Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Scopes II Monkey Trial Decided The Right Way This Time
In the original Scopes Monkey Trial, high school teacher John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution. This time the modern day creationists are found guilty of teaching religion.
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III has issued a 139-page opinion ruling:
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy."
Judge Jones also finds that the good Christians on the Dover school board are liars. To wit:
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
And he concludes:
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom....Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
|12.20.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Right answer wrong reason, again. It's not (just) that it's religion, it isn't science.
Dave W.|12.20.05 @ 2:16PM|#
This decision will be vacated. Just seeing these snippets, you can tell already. The appeals court is not going to take kindly to this judge's tone or loose logic. Mark my words.
|12.20.05 @ 2:16PM|#
Judge Jones rocks. He hits the nail right on the head.
But GODDAMN IT!! WHAT IS FUCKING "IRONIC" ABOUT IT? EXPLAIN THE
IRONY!!
His profound ignorance of a basic literary device really takes the
wind out of his argument. People need to fucking take Lit 101
again. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
|12.20.05 @ 2:17PM|#
But Dave W., I thought that courts and the discovery process were the proper venue for setting questions of science?
Jeff P.|12.20.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Q: Why isn't God taught in schools?
A: Because he's only had one major publication.
|12.20.05 @ 2:23PM|#
Right answer wrong reason, again. It's not (just) that it's
religion, it isn't science.
You're right, of course, in that if Science is the application of
logic to the natural world and Intelligent Design is a supernatural
explanation, then Intelligent Design has no place in a Science
class.
You wouldn't support it if it was taught in A Social Studies,
though, would you? The government has no business teaching religion
in public schools. The judge reaffirmed that. Score one for the
idea behind the Establishment Clause.
|12.20.05 @ 2:26PM|#
I remember that one, Jeff P. See the whole list of reasons God was denied tenure here.
|12.20.05 @ 2:29PM|#
I'm against ID (of course). But is it unconstitutional? Just
because it's not science? Or because it's religion?
If the court is saying it's religion, I guess the decision makes
sense.
But I'm always wary of falling into the "it's bad policy so it MUST
be unconstitutional" trap.
The Constitution isn't there to stop us from making bad policy
choices. If people elect pro-ID idtiots, they may sometimes have to
deal with the consequences.
VM|12.20.05 @ 2:30PM|#
naughty, Thoreau :)
did yer prematurely go off with this ruling (ha ha).
and it sounds like a fundie has some corn syrup instead of sand
you-know-where (cartman will explain where)
Timothy|12.20.05 @ 2:32PM|#
I've been exposed! I'm suing you, Mr. Corn Syrup, for the diabetes I might get from reading your sweet, sappy prose!
|12.20.05 @ 2:34PM|#
did yer prematurely go off with this ruling (ha
ha).
To answer that question you'll need to sue me and force me through
the discovery process.
I think he and I are both having fun. He gets to use me as the
object of frustration when he vents ("T thinks this, T thinks
that") and I get to tell corn syrup jokes.
It's a mutually beneficial exchange. But if you want to know the
precise benefit that I derive, you'll have to sue me and subject me
to the discovery process.
|12.20.05 @ 2:38PM|#
jtuf,
I don't know that it's a euphemism for one particular thing; it
seems to be used pretty haphazardly by most people to describe
situations that are funny but also sad or irritating in some
way.
|12.20.05 @ 2:39PM|#
RECALL NOTICE:
Though I put a lot of thought in the design of humans,
unfortunately there is a small glitch in all weight-height
proportional females manufactured between the years of 1985-1994.
Pertinent models are to report immediately to the residence of Mr.
Nice Guy for a quick adjustment at no cost.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
|12.20.05 @ 2:41PM|#
Scab, the Constitution is intended in many respects to prevent
the majority from abusing the minority in any given matter. So,
even if the majority of a town wants to make everyone praise Jesus
and condemn Darwin before Biology 1 class, it's still illegal. Of
course, get a large enough majority, and you can amend the
Constitution.
Private schools and homeschooling are completely viable options,
and either of them is a perfectly fine place to teach in a science
class how Eurynome lay with the North Wind to make order out of
chaos.
|12.20.05 @ 2:50PM|#
If the court is saying it's religion, I guess the decision
makes sense.
It is. And it does.
|12.20.05 @ 2:51PM|#
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention... now that! is! Irony!
|12.20.05 @ 2:52PM|#
"Right answer wrong reason, again. It's not (just) that it's
religion, it isn't science."
I don't think that this is true. I'm not aware of any
constitutional obligation to teach science in school. If the school
district were to teach children that 2+2=69, then there would be no
recourse in federal court. Schools are constitutionally allowed to
teach incorrect math (even if it may have metephoric value).
The issue here was that ID, at least as adopted by this school
board, was a nano-thin pretext for religion and, therefore,
violates the Establishment Clause.
Of course, one must wonder about the school board's motivation in
trying to replace an accepted scientific theory with a concept that
barely qualified as pseudo-science. Call me cynical, but I suspect
that it might have been to advance a religious viewpoint.
ID's lack of scientific credibility was not the justification for
the court's ruling, but it served as proof of the board's intention
to sneak in some of that old-time religion.
|12.20.05 @ 3:03PM|#
You wouldn't support it if it was taught in A Social
Studies, though, would you?
No, I would not but, not having read all 139 pages, it doesn't look
like the decision has prohibited that. If he said ID = religion,
that's one thing but it looks half-assed to me in saying ID was a
tool of this religious group rather than religion itself and
thereby someone can weasel it back in if they can convince some yuk
they aren't Prince of Peace pushers.
"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as
an alternative to evolution in a public school science
classroom."
I'll happily stand corrected if the judge has confirmed it as
religion and given it the boot on a more permanent scale.
Warren|12.20.05 @ 3:06PM|#
I am an opponent of ID. It is part of the fundies Orwellian
ambition to stop people from thinking and make everyone compliant
to the central authority. But I am not happy with the courts
deciding on the minutia of class curriculum. I personally would
prefer the original scopes outcome, where the stupid law was upheld
but its stupidity was exposed. However, I agree with the court that
ID is religious teaching and that the first amendment prohibits
such teachings in public institutions.
Or does it? Would ID be prohibited in Social Studies? It would
certainly be acceptable as part of a 'Survey of Religious Beliefs'
class. Would such a class be allowed under the constitution in a
public school? What offends me personally is the way ID is being
sold as science. But being personally offended does not a violation
of my inalienable rights make. Indeed censoring religious
discussion in a public school would also run afoul of the first
amendment.
This is why I believe public schools are unconstitutional. It is
not possible to respect the free exercise rites of the people, when
the state assumes the education of their children.
|12.20.05 @ 3:12PM|#
Eddy, ID itself isn't a religion, but "God created us" is a
religious belief, and ID says "God created us". Thus it has no
place in public school unless there is also a scientific
basis to say "God created us", which of course there is not.
It's not as if you have to include the entire religion in your
curriculum in order to be found to be teaching religion.
|12.20.05 @ 3:15PM|#
But GODDAMN IT!! WHAT IS FUCKING "IRONIC" ABOUT IT? EXPLAIN
THE IRONY!!
His profound ignorance of a basic literary device really takes
the wind out of his argument. People need to fucking take Lit 101
again. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Wow MNG, I never imagined someone could get so pedantically double
F-bomb worked up over the misuse of the concept of irony. How
ironic ;)~
But at least when all those teenage girls start arriving at your
place you can instruct them in the proper use of the term. :)
CodeMonkeySteve|12.20.05 @ 3:15PM|#
What a cruel blow to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Beware, lest ye be bitch-slapped by His Noodly Appendage!
|12.20.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Its always good to see that we have judges running our schools and institutions rather than elected officials. Even if you agree with the decision, its appalling to have a judge overruling elected officials. I for one do not welcome our new robed overlords.
|12.20.05 @ 3:26PM|#
Sorry for the confusion, my bad. My first post was a lament that I thought the judge was limiting it to science class. Having reread it, it doesn't convey what I originally intended. If it was found to violate the establishment clause then I'm good with that.
|12.20.05 @ 3:27PM|#
Judges are supposed to overrule elected officials sometimes. That's why we have three branches of government.
|12.20.05 @ 3:29PM|#
. Even if you agree with the decision, its appalling to have
a judge overruling elected officials.
Would it have been appalling had a judge overruled the elected
officials in New London? Or how about if a judge had overruled the
elected officials who gave us McCain-Feingold? My point is, unless
you're a pure majoritarian, there are legitimate times for judges
to overturn elected officials. You can debate whether this was one
of those or not (I think it was) but the mere fact that a judge
overruled elected officials doesn't make it wrong.
Corrcetions Dept.|12.20.05 @ 3:31PM|#
But Dave W., I thought that courts and the discovery process
were the proper venue for setting questions of science?
I don't think I said that, but whatever I did say aside:
the court, if the plaintiff chooses, will have its published paper
peer reviewed by a higher court. I am saying that if this paper
gets peer reviewed, it will get slaughtered. If it doesn't get peer
reviewed, then the scope of its effect will be limited and other
people will write other (public!) papers that will get peer
reviewed. That is the procedure and it works well because it
anticipates and accounts for poorly reasoned opinions, like the one
here.
btw, based on early descriptions of this case, I thought it was
going to be a good decision on ID, more along the lines of looking
at the motivations of the particular people who did the Dover thing
and showing that they were wingnuts deep down. Instead, the judge
seems to have put ID itself on trial, and, in the process of doing
that made a lot of incorrect statements about id generally. In
other words, the judge tried to look at the science when he
*should* have been looking at motives.
I am more interested in the part where the school spiel explained
that evolution is *not* a theory of origins. I hope that gets to
stay in. I think that is the crux of the problem, even tho both
sides are so politicized that nobody *wants* to find the
substantial common ground and associated obvious solution here.
|12.20.05 @ 3:31PM|#
You're stuck if you have the one size fits all and you-must-pay-for-it-no-matter-what-you-would-prefer school system. You are forced to be extremely conservative about the establishment clause because we have defined the school to be a government institution.
|12.20.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Yes Brian, there are legitimate times for judges to overrule legislatures, but the circiculum of our schools is not one of them. You just like the outcome and are lazy and would rather have a judge do the work rather than the political process. What happens when another judges rules that you have to teach ID as a matter of the 1st Amendment Right to free expression? You won't like that too much I bet. If one side can do it, don't think the otherside won't too. Like I said above, I hope you enjoy living under our new robed overlords.
|12.20.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Dave W.,
You're assuming that the School Board appeals the decision. Given
the recent election there they may not.
|12.20.05 @ 3:39PM|#
Yes Brian, there are legitimate times for judges to overrule
legislatures, but the circiculum of our schools is not one of them.
You just like the outcome and are lazy and would rather have a
judge do the work rather than the political process.
Oh, snap!
What happens when another judges rules that you have to teach
ID as a matter of the 1st Amendment Right to free expression? You
won't like that too much I bet.
I certainly wouldn't like it, and I would say the Judge is a little
crazy, and I would fully expect his decision to be overturned on
appeal. I wouldn't complain about the legislative branch's ability
to limit the powers of school boards.
|12.20.05 @ 3:40PM|#
john:
please explain to us how speech can be compelled by the judiciary
under the 1st amendment right to freedom of expression
thanks
(yes, this is sarcasm and rhetorical, but if you can actually make
a coherent argument, I'll be amazed)
|12.20.05 @ 3:40PM|#
I'm not procedurally any happier with judges deciding everyone's
education than I am with legislators deciding everyone's education.
Judges are elected for the most part, though, so I don't think it
is especially worse either.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no procedural out that is
desirable until we stop calling public education curriculum a
function of government.
|12.20.05 @ 3:41PM|#
I wouldn't complain about the legislative branch's ability
to limit the powers of school boards.
...Any more than I would complain about the Supreme Court's ability
to rule on the constitutionality of eminent domain cases.
|12.20.05 @ 3:43PM|#
biologist,
Quite easily, I am a high school teacher and believe in ID and
should not be prevented from expressing my views in the class room
by a nosy school board or state legislature. It is my First
Amendment right to question science put out my views on the
creation of the universe. A school board could not get away with
telling a teacher that he couldn't say other political views in the
class room, why is ID any different? I don't expect you to agree
with that. I am not sure I do either, but it is at least as
plausable an argument as many liberal court cases on the 1st
Amendment and it is entirely believeable that an agenda driven
Evengelical judge could make such a ruling. Why would it
necessarily be overruled on appeal? Are you saying its okay for
judges to rule the country as long as they are your judges? Do you
not think there could be agenda driven Evangelicals on appeals
courts too?
|12.20.05 @ 3:47PM|#
Mistah Niceguy, you loathe Alannis Morrissette, don't you?
;-)
John, I'll ask you the same question I asked kwais: should apublic
school board be able to order its teachers to instruct her students
that Jesus is Lord, and those who don't have a personal
relationship with him are going to hell?
If a school board did indulge itself in that way, would the parent
of a Jew be entitled to relief from the courts?
|12.20.05 @ 3:48PM|#
You just like the outcome and are lazy
Heh. No, I'd rather not have the government running the schools at
all, but as long as they do they are bound by the constitution. ID
is clearly and unequivocally religion no matter how one tries to
spin it, and as such the school board was making a "law respecting
the establishment of religion" in demanding that teachers tout it
to their students as an "alternative" in a science (!) class (of
all places). So I believe this was a perfectly legitimate time for
a judge to overrule elected officials and it is not just merely
being lazy (though I may be that as well).
|12.20.05 @ 3:52PM|#
Joe,
You apparently equate any idea of their being a higher power to
mean some vulgar parity of Christiantiy. The answer to your
question is no, but since teaching ID has nothing to do with
teaching Jesus is lord, it utterly irrelivent in the current
debate. Schools already do teach outright scientific falsities
about subjects such as global warming, the value of recycling and
much of history. If people have a right to go to the courts of the
teaching of the admittedly unscientific ID, I think others should
have the right to go to the courts over the teaching of psudo
science like global warming. Truthfully neither case belongs in the
courts and we would be better off settling it at the balot box and
through allowing parents to choose the schools to which they send
their children.
|12.20.05 @ 3:53PM|#
I am happy about this decision and I think that most of the
proponents of ID are attempting to present religion as science, but
I am not sure that the hypothesis that species are the result of
intelligent design is an unscientific hypothesis. From Philosphers'
Magazine:
[It] seems unreasonable to claim that the hypothesis of
intelligent design is unprovable. Most scientists regard natural
selection as a proven fact. If this is true, then scientists must
be able to tell the difference between evidence for natural
selection and evidence for design. If they cannot make this
distinction, then the hypothesis of natural selection would, of
course, be undercut because the relevant evidence would be in
doubt. Assuming that scientists can recognize evidence for natural
selection, then they would presumably also be able to recognize
evidence for design. If this is the case, then the intelligent
design hypothesis would be provable in the sense that supporting
evidence would be recognizable. Of course, being provable merely
means that it could be proven--it does not mean that it is or even
will be proven.
It is not unscientific to proclaim that, say, an arrowhead or a bit
of pottery was fashioned by an intelligent designer (humans); so
why should it be unscientific to proclaim that species are so
fashioned? (By the way, I think ID is a crock.)
|12.20.05 @ 3:55PM|#
Quite easily, I am a high school teacher and believe in ID
and should not be prevented from expressing my views in the class
room by a nosy school board or state legislature
Is this decision saying you can't express your views, or is it
saying that the school board can't make all teachers express
theirs?
|12.20.05 @ 3:58PM|#
actually, thanks for demonstrating my point by not providing the
logic behind your hypothetical court ruling compelling
speech.
I don't think it's OK for judges to rule the country, but then
again I don't think they are. I think that this is clearly a 1st
amendment issue on 2 grounds: compelling speech and violation of
the establishment clause. I don't agree that the judge's decision
is based on his personal agenda.
Quite easily, I am a high school teacher and believe in ID and
should not be prevented from expressing my views in the class room
by a nosy school board or state legislature. It is my First
Amendment right to question science put out my views on the
creation of the universe.
but doesn't the elected school board or elected state legislature
have the right and power to determine curriculum as you implied in
your post
Its (sic) always good to see that we have judges running our
schools and institutions rather than elected officials. Even if you
agree with the decision, its appalling to have a judge overruling
elected officials. I for one do not welcome our new robed
overlords.
Comment by: John at December 20, 2005 03:19 PM
a science teacher should feel free to express his SCIENTIFIC views
of various theories, including his opinion of the prevailing view,
whether he is for or against it. if you disagree with the
prevailing view, you should make it clear that it is your opinion
only, but not the opinion of the majority of scientists. you do not
have the right to present your religious beliefs as scientific
fact. evidence for and against various theories should be
discussed, although that might quickly become too complicated for
9th and 10th graders. your dissenting opinion regarding prevailing
scientific theory should be fact-based, not religious-document
based.
|12.20.05 @ 3:59PM|#
The answer to your question is no, but since teaching ID has
nothing to do with teaching Jesus is lord, it utterly irrelivent in
the current debate. Schools already do teach outright scientific
falsities about subjects such as global warming, the value of
recycling and much of history.
Oh, brother.
|12.20.05 @ 4:01PM|#
Is this decision saying you can't express your views, or is
it saying that the school board can't make all teachers express
theirs?
The latter.
|12.20.05 @ 4:06PM|#
John,
My email didn't go through to the address you provide yesterday.
I'm sorry to hear about your mom.
Now, down to bizness: "The answer to your question is no, but since
teaching ID has nothing to do with teaching Jesus is lord, it
utterly irrelivent in the current debate. Schools already do teach
outright scientific falsities about subjects such as global
warming, the value of recycling and much of history."
First, ID has a great deal to do with teaching that Jesus is Lord -
they are both religious doctrines.
And that's the key here - it's not just that ID is a false
doctrine, it's that it, unlike your other examples, is a religious
doctrine. It provides mystical answers based on faith, in order to
further a religious purpose. We can't have our government
establishing religious doctrines.
fyodor|12.20.05 @ 4:07PM|#
Just got here so I dunno if someone's alrady addressed this, but one thing I wondered about while listening to NPR discuss this during lunch break was that they said it would be okay to bring up ID in a different context, but to bring it up in a science class violated the establishment clause. On the face of it, I wasn't sure why it was establishment of religion if brought up in a science class but not elsewhere. Sure, they said it wasn't science, but is it unconstitutional to teach non-science as science? Why is it any less a violation of the establishment clause to bring it up in another class? They didn't address any of these questions on NPR, but I guess I have my theories. Perhaps presenting a religious veiw surreptitiously as science lends it creedence it wouldn't have if presented honestly as a religious view and thus is a more powerful vehicle for proselitization (sp?)? Perhaps in the other classes they have to make clear that they are not endorsing the view being presented? These seem like plausible possibilities, but it seemed a little annoying that it was taken for granted that the environment of a science class was perfectly sufficient reason to distinguish when presenting ID was not constiutional. And while I'm certainly not saying I disagree, I kinda hate it when what people are allowed or not allowed to do depends on such ambiguious distinctions. Of course, maybe this wasn't so much about what people are allowed or not allowed to do but what a school board is allowed to foist on its employees and customers.
|12.20.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy (or God, whichever):
I think the 'irony' is that the Christians had to lie in order to
promote the ID agenda; their method of promoting the Christian
religion was by being bad Christians.
John:
Certains forms of speach are forbidden in the schoolroom, including
in this case speech that promotes a religious idea. The schoolroom
does not qualify as a public place in the same sense that a public
park does. I'm guessing that if you read the fine print in your
teachers' contract you will find certain behaviors and types of
speech are forbidden, under penalty of dismissal.
|12.20.05 @ 4:19PM|#
In response to John:
Joe,
You apparently equate any idea of their being a higher power to
mean some vulgar parity of Christiantiy. The answer to your
question is no, but since teaching ID has nothing to do with
teaching Jesus is lord, it utterly irrelivent in the current
debate. Schools already do teach outright scientific falsities
about subjects such as global warming, the value of recycling and
much of history. If people have a right to go to the courts of the
teaching of the admittedly unscientific ID, I think others should
have the right to go to the courts over the teaching of psudo
science like global warming. Truthfully neither case belongs in the
courts and we would be better off settling it at the balot box and
through allowing parents to choose the schools to which they send
their children.
Ok first of all, Recycling is valuable in that it DOES reduce raw
material use, and global warming/climate change is now an accepted
fact. What's not a fact is the future effects of these facts. As
for evolution, genetics has proven it true in too many cases to be
false. Also, we have observed it in several places in the past.
Just because some limitations of our logic dont allow us to apply
the theory to everything does not make the theory incomplete/false.
I dare you to apply quantum mechanics to a simple ball falling from
a height. It wont work, or the mathematical compexity will be too
much for you. That doesnt mean Quantum Mechanics is wrong, or that
a higher power exists for the problem that quantum mechanics does
not seem to work. Upon further study, you will see that qm works in
principle, but our humanly limited abilities will screw us and not
allow it to be intuitive. So in short, ID is not a valid reason for
replacement/correction to evolution.
Finally, the remark about a human creating a pot...that human didnt
need any "higher power" or magic to create the pot...the laws of
science/physics created it. ID tends to suggest magical things,
which I personally believe to go in a social studies/religion
class, NOT SCIENCE!
|12.20.05 @ 4:20PM|#
ethan:
regardless of what philosophers' magazine claims, most scientists
would instead claim that ID is not science not because it can't be
proven, but because it can't be disproven. we don't prove anything
in science and all theories can be challenged, with evidence.
Richard Dawkins has stated that biological organisms
appear to be designed. scientists don't claim that
organisms weren't designed. biologists and
scientists in general are committed to scientific naturalism, which
prevents us from referencing supernatural phenomena in our
explanations of observed phenomena (also known as "facts"). Phillip
Johnson, a lawyer, has criticized this aspect of biology on
philosophical grounds, but few agree with him. scientific
naturalism dovetails nicely with Ockham's razor (do not needlessly
multiply explanations).
fyodor:
for the same reason that I studied comparative religions in 6th
grade, but the teacher wasn't allowed to tell me which one was the
"correct" one
slainte':
exactly. I've often said that exact thing.
|12.20.05 @ 4:21PM|#
I don't think it follows that natural selection being accepted
implies that any arbitrary form of design must be falsifiable by
contrast.
What should be falsifiable (and is) is the notion of perfect
design. However, this is not to say that crappy design must be
distinguishable from evolved form.
|12.20.05 @ 4:22PM|#
follow up: slainte': I was referring to your response to mr nice
guy
also, John are you a science teacher? a biology teacher? even if
you are, a biology teacher is a much different thing from a
biologist.
fyodor|12.20.05 @ 4:35PM|#
for the same reason that I studied comparative religions in
6th grade, but the teacher wasn't allowed to tell me which one was
the "correct" one
Duly noted. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the ID rule
being struck down only require teachers to present ID as an
alternative? How is that different from presenting various
comparative religions as acceptable alternatives? I agree that the
surreptitious aspect is slimy, but is it unconstitutional to be
slimy?
|12.20.05 @ 4:42PM|#
You apparently equate any idea of their being a higher power
to mean some vulgar parity of Christiantiy. The
answer to your question is no, but since teaching ID has nothing to
do with teaching Jesus is lord, it utterly
irrelivent in the current debate. Schools already
do teach outright scientific falsities about subjects such as
global warming, the value of recycling and much of history. If
people have a right to go to the courts of the
teaching of the admittedly unscientific ID, I think others should
have the right to go to the courts over the teaching of
psudo science like global warming. Truthfully
neither case belongs in the courts and we would be better off
settling it at the balot box and through allowing
parents to choose the schools to which they send their
children.
I am a high school teacher
It's a public school, right? :)
|12.20.05 @ 4:49PM|#
Duly noted. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the ID
rule being struck down only require teachers to present ID as an
alternative? How is that different from presenting various
comparative religions as acceptable alternatives? I agree that the
surreptitious aspect is slimy, but is it unconstitutional to be
slimy?
Because it's brought up in a science class, it's more than slimy.
Since it's science class, mentioning ID as an "alternative" to
evolution tells the students that it's a scientific
alternative, although in reality it obviously ain't.
|12.20.05 @ 4:49PM|#
fyodor: because ID isn't science. nobody has (to my knowledge)
published a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal (and there
are hundreds, if not thousands, of varying rigor). I sincerely
doubt that any ID papers have even been submitted for review to a
peer-reviewed journal, not because it counters evolutionary
orthodoxy (although it does), but because there is not a case to be
made for ID. the only arguments I've read from ID supporters amount
to "evolution can't explain this, therefore some unidentified
intelligence must have done it". by not specifying the intelligence
as a god, specifically the Christian god, they hope to get around
the Establishment Clause. even if evolution is eventually disproven
(EXTREMELY unlikely, IMHO), that doesn't prove ID. to present ID as
a viable alternative to evolution is disingenuous at best.
as far as challenging orthodoxies goes, I saw a presentation this
weekend at the Entomological Society of America conference where a
presenter got very personal about what he considered the mistakes
of others, and he named names. I've never seen that many upset
entomologists before (they were slightly less calm than usual).
Personally I think he's right, at least to some degree. if his view
is accepted, Hamilton's rule, a long standing orthodoxy of social
biology, will be overthrown as an explanation for sociality in
insects. the critical thing here is that HE HAD AN ALTERNATIVE
EXPLANATION THAT CAN BE DISPROVED BY EXPERIMENTATION AND
OBSERVATION. unlike ID.
|12.20.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Speaking of ID, Spell-o-holics are in fact the first level of daemon--built by enlarging the thalamus at the expense of the frontal cortex--placed upon chat groups for the purpose of diminishing the human spirit. Their creator was a man named Webster, a daemon who attempted to codify language in a singular form for the purposes of creating the myth of static linguistic consistency over variable phonetics.
|12.20.05 @ 4:52PM|#
It's pretty tough to side with the ID crowd, even if I tend to be a Deist. I certainly don't think that the concept that the Universe was created/designed by some sort of intelligent power (God, essentially) is something that needs to be taught. It's a pretty obvious possibility that doesn't seem to require a lot of lesson planning...
|12.20.05 @ 5:06PM|#
biologist:
I was responding to Ethan's quoted remarks about whether ID is
falsifiable. The author of the article indicated that since most
scientists agree that the forms of life we see today are the result
of natural selection, it follows that most scientists must have
some way to distinguish naturally selected forms from designed
forms.
I don't believe that analysis is valid. We can easily distinguish
perfectly designed forms from evolved forms by way of
listing design imperfections, but I don't think that one could
argue that an evolved form necessarily is distinguishable
from an imperfectly designed form. An ID proponent could always
say, 'Oh yeah? God made it that way on purpose, and you don't
understand His motivation!'
In other words, ID is not falsifiable, and the scientific consensus
around the origin of current species does not put a dent in the
truly commited.
|12.20.05 @ 5:11PM|#
I am a high school teacher and believe in ID
John, I thought you said you were a lawyer for the military? When
did that change? But anyway, teachers are supposed to teach the
curriculum, not "discuss their views in class." I know that when I
was a teacher, that was pretty much how it worked. Personally, I
was and am of the view that Hemingway blows, but he was on the
curriculum so I had to teach him.
If a teacher believes the Holocaust never happened, but was just a
Zionist sympathy ploy to garner support for the new nation of
Israel, does the teacher have the right to say this to his students
during class hours? I would say not.
|12.20.05 @ 5:14PM|#
also, there was an article in the New York Times last week (ok,
take it with a grain of salt, or an entire salt lick) that the
Templeton Foundation, which exists to promote harmony between
science and religion, had offered grants to support ID research,
but hadn't received any applications. if ID is science, there would
have been applications for money to research ID.
jason ligon:
thanks
|12.20.05 @ 5:23PM|#
An ID proponent could always say, 'Oh yeah? God made it that
way on purpose, and you don't understand His
motivation!'
True enough. Like His apparent fixation with beetles... I mean
there are more than a third of a million species of beetles (that
we know of)! That's more than all plant species and more than six
times the number of all vertebrate species. What's the deal? Did He
get to beetle species number 257892 and say, "Jesus! Still not
quite right. Oh well, guess I'll try it again tomorrow." He was
nothing if not persistent in designing the perfect beetle. Thank
God for beetles.
|12.20.05 @ 5:29PM|#
Yeah, I doubt they will appeal. Even if the original school
board was in place, I'm not sure an appeal would be in order, from
their strategic POV. Jones smacked em down, hard. Right now that
case is only the law in Pennslyvania. Take it up the circuit
appeals court, it becomes the law in several states. Take it to the
Supremes, and you've got yourself a nation wide ban on ID in the
classroom.
If they're smart, they retreat, lick their wounds, and try to come
back with a case where the connections between the ID pushers and
religion are harder to find. I think they'll still lose, but if
they can put that in front of a court, they'd have a fighting
chance.
|12.20.05 @ 5:45PM|#
Just for the record, I don't think John is actually a teacher. I think he was speaking hypothetically.
|12.20.05 @ 5:47PM|#
wow, an evolution comment thread with fewer than 100 posts in four hours. that's got to be a first!
|12.20.05 @ 5:48PM|#
...any idea of their being a higher
power...
Missed one, Stevo. That should read they're I think.
|12.20.05 @ 5:57PM|#
Also, rather mean and petty of me.
Oops, I also missed Christiantiy.
Now I'll stop.
|12.20.05 @ 6:03PM|#
I love that the troglodytes at LewRockwell are carping that we should teach ID just to be contrarian...despite the Constitution. Sometimes, I think the Rockwellians unite for/against something just to be iconoclastic (i.e. a pain in the ass).
|12.20.05 @ 6:12PM|#
you're both wrong. it should be there
Well, that was supposed to be funny. Not that I can prove it. Hell,
it's even funnier if my mistake was unintentional. Ironic,
even.
I think John's post above would be what spelling nazis refer to as
a "target rich enviroment".
|12.20.05 @ 6:15PM|#
wow, an evolution comment thread with fewer than 100 posts
in four hours. that's got to be a first!
Actually that's just because there were two evolution threads
today, splitting the vote, if you will. You should include the (as
of now) 89 comments on the other thread to get a more accurate
total.
|12.20.05 @ 6:26PM|#
Um. Yeah. Sure. See how it makes it more funnier that way.
Nothing to see here. Let's move along.
fyodor|12.20.05 @ 6:26PM|#
Because it's brought up in a science class, it's more than
slimy. Since it's science class, mentioning ID as an "alternative"
to evolution tells the students that it's a scientific alternative,
although in reality it obviously ain't.
fyodor: because ID isn't science.
Neither of you have addressed my question. Okay, okay, I agree
wholeheartedly that ID is not real science and is a surreptitious
and slimy (okay, even "more than slimy"!) way to get a religious
view into a science class. Why is that any more of a breach of the
establishment clause than presenting different religious
alternatives in a comparative religion class? Assuming, that is,
that I'm correct that the teacher is not required to say ID is
correct, only that it is an alternative the school board wants its
students to know about?
To make what I'm saying as clear as possible, I am not disputing
that ID is not science. I am questioning why that in
particular is what makes it constitutionally verbotten
compared to bringing it up in other classes.
|12.20.05 @ 6:38PM|#
Fyodor, I thought it went without saying, but teaching a religious belief as science lends scientific weight to said belief. Simply presenting religious ideas as religious ideas, and nothing more, lends no implied factual weight to any of those ideas, and thus is not endorsing any religion or religion in general.
|12.20.05 @ 6:39PM|#
You answered your own question, fyodor. A comparative religions class is just that: comparing religions. There is no alternative to science. Introducing ID to science is like introducing Christian science as a viable alternative to medicine: it just doesn't work and is faith-based. Studying religion is fine, teaching it as a viable alternative to fact is not.
Pooh|12.20.05 @ 6:54PM|#
Basically, what zach and Ayn said, but more precisely from a
legal standpoint, teaching religion in a science
class is inherently endorsing it as so, whereas in
a philosophy class it is more "something to think about". (Else
Greek Mythology would violate the establishment clause as
well.)
As to the specifics of the case, it wasn't merely an
alternative but presented as the
(superior) alternative to evolution.
|12.20.05 @ 6:56PM|#
I would support the idea of prefacing the study of evolution with a disclaimer from the teacher about the fallibility of evolution only if that was immediately preceded by a disclaimer about the fallibility of teachers. And maybe one more before that about the fallibility of disclaimers.
|12.20.05 @ 6:57PM|#
fyodor: to expand on my point
teachers present information in class as facts, but from different
perspectives in different courses.
in comparative religion studies, the facts being presented are
"members of this religion believe these things"
in science, the facts being presented are "this is the way the
world operates"
if you present ID as an alternate explanation of the way the world
operates, you are implying that the existence of an intelligent
designer is an accepted fact.
when you present in religion that christians believe that Jesus was
the son of God who died and was resurrected, the factual portion is
that this is the belief of Christians. the
instructor can't state that this is what actually
happened, or that all the other religions are wrong without running
afoul of the Establishment Clause.
disclaimer: this is my opinion. IANAL.
|12.20.05 @ 6:58PM|#
Additionally, the expansion of religion into the world of fact
is not only unconstitutional, it should be an outrage to a country
founded on Enlightenment principles. If ID people had their way,
they would inject faith into math too:
"Why is Pi so complex?"
"It's obvious God made it that way"
I am frightened that this will be the state of our schools
someday.
|12.20.05 @ 7:02PM|#
furthermore, even though my opinion is that evolution is the best explanation for biological phenomena such as diversity and adaptation, I accept that evolutionary theory may be challenged by a superior alternative explanation. I just haven't heard one yet. science teachers should try to impress on their students that all scientific knowledge is conditional on the outcome of observation and experimentation, and is never final and NEVER proven.
Pooh|12.20.05 @ 7:03PM|#
biologist,
IAAL, and I think your parsing is about right.
Though whether teaching "Christians believe X" is endorsement of
religion seems to be a fact-specific inquiry - "Christians believe
X, those heathen savages believe Y. Compare and contrast."
|12.20.05 @ 7:10PM|#
Biologist:
What data does the entomologist have to counter Hamilton�s rule? I
only know a hand full of case studies, but they all supported
Hamilton�s rule and his logic seems sound from a theoretical
perspective.
|12.20.05 @ 7:14PM|#
fyodor:
Schools are allowed to teach religious beliefs if the follow two
rules. First, they can?t endorse the belief. Second, the beliefs
must be relevant to the class. Teaching ID fails the second
condition, because it isn?t science. A history teacher could teach
Puritanism and how it differed from Anglicism so the students
understand by the pilgrims came to America. Ten years from now, a
history teacher might teach ID when he teaches about this court
case so students understand the why it did or didn?t violate the
1st amendment.
|12.20.05 @ 7:16PM|#
Ayn Randian:
Sorry to nit pick, but Pi isn�t complex. It is real and irrational.
Hat�s of to any one who gets that.
|12.20.05 @ 7:18PM|#
Joe:
The hallmark of religion is moral teachings, not a belief in the
supernatural. In it�s original form, Reconstructionist Judaism
rejected all belief in the supernatural. Would you allow teachers
to tell students they should become Reconstructionist Jews? If not,
how is telling students they should save endangered species any
different?
|12.20.05 @ 7:19PM|#
We shouldn?t teach ID because it is not supported by scientific evidence. We shouldn?t environmental values, ie recycling is good, because they are based on morals more than science. The likely consequences of an environmental choice are with in the realm of science and can be taught. However teachers shouldn?t label actions or consequences as good or bad, because there is no way to test if they are good or bad with the scientific method. Check out Gould?s NOMA principle.
|12.20.05 @ 7:30PM|#
jtuf:
two problems I have with scientific conferences:
too much information to absorb
too little time to get the details
my recollection is that he claims that other investigators haven't
been properly calculating the cost coefficient of the behavior and
not properly calculating the coefficient of relatedness.
I met one of the top researchers in this area after the talk and he
said it was interesting but wanted to see details in writing (this
was only a 20 minute oral presentation). The research I spoke to
after the talk stated that he had published a significant paper on
this subject in Science earlier this year.
Bivoltinism as an Antecedent to Eusociality in the Paper Wasp
Genus; Polistes
HUNT, JH; AMDAM, GV.
Science 2005. Vol.308, Iss.5719; p.264-267
|12.20.05 @ 7:31PM|#
I for one am glad that we won't have a national ID. I've been following this very closely, and thankfully, this judge has protected us from another intrusion into our privacy. No National ID!
|12.20.05 @ 7:36PM|#
Sorry to nit pick, but Pi isn?t complex. It is real and
irrational. Hat?s of to any one who gets that.
I assume that by 'real and rational', you mean it can be
calculated. Ie, it has no known end to its final place, but we can
continue to calculate further and further out, if we choose to do
so. If that's what you mean, then yes, I get it.
However, that hasn't stopped researchers from suggesting that if
its calculated out far enough, that a 'message from god' will
appear.
Paul
|12.20.05 @ 7:39PM|#
For a purportedly-big-L Libertarian message board, I'm surprised
nobody has trotted out the big-L talking points here. So I'll step
up to the plate.
I disagree with the ruling, because I don't see how this is a
Constitutional issue, nor do I see why the Federal Government
should be involved. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make
no law"; it doesn't address itself to the states. (And, given that
other amendments do make restrictions on the states, we
can assume this was intentional.) If I recall correctly, public
education is run by the states, though they get money (and
regulation) from the USG. If the case had been about a Federal law
requiring schools to teach ID, the First Amendment would have been
relevant. But this case concerned a school board in
Pennsylvania--it's hard to see how a case could get more local than
that. Why is the Federal government involved here? What does the
Constitution have to do with it?
Then again, the other facet to the big-L view is that public
education is an abomination and should be abolished immediately.
Discussions about whether or not ID belongs in a science class are
a symptom of the one-size-fits-all educational system we have in
this country. In a big-L society, all schools would be
private, and you could choose what school to send your kids to from
an open market in education. We'd surely have religious high
schools that taught ID, and non-religious colleges refusing to
accept their hapless sabotaged students.
How's that?
larry
p.s. For the record, I am pro-science and anti-ID. Like Roe v.
Wade, I am happy about the outcome of this ruling, but I think the
ruling itself is seriously flawed.
|12.20.05 @ 7:51PM|#
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law"; it
doesn't address itself to the states.
Sorry Larry, but it is well settled constitutional law that the
first amendment is applicable to the states through the fourteenth.
So this is a constitutional issue.
|12.20.05 @ 7:54PM|#
In case you did not notice, Larry, this is emphatically not a
"big-L" message board: it's for free minds and free markets.
Granted, the tired (but true and completely relevant) arguments you
raise should be instituted, but until the Libertopia comes true, I
will applaud the de-shackling of science to dogmatic I.D.
pseudosciences, in the name of free minds.
Furthermore, I think that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the
rights of citizens not to have to pay for the establishment of
religion to the states. Additionally, there is usually no standing
for local governments to make decisions because their existence is
based on the whim of the state.
|12.20.05 @ 7:55PM|#
Damn you Brian! Foiled again. That's what I get for being too verbose...however, your point is dead-on.
|12.20.05 @ 8:48PM|#
Paul,
Yeah, I read Contact, by Carl Sagan, too. For those who
haven't, a minor spoiler is that at the end, an "interesting"
pattern appears in the base-11 expansion of pi. But if pi's digits
are randomly distributed, wouldn't it be the case that that at some
point any interesting sequence would appear?
jtuf,
I would probably say pi is real, irrational, and
non-polynomial.
|12.20.05 @ 8:50PM|#
Pi isn't complex. It is real and irrational.
Actually π is all three. All real numbers are complex
numbers, or at least all real numbers can be
complex numbers, depending on how you want to look at it. Whether
it is complex or not depends on the underlying number field being
considered. Let z=π+0i ∈ C
→ π ∈ C.
|12.20.05 @ 9:01PM|#
Just back from my atheist meeting in Sinincincinnati where we gave the decision a round of applause in the announcement segment of our meeting. Another announcement was from Ed Kagin, the founder of Camp Quest, the summer camp for atheist kids. Seems the Barbara Walters special will mention Camp Quest in a few minutes (Eastern).
|12.20.05 @ 9:07PM|#
Stevo,
Your 4:42 post...
I read John's phrase "vulgar parity of Christianity," and just
assumed he was calling me a moral relativst barbarian.
There was a time, not too many years ago, when people like John
were calling me a moral relativist barbarian quite frequently. Good
times, winter 01-02. Good times.
|12.20.05 @ 9:19PM|#
jtuf, even if "the hallmark of religion is moral teaching" was
correct (which it's not)...
it does not then follow that all moral teaching is religious,
or that supporting good moral instruction in school is incompatible
with opposing religious indoctrination.
|12.20.05 @ 9:20PM|#
ID in school?
Just as long as they don't use your Social Security Number as your
ID.
That kid in Rhode Island didn't even read the book!
|12.20.05 @ 9:27PM|#
Brian Courts,
<pedant>
Well, it all depends on how we define "complex." I learned the
definition, "an ordered pair of real numbers with the following
operations defined: addition, multiplication, and scalar
multplication." In that case, although the real number π may map
quite nicely to the complex number (π, 0), it isn't a "complex
number," because it isn't an ordered pair, which that definition
requires.
</pedant>
|12.20.05 @ 9:44PM|#
On appealing -
I agree it seems unlikely the newly elected school board would want
to appeal a decision they were elected to make in the first
place....
But I heard somewhere that the judge also ruled the school board
must pay the plantiffs' lawyers' fees.
Not being a lawyer - Can the school board appeal the decision on
the fees mandated in the decision, while not appealing the actual
decision?
|12.20.05 @ 9:49PM|#
Joe:
Philosophy and religion overlap some. Some moral teachings fall
under philosophy, others fall under religion. Belief in a certain
number of gods is just one belief out of the hundreds that a
typical religion has. Yeah, the government schools shouldn't teach
about G-d, but I think teaching about right and wrong in government
schools is worse.
Most Atheists and theists are OK, but you can find examples of
indoctrination and government coups in both camps. Communism is a
prime example of how much damage a belief system can do if attached
to a government even if it is atheistic.
Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, since it's getting
late.
|12.20.05 @ 10:20PM|#
Fuck you, "libertarian" hypocrites. Apparently, libertarianism means applauding the government for forcing atheist bullshit on our kids and establishing it as the state religion at taxpayer expense. I hope your kid is the next one to be asked how often he gives blowjobs because - oh, yeah, the government doesn't think you have the right to raise your own kids either, and you're not allowed to complain if schools take this kind of poll. Some libertarian bunch you are, shitheads! When you get to Hell, say hello to Horace Mann for me.
|12.20.05 @ 10:55PM|#
Brian (and Ayn_Randian): It's also "well settled" that the
President can take us to war without an explicit Declaration Of War
passed by Congress. They've been doing it for more than fifty
years. But that doesn't mean you can find it in the US
Constitution.
I don't agree that the Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection"
phrase translates into English as "States can't pass laws
restricting freedom of speech" (et al), but I'm kind of a
literal-interpretation guy. I don't go in for penumbras and all
that jazz. (After all, if I followed conventional wisdom, I
wouldn't be here in the first place.)
Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if there was explicit
language in the Constitution making states beholden to Congress's
restrictions in matters of human rights. I just don't see
one--neither in the Fourteenth, nor in the nebulous Ninth, nor the
toothless Tenth.
Strictly yours,
larry
|12.20.05 @ 11:25PM|#
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States
Larry, please explain to me your interpretation of that
clause...and I am not being a smartass, I am honestly asking, and
you already know mine. To me, it seems clear, but I am interested
in your view.
|12.20.05 @ 11:34PM|#
Question for those who claim to be libertarian but nevertheless regularly vote Rethuglican: What would Alito do?
|12.21.05 @ 12:05AM|#
Ayn_Randian: Sure, no problem.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment does come close, I will
admit. The only section I see as being relevant is "No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States"; I don't think the
"due process" or "equal protection" are at all relevant. (I can
expand on that notion if you like.)
Therefore the question becomes: what "privileges or immunities" are
these? Again, with my strictest constitutionalist hat on, they
would be those explicitly spelled stated in the Constitution. For
instance, a State couldn't pass a law abrogating the Third
Amendment (quartering soldiers) or the Fourth Amendment
(unreasonable search and seizure). Those Amendments specify rights
of the people.
However, the First Amendment specifies things which
Congress may not do. The Fourteenth Amendment makes
statements about what States may do with respect to the people's
rights. So I don't see it as germane to the First.
And yeah, I realize I'm out on a limb here. Any reasonable person
would say "the intent of the First was that people have
the right to free press &c, and the intent of the Tenth
Amendment was to protect rights that weren't explicitly spelled
out. So the Fourteenth Amendment says that states must honor those
rights." I agree, that does seem to be the intent. But I feel that
a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution is
fundamental to procuring and maintaining our freedom. Start talking
about "intent" and "penumbras" and pretty soon you can justify
Federal agents destroying a woman's private crop of medical
marijuana using the Commerce Clause.
"Intent" is in the eye of the beholder,
larry
|12.21.05 @ 12:15AM|#
Since the incorporation doctrine comes up in a variety of contexts on Hit and Run, maybe it makes sense to create a thread devoted to it on grylliade's forum. So we can just hash it out there.
|12.21.05 @ 12:21AM|#
See, Larry, I read almost all of the amendments as things the
government can't do, especially, per your example, the third:
" No soldier shall, etc." seems to be a limitation by the
government NOT to do something
And the fourth, which I will quote more fully: "The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."
Yes, the fourth starts with the rights of the people, but these
were considered automatic, I read this amendment as something the
government cannot do , with the relevant areas in bold.
I read all these things that the government can't do as extended to
the states by the Fourteenth. Although it may not be the strictest
(I am no scholar), it seems to be a reasonable interpretation.
Although I understand that interpretation is not your thing.
|12.21.05 @ 12:45AM|#
A liitle thought exercise here about the logical implications of
this case. Suppose you have a theory (of whatever, it does not
matter), the theory seems to be valid and scientifically rigorous.
This theory also appears to confirm the theology of a particular
religious group. Members of this push for this theory to be
included in the curriculum of the relevent scientific field.
By Judge Jones' logic from the Dover case, would teaching this
valid theory in government be unconstitutional or perfectly
legal?
|12.21.05 @ 1:09AM|#
As if the freaking constitution matters anyway. The constitution
is routinely ignored by the courts, and is torturously interpreted
by the Supremes to mean... any fucking thing they want it to
mean.
Growing Cannabis (or wheat) in your garden for your own consumption
is an interstate commerce issue: yeah, right.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." yeah, right.
|12.21.05 @ 1:32AM|#
I hope your kid is the next one to be asked how often he gives
blowjobs because - oh, yeah, the government doesn't think you have
the right to raise your own kids either, and you're not allowed to
complain if schools take this kind of poll. Some libertarian bunch
you are, shitheads! When you get to Hell, say hello to Horace Mann
for me.
Comment by: BlowMeLibs at December 20, 2005 10:20 PM
What's the matter...are you afraid your kid might be asked how
often he or she has to get down on their knees for the local
priest, minister, or rabbi? Or for their father, stepfather, or
mother's new boyfriend? Or their own boyfriend, for that
matter!
|12.21.05 @ 3:06AM|#
Most ID proponents' cases can be summed up as a number of critiques (mostly wrong) of Darwinian evolution followed by a non sequitured jump to a claim of the primacy of ID.
|12.21.05 @ 3:44AM|#
I, like others, want to give round of applause to Prof. Behe for aiding us in this victory: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/thank_you_michael_behe/
|12.21.05 @ 7:35AM|#
This is for John. All I can say is: What lucky students you
have!!! Captive to a blow-hard pontificating off-subject and out of
context about "Intelligent Design" and other pet political
theories.* Isn't that against the Geneva Conventions?
Reminds me of having been trapped once, years ago, under the hands
of a chiropractor who lectured me about Jesus while he was
adjusting my back. But unlike your students, I was an adult paying
for a service and was free to walk out on the idiot and never go
back, which is what I did.
*P.S. I have no idea whether you have a constitutionally protected
free-speech right to promote whatever the hell you want in class.
But I must concede, one is frequently free in this country to be a
jerk.
|12.21.05 @ 8:20AM|#
most scientists would instead claim that ID is not science
not because it can't be proven, but because it can't be
disproven.
Of course, you are right. Falsifiability is a much better indicator
of whether a hypothesis is "scientific" or not. But it is not a
perfect one: even the most scientific of claims can never be
completely falsified as it is always possible that some future
observation will force us to retrieve discarded theories from the
dustbin. I fear that I may have quoted the wrong passage for the
point I wanted to make. It seems to me, though, that a
stripped-down ID hypothesis (minus the obvious attempts to make
Genesis into science and other theological and supernatural
aspects)such as "biological species were designed by some conscious
mind(s), at least in part" is obviously scientific. Plants and
animals are, among other things, physical objects, and so one can
imagine a world in which they were constructed in some way
according to a conscious plan. An archeologist who contends that
some find is an artifact is obviously making a scientific claim.
So, all else being equal, it would seem that the claim that animals
were designed is on its face scientific.
I am not making Paley's Watch argument here; Hume dispensed with
that sophistry quite well. The analogy between obvious human
artifacts and biological species breaks down in a number of
important places, but that just shows that ID is a really poor
scientific hypothesis, not that it is not science at all. In fact,
it seems quite common for people to argue against ID by pointing
out how much evidence there is against it--but if there is evidence
against it, doesn't that qualify it as scientific?
I am just trying these ideas on for size. Rip away.
|12.21.05 @ 9:01AM|#
BlowMeLibs:
Just about all libertarians want school choice or to get the
government out of education all together. If that happens, you can
send you kids to a school that teaches whatever you want. Until
then, we would rather teachers don�t proselytize in government run
school.
|12.21.05 @ 9:55AM|#
"Fuck you, "libertarian" hypocrites. Apparently, libertarianism
means applauding the government for forcing atheist bullshit on our
kids and establishing it as the state religion at taxpayer
expense."
But remember, folks, teaching Intelligent Design has nothing to do
with establishing a religion. It's just a scientific theory, with
no religious connotations whatsoever, and the purpose being served
by teaching it in schools is entirely secular.
|12.21.05 @ 10:33AM|#
We may be at the end of this thread and of this discussion, for
the moment, but I must unload about why I am bitter about religion
being inappropriately drawn into the classroom.
Years ago (70's), my high-school government class was taught by a
young, handsome, popular football coach who was an expert on the
sport but knew little about history, political science or
government. He was also very out-there about his religious beliefs.
One day, he declared that a woman would never be President of the
United States, because God had not designed women for the job, and
then he mocked and humiliated a female student (not me) who tried
to argue with him. What I, an entirely inarticulate teenager,
wanted to ask him was:
1) What, do you have a crystal ball?
2) Is this government class, or Sunday School?
3) If your female students have such diminished minds and limited
leadership capabilities, what are we doing here in government
class?
4) Are God and religion really so uplifting? Gee, where can I sign
up?!
5) Is your penis really so tiny? Does it feel bigger now?
Instead, I have quietly boiled about this incident (and too many
similar ones from high school) ever since.
dhex|12.21.05 @ 10:39AM|#
there seems to be a new rhetorical tactic at work - or rather,
newly popularized - in that anything "secular" is derided as being
"state religion" or "liberal religion" and whatnot.
i think it is VERY strange for religious people to devalue religion
by making any set of beliefs a religion. then again, i do not see
myself and my actions as being scrutinized by the personality
behind the universe; perhaps if i were, i'd be more likely to see
everyone else in the world working in opposition against me.
fyodor|12.21.05 @ 10:55AM|#
Catalina,
I sympathize with your experience, but I don't think it would pass
constitutional muster to outlaw flaming assholes.
|12.21.05 @ 11:05AM|#
fyodor, yes, either flaming assholes or lousy teachers. (But how do they sleep?)
|12.21.05 @ 11:54AM|#
Conversely (speaking of lousy teachers), I had a 6th-grade math
teacher who gave me A's on every assignment no matter what, because
I was "sweet." This math teacher applied his theory that his
students' self-esteem was more important than their ability to do
math.
My mind was literally saved (now speaking of magnificent teachers)
by my 7th-grade math teacher, who wielded his red pen upon my
homework liberally and suppressed a smile as I argued tearfully
that he was mean. (But I did learn to do those problems correctly
and in the following years, math was my best subject.)
|12.21.05 @ 12:09PM|#
apropos of nothing in particular, my 6th or 7th grade math teacher (I can't quite recall) would read us the bible in class during down times. he claimed the assistant principle said it was ok as long as he didn't "teach" the bible, just read it to us. I was a believer at the time, so it didn't bother me personally, but I did wonder how he could read the bible without teaching it, what it had to do with math, and how it might affect students with different belief systems.
|12.21.05 @ 1:55PM|#
Dhex, exactly. I find that religious people tend to bestow and deny the title of "religion" as it suits them; i.e., when fundies call science a religion, or when gaius marius refuses to call evangelical Christianity a religion. Their arguments are so much easier to make with amorphous definitions.
|12.21.05 @ 2:39PM|#
Teachers that preach in public school should be reprimanded, and/or removed. Fortunately, my k-12 teachers were very good. I was surprised by buy off topic comments some of my professors made in class. During one population genetics problem, the teacher set us to work on an example with the words, �Let�s hope you can count better than Republicans.� He lost a lot of credibility in my eyes that day.
|12.21.05 @ 3:15PM|#
jtuf
right or wrong, I think at the college level the professors should
have more leeway than K-12 teachers. on the whole, college students
are adults and less likely to be influenced by comments such as
those you cite, which sounds like an attempt at humor, even if he
really meant it also.
are you at uf?
|12.21.05 @ 5:13PM|#
I was taught evolution...in a Jesuit school. They left creationism in religion class and only religion class. I guess they hadn't thought of ID back then...or they were actually concerned about teaching as much as preaching.
|12.21.05 @ 8:53PM|#
"taught by a young, handsome, popular football coach who was an
expert on the sport but knew little about history, political
science or government."
Catalina,
My similarly-equipped high school history teacher could not say,
"bomb," when discussing wars. It was only, "bum," provoking titters
from the classroom, and early thoughts of, "Is there an alternative
to government schools?"
Then there was my church school teacher who posited that 2000 would
be the "end of time." (We are on the cusp of plus or minus five, so
I'm only now beginning to breathe easy.)
|12.21.05 @ 9:16PM|#
Eddy. from a Catholic point of view, if evolution is "true",
than it is just part of God's Natural Law. Some Protestants hung up
on Bishop Usher's dating of the age of the universer can't handle
that.
Sreparate school and state, I say.
Kevin
|12.21.05 @ 9:16PM|#
Eddy. from a Catholic point of view, if evolution is "true",
than it is just part of God's Natural Law. Some Protestants hung up
on Bishop Usher's dating of the age of the universer can't handle
that.
Sreparate school and state, I say.
Kevin
|12.23.05 @ 1:57PM|#
Ayn_Randian: I'm not sure I was totally clear in my previous
posting. So lemme take another quick swing at it.
My point is that I think the Fourteenth covers things which are
described as the people's rights (third, fourth); anywhere where
the Constitution says "The people shall not ". But the First says
"Congress shall not", which has a very narrow focus, and I think
one can easily argue the Fourteenth is not relevant. Yes, you can
flip it on its head, and say "Congress shall not, because it is a
right of the people", and therefore a right that promulgates to a
restriction on state law by the Fourteenth, but that's more
interpretation than I'd like to see happen.
Also, my point about interpretation is that I feel a pessimistic
view is in order. Otherwise the modern USG (and in particular the
Executive branch) will always take the most favorable
interpretation as befits their needs at the time. By limiting their
leeway, we would tighten Jefferson's "chains of the
Constitution".
If I appear to be repeating myself--I most likely am.
larry
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245