviously religious beliefs that might disagree with evolution. I'd say that the issue of religion isn't really one that we're going to address in science class because science deals with experiments and religion deals with faith, so sort that out on your own time. Or something along those lines. Anyway, the disclaimer that I'd give would probably make more overt references to religion than the Dover disclaimer.

So, really, I'm left concluding that the Dover disclaimer is not a good thing but not bad enough to make a federal case over. The best argument is that if you let them succeed on step 1, however tiny that step may be, then they'll eventually move on to something that is indeed worth challenging. My response is to fight when the time is right, and remember that challenging a really minor disclaimer laden with language on "open minds" and whatnot just makes ID opponents look really bad.

Here's a funny thought: Efforts to get creationism into the classroom are (ironically) an evolutionary process. We start with a science curriculum that's devoid of creationism (as mandated by courts at some point). Then they try to mutate the curriculum with "equal time" for young earth creationism. That gets shot down. Too large of a mutation. So they try ID, which (on the surface) doesn't look like young earth creationism. More benign appearance, but still too drastic of a mutation. That gets shot down. Finally they settle on a 1 minute disclaimer with a reference to ID.

We all know what they're trying. We all know that this is step 1. Even I know that it's step 1. I certainly wouldn't vote for a school board that tried to do this. But I also think that this one is really too minor to go to court over.

|9.30.05 @ 4:26PM|#

And technically, you could stop the nosebleed (or maybe not, I'm no physician) without treating the real problem, and the patient is still going to die.

...well yeah, because in the case of ebola, the nosebleed is not part of the problem at all. but being part of the problem, if you "treat" teachers' unions, it could have an effect on whether or not the patient dies. i'm not just being pedantic, it's a practical difference.

to use another analogy, if you treat a lung cancer patient who also happens to smoke 3 packs a day, you don't just say, "he's fucked, so let him smoke all he wants, he'll die anyway". (hopefully.)

M1EK|9.30.05 @ 4:33PM|#

"The religious schools start going out of business. Some parents might want their kids to recite Koranic or Levitical laws in their sleep, but they also want them to do something besides sit around the house; alumnae are unemployed and can't afford to send their kids to Holy Pasta Monster Day School even with the tax vouchers. Sure, some of the secular school people will convert and send their kids there, but it probably won't be enough."

It only takes one word to completely blow this argument out of the water:

PAKISTAN.

|9.30.05 @ 4:38PM|#

M1EK-

I don't know much about the situation in Pakistan with schools. What's the deal there? All I know is that the madrassas recently had a big scandal, and the upshot is that Catholics can now reassure ourselves that we aren't the only religion with pedophile clergy.

M1EK|9.30.05 @ 4:39PM|#

"[race to the bottom]

Huh? In what other area of private business do you see this?"

Airlines, movie theaters, restaurants (smoking sections), bars (ditto), movie theaters.

Apart from those, and almost every other business which caters to the public, I can't think of any.

M1EK|9.30.05 @ 4:44PM|#

thoreau,

In most of Pakistan, your choice is to get educated at a madrassa, or not at all. This is the utopia we could have when the government gets out of the education business!

Oddly enough, no private secular schools of note have sprung up in those parts of the country. Probably need more tax cuts or something.

|9.30.05 @ 4:48PM|#

M1EK--

Your huge line of arrows completely fucked up the frames on this thread, so that now it's impossible to read.

|9.30.05 @ 5:33PM|#

I'm truly shocked that He of Many Names has avoided this thread. He's busy insulting joe in another thread. I thought for sure that he'd take me to task for saying that this particular disclaimer is no big deal.

He also avoided yesterday's religion thread.

crimethink, did you convert him without telling us?

|9.30.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Sorry, this one was too rich:

In most of Pakistan, your choice is to get educated at a madrassa, or not at all. This is the utopia we could have when the government gets out of the education business!

Also, if government gets out of the clothing business, all women will be stuck in burkhas.

|9.30.05 @ 6:37PM|#

PAKISTAN.

True, but their Madrassas get a lot of money from the Saudis and the other gulf states. OK those guys can fund the U.S. Muslim schools. Who funds the U.S. Christian schools when the internal cash starts to go?

Nearly, moot point, the country will be a train wreck by then, but I'm playing around with the Garth/Frank/Akira projections here.

|9.30.05 @ 7:12PM|#

In what other area of private business do you see this?

I see it in every area of private business. It's usually called "you get what you pay for".

And that's a bad thing!?

What you said was a "race to the bottom." So now you've included "you get what you pay for." Those seem like simple cliches without much meaning and certainly very little on which to hang an argument for a government run monopoly. I'd be curious what you think they mean and, more importantly, how they could possibly support your argument. Your (and someone else's) claim to see it in every private business only makes me think, whatever they mean, they are a convincing argument for privatization.

What I see in the businesses I deal with are companies and people who put a lot of effort into making sure they create a product I want to buy and delivering products with ever increasing capability at ever lower real costs (i.e. ever increasing efficiency) because they realize their profits and livliehoods depend on it. Look at the quality of the average car today versus 30 years ago (or any other of myriad products private industry produces). Now compare India where the only car maker is a government controlled monopoly and the car they make is essentially unchanged in 50 years. The superiority of the private sector in nearly every other endeavor is so obvious it hardly needs stating. Given that, it seems you have a very high burden of proof in arguing that for education a government run monopoly is superior. Again, I'll accept that some level of government funding is necessary to make sure that poor children are not left behind, but that has nothing to do with who should run the schools.

Another point that should be made is whatever the faults of the market, it isn't enough to simply point one out (which I don't even think you've done, but let's assume, arguendo, that you have). You would still need to show that those problems are greater than the problems associated with a government run monopoly. Simply having the status quo on your side shouldn't mean anything in a debate from first principles.

Or perhaps I should simply say that you're right in one respect; with private enterprise you do get what you pay for, with government run monopoly you don't.

|10.1.05 @ 1:51AM|#

thoreau,

The disclaimer singles out one particular area of science for derision.

crimethink,

Evolution is observeable and testable, ID is not. Indeed, evolution continues to pass muster when it is tested; for example, in the area of genetics tests have been performed to demonstrate a very specific prediction made by those who study evolutuion: that one can predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes. Three months ago or so this particular issue was dealt with and evolutionary theory passed muster. Advocates of ID can't point to anything like this sort of predictability; all they can do is claim that X is irreducibly complex and thus must be designed (when someone demonstrates that X isn't irreducibly complex they move on to Y, then Z, etc.).

But, as I stated before, all forms of life on earth evolving from a single source, without intervention from an intelligence, has not been observed.

You are confusing questions of origin with evolution. Of course the problem with evolution is that is a naturalistic explanation, and that just drives the religious freaks mad.

But we cannot design an experiment to prove that the New Deal caused the Depression to last as long as it did.

Sure you can. Of course the issue is whether it is practical, ethnical, etc. to do such.

Jennifer,

Given how you think that your shit doesn't stink, I wouldn't start slamming others for being pompous.

Herman,

I am not Frank.

thoreau,

I am retired from speculations about identity. Feel free to fill my shoes, but I'm done with it.

Sure you are.

I don't know how the philosophers of science would define the terms...

I could recommend some books.

I thought for sure that he'd take me to task for saying that this particular disclaimer is no big deal.

I figured out that you have no nuts long ago.

But I think that this disclaimer is the wrong battle to pick.

What is the "right" battle? Are you ever going to join the battle, or are you always going to sit on the sidelines twiddling your thumbs and mumbling about the "right" moment?

|10.1.05 @ 1:59AM|#

thoreau,

He also avoided yesterday's religion thread.

I'm sorry I've not been give you enough care and feeding. You sure are high maintenance.

|10.1.05 @ 2:07AM|#

thoreau,

BTW, if you are interested in what is really happen in Dover's school system my suggestion is to follow the events on The Panda's Thumb. There's more than just a disclaimer involved here.

|10.1.05 @ 8:57AM|#

I'm glad you're back to normal, Hakluyt. I was getting worried.

No nuts? If there's more going on than this narrow disclaimer then legal action may very well be justified. As a scientist, I laid out the assumptions on which my statement was contingent: This disclaimer alone is not worthy of a lawsuit. But if there's more than the disclaimer involved, then my opinion may be different.

Anyway, there's nothing cowardly about refraining from suing if the wrong is tiny enough. Lawsuits are expensive and acrimonious and time-consuming, and mature adults only do expensive and acrimonious time-consuming things when the situation warrants it. Then again, being a lawyer I can see why you might think that any and all wrongs are worth making a federal case over.

I'll check out Panda's Thumb later if I get the chance. Right now I have to get ready to go gun shopping.

|10.1.05 @ 10:22AM|#

thoreau,

No, I did not convert him, as far as I know.
But God has mercy on the invincibly ignorant... ;-)

Hakluyt,

You are confusing questions of origin with evolution.

Not really; the question here is not whether evolution can occur,
but whether it did occur, a wholly different question.

And while, theoretically, you could design an experiment re: the New Deal,
in reality it would be impossible to verify that your initial conditions were the same
as those that prevailed when the ND was put into effect.
How much more difficult would it be to ensure that the initial conditions
of an evolution experiment matched those on earth at the origin of life?

|10.1.05 @ 2:07PM|#

A ways up the thread, M1EK commits the standard fallacy when middle-class types talk about public schools: I got a good education at public schools, and so did all my successful, college-graduate friends, therefore, the public schools in this country are OK!

This is stunningly ignorant. Does it ever cross your mind that maybe you went to an above-average public school?

M1EK|10.1.05 @ 6:41PM|#

"This is stunningly ignorant. Does it ever cross your mind that maybe you went to an above-average public school?"

Sure, but the lack of private school graduates in my industry also tells me that the more likely answer is that the public schools were doing just fine.

|10.1.05 @ 10:52PM|#

M1EK,

Or it could tell you (correctly) that most middle class kids don't go to private school. A more relevant question would be, how many graduates of inner city public schools are in your industry?

|10.2.05 @ 12:28AM|#

crimethink,

Not really; the question here is not whether evolution can occur, but whether it did occur, a wholly different question.

Which really doesn't address my point. And yes, evolution has occurred.

...in reality it would be impossible...

No, in reality it would be unlikely or exceedingly difficult for you to get to that point.

How much more difficult would it be to ensure that the initial conditions of an evolution experiment matched those on earth at the origin of life?

Again, you are confusing the issue of evolution (speciation) with the origins of life. I realize that you are illiterate when it comes to science, but come on.

|10.2.05 @ 12:34AM|#

crimethink,

Let's compare these two statements of yours:

But, as I stated before, all forms of life on earth evolving from a single source, without intervention from an intelligence, has not been observed.

Not really; the question here is not whether evolution can occur, but whether it did occur, a wholly different question.

Now the following is my response to the former:

You are confusing questions of origin with evolution.

You then followed my statement with your second statement above. Notice the disconnect in topic between your two statements, and how inapposite your response to my statement was?

And arguing that evolution hasn't occurred borders on the, well, stupid. Then again, you're a person wedded to an ideology that argues that a man in the sky is both all powerful and needs lots and lots of money.

|10.2.05 @ 12:37AM|#

crimethink,

I'll note that you are arguing for a level of evidence from evolution that you likely wouldn't ask for from say any other field of science. I wonder why that is? Could it be that your silly philosophical doctrines just can't stand up to reality? Yes, that's exactly what it is.

|10.2.05 @ 12:43AM|#

thoreau,

Uh duh, there's the thuggish behavior of the schoold administration regarding the efforts of science teachers to teach, you know, science.

I'll check out Panda's Thumb later if I get the chance.

Until that time I suggest that you keep your thoughts on the matter to yourself.

As a scientist...

No, I'd say as a wimp you did. Also, your views weren't based on science, they were based on what you viewed is proper wimpy public policy. Indeed, your statements to date have had absolutely nothing to do with science. As your not reading The Panda's Thumb or other sources on these matters I expect more of the same.

|10.2.05 @ 1:06AM|#

thoreau,

But if there's more than the disclaimer involved, then my opinion may be different.

Your opinion is worthless because its uninformed.

Then again, being a lawyer I can see why you might think that any and all wrongs are worth making a federal case over.

I await the continuation of your bloodthirsty calls against attorneys. So, when do you plan to re-start your death threats?

Also, when have I ever stated that any and all wrongs are worth making a federal case over? Oh wait, I haven't, that's just steam in the form of non-sensical hyperbole boiling out of your ears. Keep the remarks based in ignorance coming, they're worth all the laughter I get out of them.

|10.2.05 @ 1:08AM|#

thoreau,

I seem to recall you getting your ass all puckered up when I argued that the case that your mother wanted to bring wasn't worth the time of the courts.

|10.2.05 @ 1:09AM|#

thoreau,

Oooh, and I wrote a bunch of posts in a row. I'm sure there will be some lame attempts to avoid what I've written and comment on that instead.

|10.2.05 @ 1:13AM|#

thoreau,

Only an ignorant fuck like yourself could write what you wrote in light of Thursday's testimony:

On Thursday, the primary witness was Carol Brown, a former member of the Dover school board for 10 years until she resigned in protest of the new intelligent design policy. She testified to the repeated statements of Bill Buckingham, chair of the curriculum committee, and Alan Bonsell, chair of the school board, that they were seeking equal time for creationism in science classrooms. She detailed a year�s worth of proselytizing by members of the school board, their outspoken opposition to the separation of church and state, and much more. She testified that the search for an ID textbook began because several members of the board objected to the biology textbook (Ken Miller�s textbook, Biology) on the grounds that it did not give equal time to creationism or mention God. This follows on the heels of almost identical testimony from other former board members and teachers, including Bryan Rehm and Barrie Callahan.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

|10.2.05 @ 8:13AM|#

Hakluyt, your repeated insults merely reassure me that everything is well with you. I was worried for a bit. It's weird, because when you were gone a lot of us said that we missed you, and now that you're back we often can't stand you. This forum is a little like a country music song, I guess.

I seem to recall that you said my mother's case was probably worthwhile and she should have looked harder for good representation, maybe trying a law school clinic.

And if you can't understand why so many Americans (not just me) occasionally let loose a hyperbolic rant against lawyers, well, I don't know what to say. Especially if you take such rants literally. Personally, I look at lawyers like grease in a mechanical device: Absolutely essential to the functioning of our system (without them the third branch of government would be far less useful) but you don't want the grease getting all over the place.

And there is nothing wrong with forming an opinion restricted to the narrow merits of a particular disclaimer's wording. That's all I've opined on in this thread. I haven't commented on other actions taken by the school district, and I won't until I read up on it.

BTW, if I were a science teacher in that district, before the principal came to read that legal disclaimer I'd sort of build up how soon we'll be learning evolution and it's real outlaw stuff, so dangerous that the principal has to read a legal disclaimer before you can touch it. If done in a dorky but cute way that faux rebel approach can work.

M1EK|10.2.05 @ 9:15AM|#

crimethink,

In the area I grew up in, lower class kids were bused to my school (yes, we still had busing to remedy past segregation). So, many lower class kids went to my same school.

The other folks in my industry come from such varying backgrounds that I have a real hard time believing they all fit your pigeonhole. Some no doubt did (and maybe more do today), but not all.

|10.2.05 @ 2:43PM|#

Well argument by personal experience doesn't amount to much but ..... I went to publick skools and they were of very poor quality. In fact students from them scored well below the national average on tests like the SAT. From my experience, the public schools here could not be more deserving of any poor reputation they have. As for choice among public schools, it didn't exist. People were required to attend schools within their districts and most schools within this district were equally poor. The few that were slightly better (magnet schools etc.) had very long waiting lists and lotteries to get into them because parents knew well that the quality of the average public school was so damnably poor! And yet this situation never really seems to improve, the schools are still of equally poor quality, and nothing is really done to remedy the situation except posturing (but heaven forbid anyone suggest vouchers!).

I survived and did ok, despite rather than because of wasting 12 years of my life in public schools. I now work in a highly technical professional field where the majority of my coworkers are imigrants from other countries all over the globe rather than americans (That speaks really well of the american public schools most americans attend, doesn't it?!).

I don't even find the argument that public schools help give the lower classes a chance to advance particularly plausible (possibly at best they are better than nothing at all). In my experience most of the people from less disadvantaged backgrounds were tracked into the less difficult classes where nothing at all was learned, while the gifted/more advanced classes that provided any sort of training whatsoever for college were filled almost exclusively with the middle class. Add to this fact that much of the middle/upper class already sends their kids to private schools and what kind of situation do you have? Disadvantage continues for generation upon generation and public schools, I believe, do almost as much to perpetuate the problem as they do to solve it. As the slogan goes: Publik Educasion is not the ANSWER.

|10.2.05 @ 9:36PM|#

thoreau,

It's weird, because when you were gone a lot of us said that we missed you, and now that you're back we often can't stand you.

So? I know its hard for you to fathom, but my world doesn't begin or end with what you or others think of me. You must have some serious co-dependency issues.

Especially if you take such rants literally.

I see, so you do troll. And here I thought you weren't into that.

And there is nothing wrong with forming an opinion restricted to the narrow merits of a particular disclaimer's wording.

Hey, if you want to look like a rube that's not my affair.

That's all I've opined on in this thread.

Bullshit. You opined on the nature of the suit itself (indeed, that is at the heart of your statements). Sorry, thanks for playing, please try again.

|10.2.05 @ 10:48PM|#

So? I know its hard for you to fathom, but my world doesn't begin or end with what you or others think of me. You must have some serious co-dependency issues.

Fortunately, my world doesn't begin or end with your psychological assessments. What's that? You didn't mean to imply that you were attempting a formal psychological diagnosis? You mean you were speaking in a figurative manner?

I see, so you do troll. And here I thought you weren't into that.

You know, not every non-literal rant constitutes trolling.

Hey, if you want to look like a rube that's not my affair.

If offering a qualified assessment contingent on certain stated assumptions constitutes bein a "rube" then yeah, I guess I'm a rube. So are most other theoretical physicists. We just aren't as smart as you.

Bullshit. You opined on the nature of the suit itself (indeed, that is at the heart of your statements). Sorry, thanks for playing, please try again.

My opinion on the suit was contingent on my understanding that the suit was about the disclaimer and only the disclaimer. I said that the disclaimer does not seem to be worth suing over, and if that's the heart of the suit, then the suit is not worthwhile.

|10.2.05 @ 10:48PM|#

It's weird, because when you were gone a lot of us said that we missed you, and now that you're back we often can't stand you.

Just for the record, I never missed him...

And no, Hakluyt, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, just stating a fact. So chill.

|10.2.05 @ 10:52PM|#

Of course, I notice that now that thoreau's getting the Gunnels treatment, he doesn't like him anymore...

When they came for the Jews, etc., I guess.

|10.2.05 @ 11:10PM|#

crimethink-

I have to admit that I'm more and more puzzled by my old nostalgia. I would quote a certain Guns and Roses song, but I don't want to be taken literally and get accused of making threats.

|10.2.05 @ 11:36PM|#

thoreau,

Fortunately, my world doesn't begin or end with your psychological assessments.

For someone so absorbed with who I am, etc. that seems unlikely.

You know, not every non-literal rant constitutes trolling.

In this case you are indeed trolling.

My opinion on the suit was contingent on my understanding that the suit was about the disclaimer and only the disclaimer.

Therefore you are discussing more than just the disclaimer; you are discussing the merits of the case and making some very specific judgements about the nature of the plaintiffs, the nature of the wrong, etc. You've been caught with your pants down around your ass and your sole response is to ignore reality and try to cover your ass with hamhanded excuses instead.

|10.2.05 @ 11:45PM|#

Hakluyt-

I said before that I'm done with identity speculations. And you know what? I think I'm done arguing with you too. You know why? Partly because you're the kind of poster who thinks that "I'm fed up with your crap" actually means "I surrender."

And unlike joe, my moratorium doesn't just apply to a single thread. I'm not arguing with you anymore. If I disagree with you, or if you post something taking issue with what I said to somebody else, you'll get no response from me.

I don't expect you to believe me now, but the proof will most DEFINITELY be in the pudding.

Goodbye.

|10.2.05 @ 11:48PM|#

Wait, I just realized that there's a problem with my resolutions to not speculate on identity and not argue with him: What if he resurfaces under a new name? If I say "I think so-and-so is Hakluyt under a new name, hence I'm not arguing with him" then I'm breaking my moratorium on identity speculations. But if I take the new poster at his word, assume he's not Hakluyt (but he really is), and I argue with him, then I'm breaking my moratorium on arguing with him.

Well, if the problem arises I'm sure I'll find a way to resolve it.

|10.2.05 @ 11:52PM|#

thoreau,

Partly because you're the kind of poster who thinks that "I'm fed up with your crap" actually means "I surrender."

Yes, I am sure you are fed up with me demonstrating your ignorance. Like I wrote, instead of dealing with reality your sole response to my pointing out your error has been a big case of CYA.

|10.2.05 @ 11:53PM|#

thoreau,

Also, you can continue to avoid looking at The Panda's Thumb if the unpleasant knowledge revealed there makes you feel bad.

|10.3.05 @ 12:04AM|#

thoreau,

BTW, you're the one who wanted me to comment on this post. I was leaving it alone because it was merely a re-hash of what has been discussed over and over again. I'd hope in the future than instead of impugning the good name of plaintiffs, etc. in cases that you have very limited knowledge of you'd take the time to do so a little research on the subject, instead of what you did in this case - which is take the propaganda of the defendants as the gospel truth.

|10.3.05 @ 12:11AM|#

crimethink,

Glad you've now had your "Godwin's law" moment. Oh the poor "persecuted" Christians who have toput up with someone saying bad things about Christianity.

Just for the record, I never missed him...

I never missed you either.

|10.3.05 @ 7:56AM|#

A cut and paste from a particular Website (italicized comments are mine):

The major behavioral characteristics of Asperger's syndrome are:

1. impairment in social interaction and communication (like for instance, being incapable of recognizing figurative speech, sarcasm or hyperbole; going out of one's way to piss off everyone in sight)

2. repetitive or obsessive behaviors (like making a habit of multi-posting, or having one standard boilerplate insult which is used in all situations; if you don't know what I'm talking about I suggest you read the Hit and Run archives before you embarrass yourself further)

3. preoccupation with particular subjects or interests (i.e., all religious people are stupid psychopaths; let me post five hundred pages of a legal document)

4. good (sometimes superior) grammar and vocabulary

5. normal cognitive development

6. normal or above average intelligence.

|10.3.05 @ 11:20AM|#

Jennifer-
I get what your implying, but that could describe at least a quarter of the people on this thread alone.