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
Darwin, Help Us!
Hate it when elections don't go your way? So does the National Association of State Boards of Education. In their upcoming election for president, Kenneth Willard, who supports "intelligent design" theory, is running unopposed. So they are, uh, "reviewing" their election procedures to see if there is any way on Darwin's green earth they can stop this from happening. For his part, Mr. Willard accuses the scientific establishment of having "blind faith in evolution."
If only there were some scenario in which not everyone would have to agree on the merits of creationism class...some sort of choice-based, individualized educational system. Oh well.
|6.21.07 @ 2:08PM|#
The public education establishment vs. intelligent design proponents. Wouldn't you like to see this settled in a no-holds-barred cage match?
|6.21.07 @ 2:16PM|#
"The public education establishment vs. intelligent design
proponents. Wouldn't you like to see this settled in a
no-holds-barred cage match?"
They should use modified Aztec rules where the winner of the match
is ritualistically killed by the loser. For the crowd participation
portion of the event, the loser is tarred and feathered.
|6.21.07 @ 2:17PM|#
If most people in the organization think this guy is a kook, why didn't anyone run against him?
|6.21.07 @ 2:23PM|#
If most people in the organization think this guy is a kook,
why didn't anyone run against him?
They're educators. The only politics they pay attention to are bond
issues.
|6.21.07 @ 2:29PM|#
What purpose does a National Association of State Boards of Education serve? It it just another group that can hold vacations/conferences for local pols on the taxpayer dime?
|6.21.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Seems like evolution passed Kenneth Willard by. To put someone with his views in a position of leadership sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us who support advanced intellectual theory. He and his like-minded supporters are the reason I support the notion of private school. SECULAR PRIVATE SCHOOL, that is.
GILMORE|6.21.07 @ 2:32PM|#
They should nominate Chuckles the Dancing Monkey to run against him. That'll show em!
|6.21.07 @ 2:43PM|#
They should use modified Aztec rules where the winner of the
match is ritualistically killed by the loser. For the crowd
participation portion of the event, the loser is tarred and
feathered.
I heard they planned this before, but it turned out that Willard's
head would be too small to use as a ball in the following
match...
|6.21.07 @ 2:46PM|#
"If only there were some scenario in which not everyone
would have to agree on the merits of creationism class...some sort
of choice-based, individualized educational system."
In the meantime there's nothing inherently wrong with having a
creationist as president.
...but Blanks has it exactly right. We need to privatize as much of
the school system as we can as soon as possible for all our
sakes...
If school boards are as resistant to the demands of other parents
as they are to the demands of creationists, then how bad must they
be!
D.A. Ridgely|6.21.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Darwin | June 21, 2007, 2:03pm | #
The link to the reason article on evolution isn't there.
Aha! The missing link!
|6.21.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Look, you can disagree with the guy about whether or not there
is a God who started the whole shebang and somehow got us from
singularity of matter to living breathing thinking human being, and
if you honestly think that disqualifies him from holding office,
then by all means vote against him. But to try to disqualify the
guy from an election for that reason denies the choice to those of
us who think it's fine for religious folks to hold office.
If there's a more qualified candidate, find him or her and run them
against him.
Or better yet, liberate the school system from the monopolistic
control of government and let schools set their own policy on I.D.
vs. Creationism vs. Evolution vs. Theistic Evolution vs. the Spore
theory. Colleges can set minimum admissions standards for science
to ensure that evolution theory is included in the chosen
curriculum and alleviate concerns that the next generation will
miss out on the opportunity to hear about the eternal monkeys and
their typewriters.
VM|6.21.07 @ 3:05PM|#
DAR!
wow! just wow! You win the Stevo "Threadkiller" Darkly Award.
freakin awesome.
*passes D.A.R. canned fried haggis fritters
|6.21.07 @ 3:15PM|#
you can disagree with the guy about whether or not there is
a God who started the whole shebang
That's missing the point. I don't think anyone's opposed to
offering religious classes in school (assuming no one's
forced to take them).
It's attempts to dress religion up in a "science" outfit and parade
her around town that twicks my nethers...
|6.21.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Considering the list of "wrong unscientific" ideas at most public school includes the medicinal effects of hemp, I'm rooting for the Creationist. Rewritting election rules to preserve a belief would do more long term damage than a Creationist could do during his administration.
|6.21.07 @ 3:22PM|#
OK, I just RTFA and saw the scenario, which is that the guy he
was running against withdrew, and there isn't a provision for
write-in candidates in their elections. So what they're considering
doing is changing the procedures to allow write-ins.
I wouldn't normally have a problem with this, but it is a little
scummy of them to do this if they've refused to allow write-in
votes in the past when a candidate runs unopposed.
|6.21.07 @ 3:25PM|#
I would suggest the best course of action is to abstain from voting. The creationist still wins the election, but if he has a ridiculously low vote total, it will make clear that he has no mandate.
Ventifact|6.21.07 @ 3:25PM|#
I must agree with jtuf, who gets to the most important point here. Free speech, free elections, free markets, and free society in general operate on the assumption that we'll make mistakes with our choices but that only if we have those choices will be overall make the biggest number of best choices.
ed|6.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
I don't have kids and I'll be dead by the time today's little punks get around to fucking everything up so I don't care if they reach adulthood believing they descended from God's magic fingertips. It'll give what remains of the civilized world something to laugh at.
|6.21.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Or better yet, liberate the school system from the
monopolistic control of government and let schools set their own
policy on I.D. vs. Creationism vs. Evolution vs. Theistic Evolution
vs. the Spore theory. Colleges can set minimum admissions standards
for science to ensure that evolution theory is included in the
chosen curriculum and alleviate concerns that the next generation
will miss out on the opportunity to hear about the eternal monkeys
and their typewriters.
With a significant portion of children being... "educated" (if you
want to call it that) in religious schools (or worse, homeschooled)
to shelter them from reality, what's going to stop colleges and
universities from dumbing down their standards to make sure they
get tuition-paying students into the classrooms? After all, market
forces are at work here, and colleges have to make money too.
Eventually, I fear the rest of the civilized world will run circles
around us in the sciences because we thought it would be a good
idea to allow parents the "choice" to raise their kids to be
willfully ignorant (in the the name of JEEZ-us, of course) as they
are.
Also, perhaps one of the alleged "free marketeers" here can explain
to me why "school choice" isn't just a welfare handout for
bible-beaters to help keep their brainwashed, Christian, fuckspawn
uneducated enough to vote Republican, park asses into Mega-Church
pews, and fill collection plates?
|6.21.07 @ 3:57PM|#
OK, OK.
I don't want Creation Science in public schools.
But what do we do if Yahweh DOES show up?
Arranges for a supply of burn ointment in his coffin.
|6.21.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Also, perhaps one of the alleged "free marketeers" here can
explain to me why "school choice" isn't just a welfare handout for
bible-beaters to help keep their brainwashed, Christian, fuckspawn
uneducated enough to vote Republican, park asses into Mega-Church
pews, and fill collection plates?
Akira, don't sugarcoat it, how do you really feel about this?
I'm an athiest and support school vouchers. If you wish to exclude
religiously based schools I have a little, but not much, to quibble
with you about. Most of that involves tactics not principles. After
all the unnreachable perfect is the enemy of the achievable
good.
|6.21.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Also WTF is this about homeschooling? I'm sure lots of people are capable of outperforming public schools, and that most recognize their weaknesses/shortcomings.
|6.21.07 @ 4:19PM|#
what's going to stop colleges and universities from dumbing
down their standards to make sure they get tuition-paying students
into the classrooms? After all, market forces are at work here, and
colleges have to make money too.
Accreditation standards and competition. Do you as a parent want to
shell out 80 grand to get your kid a degree from UCLA or do you
want a degree from the Flat Earth Society University?
Also, perhaps one of the alleged "free marketeers" here can
explain to me why "school choice" isn't just a welfare handout for
bible-beaters to help keep their brainwashed, Christian, fuckspawn
uneducated enough to vote Republican, park asses into Mega-Church
pews, and fill collection plates?
It depends on the nature of the school choice. Is it a voucher?
Then you should be happy. With government money comes government
strings in the form of mandates and dictates from on high.
Personally, I think religious schools would be fools to accept
voucher money unless they are willing to compromise their
principles.
Is it a tax credit? Well, in that case it's not welfare since it's
not government money to begin with. The government is merely
benevolently deigning to steal less of our resources to educate our
children ourselves.
Is it the complete liberation of the education system? Great. Then
those bible schools will have to compete just as hard as other
schools to win students.
But we'll ignore many of the existing religious schools which
usually outperform their public counterparts, teach traditional
subjects and just supplement that with biblical classes and
stricter discipline codes, because it's obvious that anyone who
believes in God must be some backwater ignorant hick who's ready to
burn the first woman they see with a short skirt as a witch and
wants their kids to fail, right?
|6.21.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Akira,
Now that my ears have had a chance to stop burning, I'll ask you if
you realize that a sizeable portion of children in this country
have been educated at religious schools, well, since this country
existed. By your logic we should have been way behind the rest of
the world for our entire existence.
|6.21.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Also, perhaps one of the alleged "free marketeers" here can
explain to me why "school choice" isn't just a welfare handout for
bible-beaters to help keep their brainwashed, Christian, fuckspawn
uneducated enough to vote Republican, park asses into Mega-Church
pews, and fill collection plates?
Because school choice is agnostic to who or what religion or group
of individuals "wins" or benefits. School choice is just that--a
choice that everyone can make for themselves, and schools will be
forced to compete for pupils.
I'm not so concerned about fuck spawning or whatever or people
going to church. I guess it has to do with the fact that we're into
freedom here. If you're into hating Christians or feel for some
reason they aren't entitled to their opinions and way of life,
maybe freedom isn't right for you. I would probably suggest
socialism or facism.
|6.21.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Accreditation standards and competition. Do you as a parent
want to shell out 80 grand to get your kid a degree from UCLA or do
you want a degree from the Flat Earth Society
University?
Regent University grads tend to be in much demand in the Justice
Department and other areas of the Executive Branch these days. A
Regent web page claimed that 150 graduates have served in the
George W. Bush administration
Bob Jones University isn't doing too bad on the enrollment front
either.
|6.21.07 @ 4:54PM|#
A Regent web page claimed that 150 graduates have served in
the George W. Bush administration
Yeah, and that in itself would be enough to drive the approximately
70% of us who dislike the Bush Administration into taking our money
to a rival institution.
But, in a perfect world, where Democrats were an actual opposition
party, I would expect them to downplay that fact once the criminal
proceedings started against the Executive branch.
biologist|6.21.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Joe:
science facts aren't socialist, fascist, or democratic.
I tell my students "have whatever opinion you want, but you will
learn evolutionary theory."
|6.21.07 @ 5:54PM|#
If you're into hating Christians or feel for some reason they
aren't entitled to their opinions and way of life, maybe freedom
isn't right for you. I would probably suggest socialism or
facism.
If any force in American society will bring "socialism or facism
[sic]" or any other totalitarian system to America it's will be
Christianity.
So to hell with the "opinions" and "way of life" of a bunch of
knuckle-dragging, supersticious, barbarians. Some of us don't want
to live in the Dark Age they wish to bring down upon us all.
|6.21.07 @ 5:58PM|#
Akira, speaking as a fellow atheist, I just have to say, with all due respect, it's time to up the dosage on your meds.
|6.21.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Biologist:
Perhaps school choice isn't right for you because inherent in it is
choice . I applaud you're commitment to objective and
scientific truth but that would, in fact, likely be better
instilled by a state school and authority.
In this case, we should be weary of home schooling.
|6.21.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Akira-
You're clearly not one of the libertarians who believes in personal
freedom for all, regardless of their beliefs. Perhaps some form of
a free market authoritarian?
|6.21.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Accreditation standards and competition.
Rigggght. Bible-beating diploma mills like Bob Jones, Liberty, and
Regent accreditation despite the fact that their curriculum is pure
horseshit. As for competition, since most polls indicate that a
majority of Americans are Creationists it's going to be hard to
find a secular education when there is no demand for reality-based
schools.
But we'll ignore many of the existing religious schools which
usually outperform their public counterparts, teach traditional
subjects and just supplement that with biblical classes and
stricter discipline codes, because it's obvious that anyone who
believes in God must be some backwater ignorant hick who's ready to
burn the first woman they see with a short skirt as a witch and
wants their kids to fail, right?
You just don't realize just how proud most Christians are of their
willful ignorance. For them, taking things on "faith" rather than
fact gets them brownie points to with the jealous and vengeful Sky
Tyrant.
|6.21.07 @ 6:30PM|#
You're clearly not one of the libertarians who believes in
personal freedom for all...
Oh, I believe in freedom, particularly my own. With a few
exceptions, the rest of the human race can burn for all I
care.
However, history has shown that the vast majority of humanity is
too fucking stupid to be allowed access to oxygen, much less
liberty. The last thing you want to give the stupid is freedom, and
stupidity is something that religion specializes in.
When people are both educated and grounded in reality,
then we'll talk about "choice."
|6.21.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Bible-beating diploma mills like Bob Jones, Liberty, and Regent
accreditation despite the fact that their curriculum is pure
horseshit.
Beyond the fact that they include theology classes, are run or
founded by some colorful figures, and have some questionable idea
about morality that don't jibe with the book they claim to follow,
is there any substantial difference between the non-theology
courses they teach vs. an institution of similiar size and
resources, or is this a generalization based on your assumptions of
Christianity?
Christianity does not preclude good education or you must also
denigrate some of the older universities in Europe and America that
had their start (and still maintain some ties) to religious
institutions or persons?
You just don't realize just how proud most Christians are of
their willful ignorance. For them, taking things on "faith" rather
than fact gets them brownie points to with the jealous and vengeful
Sky Tyrant.
This, like all things, greatly depends upon the person. Either a
person values education or they do not. I could just as easily cite
the myriad of works by Christian authors, scientists, and
philosophers through history to support my contention that one can
be a person of faith and still be both educated and rational.
|6.21.07 @ 7:27PM|#
This, like all things, greatly depends upon the person.
Either a person values education or they do not. I could just as
easily cite the myriad of works by Christian authors, scientists,
and philosophers through history to support my contention that one
can be a person of faith and still be both educated and
rational.
There is no difference. No matter how many fake accolades and bogus
accomplishments, second you abandon reason for God, you're no
better than a fucking animal.
|6.21.07 @ 7:37PM|#
If you are that closed minded that you refuse to even
acknowledge or see the myriad of contributions that religious men
and women have made to our collective human knowledge then there is
no point in continuing to argue with you.
Your faith in the rightness of your position and your opinion of
those who do not share your dogma would do any Inquisitor
proud.
|6.21.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Thank you, Akira, for courageously failing to address my point about the ubiquity of religious schools in America for the past 200 years.
|6.21.07 @ 8:03PM|#
If you are that closed minded that you refuse to even
acknowledge or see the myriad of contributions that religious men
and women have made to our collective human knowledge then there is
no point in continuing to argue with you.
Your faith in the rightness of your position and your opinion
of those who do not share your dogma would do any Inquisitor
proud.
Good! Because I don't want to "debating" you either. I'll just
count you among the multitude of religionist animals who also don't
deserve to suck air.
But before we try to ignore each another, please, spare me your
pointless moral equivocation.
"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because
its people became too desirous for evidence in support for their
core beliefs."
--Sam Harris
Letter To a Christian Nation
dhex|6.21.07 @ 10:32PM|#
"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered
because its people became too desirous for evidence in support for
their core beliefs."
eugenics?
|6.22.07 @ 12:58AM|#
However, history has shown that the vast majority of humanity is
too fucking stupid to be allowed access to oxygen, much less
liberty. The last thing you want to give the stupid is freedom, and
stupidity is something that religion specializes in.
When people are both educated and grounded in reality, then we'll
talk about "choice."
We should also extend this idea to democracy as a whole. People
should not be allowed to vote until they are properly educated in
policy and the truth behind every candidate.
Oh yeah, and only people who take parenting classes should be
allowed to have kids.
And no porn for the aborigines until they stop using it to abuse
their kids...
|6.22.07 @ 2:55AM|#
"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered
because its people became too desirous for evidence in support for
their core beliefs."
eugenics?
A desire for "evidence in support of ...core beliefs" is niether
necessary nor sufficient to motivate the injustices associated with
eugenics.
And Akira's comments are over the top hyperbole, but they raise an
interesting point. The purpose of public education is not to give
students any beliefs or any way of thinking about
the world that their parents happen to prefer. The purpose is to
give students accurate information and valid
approaches to critical thinking.
I would argue that dispensation of accurate information is
sometimes an appropriate function of government; possibly including
cases in which the parents of the person recieving the information
would prefer their offspring to remain ignorant. One example is
government action to inform people of the health risks posed by
cigarettes, which would include informing someone who was
homeschooled and taught that cigarettes are harmless.
So I guess what I'm getting at is: If a significant number of
people are growing up believing creationism (or some other crazy
nonsense), and they are sheltered from evidence which disproves the
nonsense they were taught, should the government undertake effort
to make the existence of such evidence more widely known? And if
so, to what extent does public school contribute to such efforts?
And if all elementery students went to a private school of their
parents' choosing, what would the likely effect be on how
widespread those misconceptions are?
There are, of course, efforts by private parties to do dispel
misconceptions. Perhaps such efforts are adequate and government
action is unnecessary. Or perhaps their is a better/more efficient
way than public schooling for the government to help refute
nonsense.
I don't really have a strong position on vouchers or education
policy, but I think its reasonable to take this stuff into
consideration when making such policy.
|6.22.07 @ 3:02AM|#
And I'll disqualify myself from being a libertarian in advance, so nobody has to waste time posting that "You're not a libertarian because you would allow the government to do....."
|6.22.07 @ 11:14AM|#
And Akira's comments are over the top hyperbole, but they
raise an interesting point. The purpose of public education is not
to give students any beliefs or any way of thinking about the world
that their parents happen to prefer. The purpose is to give
students accurate information and valid approaches to critical
thinking.
Maybe you went to a different kind of school than I'm familiar
with. The ones I know of were more concerned with filling seats,
adherence to pointless rules and regulation, not challenging the
establishment, and making sure you scored just well enough on a
test that determined their funding. Any actual learning or
education was accidental.
So I guess what I'm getting at is: If a significant number of
people are growing up believing creationism (or some other crazy
nonsense), and they are sheltered from evidence which disproves the
nonsense they were taught, should the government undertake effort
to make the existence of such evidence more widely known? And if
so, to what extent does public school contribute to such efforts?
And if all elementery students went to a private school of their
parents' choosing, what would the likely effect be on how
widespread those misconceptions are?
Look, shouldn't that tell everyone something about the state of the
government education camps? They've had a monopoly for decades,
they've taught nothing but evolution origin science and large
groups of people are still identifying themselves as Creationists,
ID or theistic evolution adherents. The government fails at 99%
(hyperbole) of what it tries to do.
Heck, If anything religious folks should probably encourage the
public school monopoly and the teaching of evolution only in class.
After a few more decades of good government science education, I'm
sure the number of people believing in Creationism would jump to
90%.
|6.22.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Maybe you went to a different kind of school than I'm
familiar with. The ones I know of were more concerned with filling
seats, adherence to pointless rules and regulation, not challenging
the establishment, and making sure you scored just well enough on a
test that determined their funding. Any actual learning or
education was accidental.
By saying that the purpose of public education is "to give students
accurate information and valid approaches to critical thinking" I
meant that is what they should be trying to do. I agree that it may
be the case that they aren't doing a good job of that or that they
aren't even trying very hard to do that.
Look, shouldn't that tell everyone something about the state of
the government education camps? They've had a monopoly for decades,
they've taught nothing but evolution origin science and large
groups of people are still identifying themselves as Creationists,
ID or theistic evolution adherents. The government fails at 99%
(hyperbole) of what it tries to do.
Ok, fair enough. Perhaps private schools would do a better job
overall of educating students than public schools (as there is some
evidence that they do now). And maybe the substitution of
ideological pseudoscience for actual science, as feared by some,
would be minimal under a system of school choice among private
schools.
But I'll explore the point a little further. Suppose we institute a
system of vouchers, tax credits, or whatever. It is my
understanding private schools have to submit a curriculum, and
parents who homeschool their kids have to inform the government
that they are doing so and in some states submit a curriculum also.
Should the government require that such curriculums meet some
standard of fact-basedness? And to the extent that such public
disclosures allow the government to identify when students are
likely being taught nonsnse, should the government take any other
kind of effort to inform those individuals that they have been
taught nonsense?
For example, lets say it turms out that there are certain common
misconceptions that homeschoolers are taught. Maybe the government
could send homeschooled people a letter upon reaching adulthood
saying something like:
"There is a good chance your parents lied to you about one or more
of the following things...(list of common falsehoods).. The
evidence proving this can be found on the National Academy of
Sciences website under the link labelled... Other sources of
real information include..."
|6.22.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Well, hopefully, if the parents, private schools, and homeschoolers have done their job, the kids will know to take any government issued 'fact' with more than a grain of salt. ;)
|6.22.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Well, hopefully, if the parents, private schools, and homeschoolers have done their job, the kids will know to take any government issued 'fact' with more than a grain of salt. ;)
I will be the first to applaud if many private schools start
teaching an Intro to Pharmacology course that demonstrates that the
government vastly overstates the pernicious effects of illegal
drugs. Or history or applied statistics courses that highlight
other state-perpetrated falsehoods.
But whatever the government's credibility, or lack thereof; if an
official statement is supported by strong scientific evidence its
desireable that people be aware of such evidence. So I'll expand on
my proposed letter:
"There is a good chance your parents lied to you about one or more
of the following things...(list of common falsehoods).. The
evidence proving this can be found on the National Academy of
Sciences website under the link labelled... Other sources of real
information include... The scientific sources we mention are
legitimate. We promise that niether we nor the scientists are not
engaged in any kind of conspiracy. If you don't believe us about
that you can go to any of the following labs in your spare
time:..... and see for yourself that they do real experiments and
publish the real results they get. If you still don't believe us
call our Conspiracy Theory Rebuttal Hotline at 1 800 U R
CRAZY."
If the person is still skeptical after seeing the evidence for
(whatever) then that is just how it ends up. But it would be good
if at least the person knows about that evidence.
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