"Philosophy of Design" Course in California High School Challenged

The latest battle over "intelligent design" erupted in California when a local pastor's wife managed to persuade the Lebec, California, school board to allow her to teach a month long elective course entitled, "Philosophy of Design." According to the course description,

the class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid. The class will discuss intelligent design as an alternative response to evolution. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.

Opponents of teaching "intelligent design" in high school biology classes have sometimes argued that it might be OK to teach it in comparative religion or philosophy classes. The Lebec "design" course is evidently not what they had in mind and now the liberal activist group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, along with 11 local parents, are suing to get the course stopped. Even the Discovery Institute, which is the leading organization promoting "intelligent design," is queasy about the course. The Institute sent a letter to the school district asking that the course be renamed. Specifically, the Institute's press release notes,

"In reviewing the course description and syllabus it's clear that the course wrongly mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism," said attorney Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture and author of the letter. "As far as we can tell more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials, so the title "Philosophy of design" is misleading."

The Lebec course actually raises some interesting issues. In the first place, it is not being taught in a biology class. Second, it is an elective course. Third, does the course violate church/state seperation? Fourth, is it ever all right to teach even widely believed nonsense in public schools (after all, nearly one-third of Americans believe in astrology)?

I once again offer my solution to the problem--privatize the schools and let parents choose where to have their kids educated. I suspect that competition would reduce "intelligent design" schools to insignificance in the marketplace as parents saw their kids falling behind those being educated in science oriented schools.

Comments

[mk]

I'm typing up my course syllabus for "Philosophy of FSMism" as we speak.

[Rimfax]

Are you insinuating something about astrology?!!!

Todd Barry: "You know, I was thinking that astrology was a load of shit,...but more likely I don't know my own birthday."

[MP]

The problem is that it all depends on both the specific content of the course and how that content is imparted. Of course, any teacher can slip into proselytizing while teaching any subject. Thus, do we prevent a subject from being taught simply because the odds of proselytizing are higher? Doesn't a Philosophy of Religion course have a similar tendency to lead to proselytizing?

I don't have any easy answers to Ron's questions, nor to my own.

[emme]

"I suspect that competition would reduce "intelligent design" schools to insignifance in the market place as parents saw their kids falling behind those being educated in science oriented schools. "

I really wish this were true. But for some reason I highly doubt the market would change much when it comes to people and religious beliefs. I think the will to believe would trump any evidence that ID is bogus. Else we wouldn't even be discussing this issue right now.

[Timothy]

I thought the teaching of creationism in public schools was already illegal, even in electives. Therefore, if this includes creationism wouldn't this be a moot point?

[Umbriel]

I think mk's response is an appropriate one, given that this is an elective.

I wouldn't see the harm in teaching an elective course in this or astrology, so long as the grading was based solely on the student's acquired understanding of the subject matter, and not his acceptance of it. From the sound of it, I think that's where this particular course would probably fall short in practice.

[Joe Majsterski]

Oh, why do we even bother? It's all so hopeless.

[Dave W.]

Wouldn't this course, in comparatively examining the alternatives, simply make it clear why the nonsense varieties of ID and creationism are nonsense?

Is there some fear that an honest examination of alternatives would lead children away from evolution? I say let them point out all the marginal weaknesses of evolutionary theory they want -- it will only make it clear how much likelier evolution is than creationism. Knowledge is power! It will also help the kids distinguish between evolution and origins, which is something atheistic and religious adults alike have a hard time with.

Privatization would be a great alternative solution for sure, but I think the twin concerns with that are:

1. public education funds would be reduced (reduced beyond any "efficiency gains" I mean);

and/or

2. segregation of rich kids away from poor kids would increase (with bad results for society as a whole).

Since Reason touts privatization of education so much, it might be time for an article (or another article?) addressing these concerns about privatization head on and in detail so that we can make our case beyond our base.

[David]

I'll agree that the course title is stupid but since it's an elective course, why should it matter? I be inclined to take it and ask silly questions about Tiamat and Marduk, Giant Turtles, Kali and Shiva, Illuvatar and the music, etc.

I'd hate to think that those in favor of separation of church and state (as I am) haven't been duped into taking a fight that "proves" the persecution of Christian belief in public schools.

[zach]

Exactly, Umbriel. I can see the test questions now: "The Bible is a.) A proven historical document; b.) The irrefutable Word of God; c.) Both."

Anyway, congrats to the Discovery Institute (never thought I'd say that) for at least drawing a line between creationism and ID. While ID remains nonsense, it's even more nonsensical for Christians to promote it as something it's not (i.e. an alternative to evolution).

[downstater]

i agree with emme. i don't think those parents who so strongly desire that their children learn intelligent design in school that they are willing to shell out money to send them to such a school are really all that concerned with their kid's future performance in the marketplace. the market is full of evils and such anyway, right?

so i think you'd see a lot more id being taught and a lot more graduates without a good science education. it is correct that they will fall behind i guess, but they will remedy that by running for office and passing laws restricting the progress of everyone else like they're doing now.

[science]

I agree with MP.
There are not easy solutions to educational issues. Privatization is one of the easy (I think overly simplistic is a better term) solutions I have seen offered here a lot. It certainly doesn't speak much to the content of the curriculum in most schemes I have seen proposed. I doubt it would have an impact on the current issue at all.

It is a fallacy to think that a particular kid's knowledge of biology is going to limit their future success in most cases so there would be little evolutionary pressure exerted. Success and failure in society is not connected that directly to particular curricular items in a school system.

I think we should err on the side of allowing courses like this. The danger is not presenting silly ideas to kids. The danger is presenting them with some illusion that they know THE ANSWER. If we focus on school being a place where kids learn skills rather than content we can avoid some of the problems these kinds of courses bring up.

[zach]

I'll agree that the course title is stupid but since it's an elective course, why should it matter?

Because your taxes are still paying for it.

[vanya]

I agree with Emme above. Why would parents notice their kids falling behind in science? You can do perfectly well as a lawyer, financial analyst, engineer, physical therapist and certainly politician even if you believe in astrology, ID, holistic medicine and Frey's memoirs. You may lose a few bright kids who would have gone into science but ended up doing something else because of their exposure to ID, but those effects won't show up for years, if they're even noticed.

[Warren]

Ron,
I'm in complete agreement with you on privatizing education. I've even floated the argument that since the first amendment prohibits both the establishment, and the free exercise of religion, public education is unconstitutional.

However, I don't share your conviction on parents wanting success for their children. I've been to several small towns where the population is mostly evangelical. I believe their religious convictions are closely associated with their poverty. They believe that their religious convictions are more important than anything else. They work very hard to instill them in their children. They accept illiteracy, alcoholism, domestic violence, etc. with a shrug and a sigh. But if ever someone publicly states the bible isn't the sole source of truth, they reach for the torches and pitchforks.

[Jennifer]

Is there some fear that an honest examination of alternatives would lead children away from evolution?

The word "honest" doesn't apply to a class claiming to show evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[James Feldman]

Perhaps someone could explain to me what the possible establishment clause violation is here. Because I took an elective course at my public high school called "Comparative Religions" that studied everything from Zoroastrianism to Hinduism, and that seemed to be acceptable (and I believe it was, and should be). So how does this course fail to meet the same standard?

Although, to be honest, I can't fathom why any ID supporters would want this class taught.

[Stretch]

I went to Catholic school for 9 years and although that was before creationism/ID was such a media hit (we learned about evolution), it was still a religious school. Yet, my education was far better than my public school provided even though I lived in an excellent school district (note: I attended the public high school which was much better than at least one of the Catholic high schools in my area).

In other words, I doubt that private schools which included a creationism/ID background would really suffer much, if at all, in other subjects. I suspect that, like most private schools, the students would still do better in math, english, history and even a good deal of science.

[David]

True, but that's a separate issue. I don't agree with most of what taxes are used for.

If that was the main concern of anyone involved, those pushing for the course could easily get it funded without tax dollars, and say "Now what's your obejection?".

[Jennifer]

Concerning this idea that "parents want what is best for their children": when I was teaching I had a (girl) student whose parents were from India, and absolutely did NOT want their daughter going to college. (A woman's place is in the home.)

She came by after school to talk to me on occasion, and she was actually surprised when I told her that by law, once she reached the age of eighteen she no longer had to obey her parents. I discussed various ways she could go to college without financial help from her parents, and told her I would write her a strong letter of recommendation if it came to that. (And of course I got a talking-to by an administrator, when her parents complained.)

If not for public education, I seriously wonder if that girl's parents would have even let her learn how to read.

[Mark Borok]

I would have no problem with such a course being taught so long as it was privately funded and it was clear that the school does not endorse or support it. It's nonsense, of course, but when I was in Jr. High I went to a presentation by a teacher (who was also a pastor) on "white magic". He was fairly liberal and the presentation was positive. It was clear that this was something he was doing on his own initiative and it had nothing to do with any school curriculum.

The fact that 1/3 of Americans believe in astrology to me is an argument against privatizing all schools. I don't trust scientifically illiterate parents to make rational choices for their children's schooling.

[Lost_In_Translation]

I see nothing wrong with this course, as its an elective and under the proper designation of philosophy. California liberals are just reactionist nuts.

[Ed]

I'm afraid we'll be a nation of atheists before we're a nation of wholly private schools.
In other words, never.

[emme]

"The fact that 1/3 of Americans believe in astrology to me is an argument against privatizing all schools. I don't trust scientifically illiterate parents to make rational choices for their children's schooling."

You'd trust a scientifically illiterate government instead?

[zach]

Perhaps someone could explain to me what the possible establishment clause violation is here. Because I took an elective course at my public high school called "Comparative Religions" that studied everything from Zoroastrianism to Hinduism, and that seemed to be acceptable (and I believe it was, and should be). So how does this course fail to meet the same standard?

It's clearly different because "[p]hysical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions." I doubt your comparative religions course tried to present evidence suggesting Jesus was in fact the Son of God or that we do in fact possess a spiritual third eye.

Although, to be honest, I can't fathom why any ID supporters would want this class taught.

Are you being sarcastic?

[Dave W.]

The word "honest" doesn't apply to a class claiming to show evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Depends on what the evidence is. If the evidence is bad, then get that evidence out of the course. You seem to want to take a short cut here that you really shouldn't be taking.

[Jennifer]

Depends on what the evidence is. If the evidence is bad, then get that evidence out of the course

What "good" evidence is there to suggest that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

[science]

"I've even floated the argument that since the first amendment prohibits both the establishment, and the free exercise of religion, public education is unconstitutional."

I would like to see the fluid that supports that argument.

I am serious, of course. How does the argument unfold on the waters of reason? I don't see the logic.

[zach]

I see nothing wrong with this course, as its an elective and under the proper designation of philosophy. California liberals are just reactionist nuts.

Again, in the class "[p]hysical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions." The word "Philosophy" in the title is a sugar coating of bullshit.

California liberals are just reactionist nuts.

[zach]

Jennifer, when creationists claim that there is scientific evidence that the earth is in fact only 6,000 years old, they're not really being dishonest. They're being honest about how dumb they are.

[Isaac Bartram]

...(after all, nearly one-third of Americans believe in astrology)...

Is that all? I thought it was higher.

Actually I'm not sure that people who believe the biblical version of the origin really suffer that much economically except maybe those who have chosen careers in that field. My suggestion* is that biology be dropped as a required course and emphasis placed on chemistry, physics and math.

I'm not sure that this class is all that much worse than the crap that passes for "evironmental education" and "economics" that's regularly taught in public schools with the explicit sanction of most all of the "separation of church and state" crowd.

DaveW:Wouldn't this course, in comparatively examining the alternatives, simply make it clear why the nonsense varieties of ID and creationism are nonsense?

science:I think we should err on the side of allowing courses like this. The danger is not presenting silly ideas to kids. The danger is presenting them with some illusion that they know THE ANSWER.

I tend to believe that a person who is interested in teaching a course like this would find it hard to not prosletize and present it as "THE ANSWER".

*short of de-governmentalizing education, that is.

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, when creationists claim that there is scientific evidence that the earth is in fact only 6,000 years old, they're not really being dishonest. They're being honest about how dumb they are.

True, Zach, but Dave is saying that only "bad" evidence of the young-Earth theory should be excluded. I simply want to know what he considers "good" evidence that should be taught to students.

[Timothy]

What "good" evidence is there to suggest that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Not a lot, but there I do believe my uncle discovered an ancient city in some mountains in antarctica during his recent trip. In sunken R?lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.

[Phil]

Wouldn't this course, in comparatively examining the alternatives, simply make it clear why the nonsense varieties of ID and creationism are nonsense?

A class proposed by a mainline Protestant pastor's wife and purporting to study " . . . scientific, biological and biblical aspects . . . " is not going emphasize the nonsense varieties, Dave, not criticize them.

Is there some fear that an honest examination of alternatives would lead children away from evolution?

You are very easily duped, Dave.

[Jamie Kelly]

There is no "good" evidence that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. In fact, there is NO evidence the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. In fact, there is AMPLE and IRREFUTABLE evidence the Earth was created billions of years ago and that life on said Earth began shortly after the Earth formed. The arc of the complexity of life's journey through the ages is called the Theory of Evolution, and it's among the most well-documented, well-researched and scientifically sound theories in the history of knowledge. Any alternative hypothesis -- serious scientists don't grant ID or creation "science" theory status -- has no place in the public schools, period. Unless, of course, they start teaching "Refuted and Laughable Ideas of Man, 101" and "Religious Zealotry and Anti-Science."

[mediageek]

"What "good" evidence is there to suggest that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?"

I suspect that it has something to do with corn syrup, and guns that will discharge if you look at them funny.

Right, Dave?

(Christ, every time I read one of Dave's posts, I think "gee, I should have gone into law. How hard can it be?")

[zach]

Sorry about that "dumb" comment above. I meant gullible. Dumb just had more of a zing to it.

[Phil]

In fact, anyone who wouldn't notice that the course syllabus includes the words "biblical aspects," without asking why the people designing the course want to include that to the apparent exclusion of all other potential religious explanations, or didn't instead refer to "ontological or teleological aspects," is probably something of a gullible doofus.

[Timothy]

Unless, of course, they start teaching "Refuted and Laughable Ideas of Man, 101"

Hey, they still teach Marx.

My suggestion* is that biology be dropped as a required course and emphasis placed on chemistry, physics and math.

That's a fine idea, my feeling is that any high school curriculum should be structured much more like college. We require X semesters of science, here are your choices. We require X years of a language and so on... it would make a lot of things easier.

[Timothy]

mediageek: it's never too late, there are law school night programs.

[zach]

My public high school curriculum was set up that way.

[SR]

"I took an elective course at my public high school called 'Comparative Religions' that studied everything from Zoroastrianism to Hinduism, and that seemed to be acceptable"

Yes, and I wouldn't have a problem with this course if it appeared to be an effort to examine the philosophical significance of a variety of creation myths, but based on the course description that was apparently prepared by the school itself, it doesn't sound like this will be discussing Norse or Hindu or other non-Judeo-Christian religions.

[Warren]

the one who calls himself science,

My public schools are unconstitutional theory is not well thought out. It is just the first amendment very simply and crudely applied.

1) I have the right to the free exercise of my religion. I choose to lead a prayer group. If my group is denied facilities made available to the AV club you are violating my rights.

2) The student bible study put up signs on the halls saying "Jesus Saves", each day at lunch one of them leads the group in saying grace, the cafeteria is silent while he does, each day I am accosted by a fellow student that wants to 'give me his testimony', sometimes I am followed by two or three of them and I can hear them praying. This is happening in a public school, clearly the state is establishing religion.

[James Feldman]

zach: No, I'm really not being sarcastic. Since the appeal of ID is really only doctrinary, I fail to see how it could possibly be effective in a setting where it was an elective course being taught to a few students who are taking required science classes at the same time.

I can see how this class is trying to push out beyond being merely a philosophy class, but I expect that if there are even a handful of bright kids in the class it would turn into a mere fiasco. It just seems like such a desperate attempt by the creationists that is certain to fail even if it is allowed.

[Dave W.]

True, Zach, but Dave is saying that only "bad" evidence of the young-Earth theory should be excluded. I simply want to know what he considers "good" evidence that should be taught to students.

thank you, Jennifer. I get a lot of ham-fisted readings of what I write here. My answer to your question is a process one, with important procedural values inherent. The value here is that we don't pre-judge evidence or categories of evidence. We are not "result-based" here as a Reason author might term it.

I don't know offhand of any good evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old and it is realistically hard to imagine any. However, let's say that there was good evidence that the speed of light had changed drastically over time and somehow thereby through off all of our dating techniques (eg, atomic decay dating, other dating) because they assume a constant speed of light for one reason or another. that would be good evidence.

As another hypothetical, if someone uncovered credible evidence of a conspiracy of scientists to fake data about dating, then that would be good evidence to examine. For present purposes, this is a good example to focus on. I can't imagine that evidence of a grand conspiracy of scientists could possibly be mustered. However, as judge here: I don't get to say that before the case starts. that's prejudice, the bad kind. That flouts procedural values. The proper procedure is to take a look at the conspiracy evidence and then deem it bad for some actual, applicable, substantive reasons.

Anyway, you probably get me Jennifer and I doubt Zach and MG ever will, so that is probably as good as it gets.

Of course, in practice there will not tend to be bona fide disputes over whether the Earth is merely 6,000 years old, but a lot of other accepted scientific wisdom may get and deserve more serious challenge. If R. Bailey can be wrong about global warming (as suggested by Saul Bellow (yes, that Saul Bellow) in 1954), then a lot of scientists can be wrong about a lot of things. That is why my procedural values are preferrable here to the alternatives being suggested and/or implied by others on this thread.

[zach]

Anyway, you probably get me Jennifer and I doubt Zach and MG ever will, so that is probably as good as it gets.

I am crushed. But for the record, and I'll forgive your ham-fisted reading of my post, but I was referring to creationists who believe that there is scientific proof for their beliefs, and not yourself.

[Captain Holly]

Ron's right. All this hand-wringing, pro and con, about Intelligent Design would disappear if the Publik Skools were privatized. A universal voucher system would allow everyone, poor or rich, to send their kids to whatever school they felt would teach their children what they needed to know.

I look on these types of debates as an indication of the powerlessness most parents feel when it comes to their children's schooling. The debate over ID is actually a surrogate power struggle; a way for religious parents to feel as if they have some control over what their kids will learn.

Give them that control, and I'd be willing to bet the issue would go away.

[science]

An exchange: COMMENT "I don't trust scientifically illiterate parents to make rational choices for their children's schooling. -- RESPONSE "You'd trust a scientifically illiterate government instead?"

This is an example of the oversimplification of the issue. It presents a false dichotomy. Most parents are not educational experts and look to find experts to help them make rational choices for their children. Most school systems include a mix of experts and bafoons. The system benefits from involvement of the parents and the community at large to help it make rational choices. None of this has anything to do with how tax dollars are distributed to provide the service.

When a school makes a choice to allow a course like the one in California, it is reacting to input from involved parents and community members. Unfortunately, many of the people who are most involved are zealots with a narrow agenda (of whatever stripe). It takes community involvement to counter the zealots (as was shown in Dover, PA -- a perfect example of how existing mechanisms can support school choice without need to talk about how funding is structured).

[Jennifer]

Dave, wouldn't your system require a court case re-proving every known tenet of science? For instance, maybe some religion decides gravity is not true; the reason we stick to the Earth rather than be flung out into space is because of Intelligent Glue. If you say "Well, we should only throw out bad evidence for the Intelligent Glue theory, but let the kids see the good evidence," this ignores the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence for Intelligent Glue. But are you going to let the IG believers insist that everything we know about gravity is bullshit?

I used to do a thought-exercise with my students, as follows: "I will ask you a question and you have to answer it. By the way, *I* am the one who decides whether or not your answer is good." And my question was: what is a car? Of course the students gave me answers, and of course I pretended in each case that I had no idea what they were talking about. "What is gasoline? What is an internal-combustion engine? What is a tire? What is a wheel? What are you talking about?" I deliberately misundersttod every single thing they said

Since I had already decided in advance that there was no way the students would be able to answer my question, it was of course impossible for them to assuage my supposed doubts as to the existence of cars. And the ID people have the same attitude. The only difference, my attitude was purely fake and for classroom purposes only; the ID guys, by contrast, are playing for keeps.

[zach]

Since the appeal of ID is really only doctrinary, I fail to see how it could possibly be effective in a setting where it was an elective course being taught to a few students who are taking required science classes at the same time.

Well, in certain parts of the country, all the kids who go to a public school will already be creationist Christians. The danger is using public funds to tell them that their beliefs are affirmed by scientific evidence. The fact that a skeptical student will see right through ID hasn't stopped its proponents from pushing it so far. Hell, the only reason ID is an issue at all is that creationism was banned 20 years ago. You can't say they haven't been persistent.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Sigh... Here we go again.

I went to a state college and took Philosophy 101 where we covered a lot of topics from a pure academic: The existence of God* (including the watchmaker analogy, the ID of its day), substance dualism vs. functionalism, the various theories of morality, free will vs. determinism, etc. Each topic was covered fairly with the merits and flaws of the competing theories exposed. The professors and the TAs didn't push any particular philosophical stances, they merely taught what the positions were and the history behind them.

Now if this were a broad-based, general philosophy that had a similar academic approach, I would have a problem. However, after reading the orginal syllabus (Why would you teach about the... ahem... "flaws" of scientific dating techniques in a philosophy course?), the course description, finding out that 23 out of the 24 videos intended for use in the class were produced by creationists, and the fact that the instructor is a local minister's wife shows that this course only intendeds to teach ID/Creationism rather than
philosophy. This is a class of Christian advocacy, not secular education. As long as the first amendment is law, such indoctrination has no business being in a government-run school.

[Timothy]

Dave, wouldn't your system require a court case re-proving every known tenet of science?

Well, yes, but that keeps him in bread. Can't get down on a guy for being self-interested.

[David]

It just seems like such a desperate attempt by the creationists that is certain to fail even if it is allowed.

I agree with you on that , James Feldman. That's why I think the course was conceived with the intent that it would be disallowed, or at least cause a lawsuit, and help the larger cause of "Christian Persecution".

[zach]

Give them that control, and I'd be willing to bet the issue would go away.

It won't go away, as in a voucher system, public funds will still go towards teaching ID (as well as, who knows, that the Holocaust never happened, etc.).

[Jennifer]

Also, Dave, suppose that instead of people defying tenets of science which go against their religious beliefs, what would your response be to neo-Nazis who want history classes to teach that the Holocaust was a lie invented by Jews to drum up support for the nation of Israel? Should the people who believe in the Holocuast have the burden of proving in court that they are correct, or should the neo-Nazis have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their story is true?

[Akira MacKenzie]

A universal voucher system would allow everyone, poor or rich, to send their kids to whatever school they felt would teach their children what they needed to know.

Sorry, but government money comes with government strings, and since the only political ideology that supports a universal voucher system also supports ID, I'm sure religious indoctrination will be such a string.

Give them that control, and I'd be willing to bet the issue would go away.

Yeah, it will go away with a cheer of "Hallelujah! Praise JEEZ-us and ignorance here we come!"

In a society so disgustingly saturated with religion, I doubt that non-religious private schools and science education will survive if there is no protected stop gap measure to

[cliff]

IMHO, people who need to have ID / Creationism taught in govenment schools to buttress their beliefs have no faith in God. They are looking to people to make life more comfortable for them at the expense of scientific methodology.

[Eddy]

I find it odd that Christians stick to their creation story so strongly since it allows one to argue against the omnipotence of God. The story claims that it took six days and therefore implies a maximal power output. Combining the equations Energy = [mass x C^2] and Power = (dE/dt) yields Power = (dm/dt) x C^2. The only way to reach infinite power is to have infinite mass, but then with infinite power what took so long?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Whoops... hit send before I finished my sentense:

n a society so disgustingly saturated with religion, I doubt that non-religious private schools and science education will survive if there is no protected stop gap measure to ensure that America isn't dragged into a new dark age in the name of "school choice."

[Dave W.]

Dave, wouldn't your system require a court case re-proving every known tenet of science?

No. Disputes, especially over this kind of stuf, are seldom pushed that far. To address your real point: prejudice is not a good way to effect judicial economy. On the other hand, I don't mind seeing a court case on this stuf from time to time. It is important stuf and should be debated passionately (and honestly!) within our society.

the Dover case is a good example of what happens to a school district that does dumb things, to wit:

1. the "responsible" school officials get voted out of office; and

2. the judges and new school district co-operate to really stick it to* those responsible and their preferred worldview.

Hard 2 complain bout that unless your violin is very small indeed.

FOOTNOTE

* I still think the Dover judge went way too far and that will come back to bite *him and his worldview,* to a greater or lesser extent, in the longrun.

[James Feldman]

Eddy: You honestly think that creationists believe in equations?

[Akira MacKenzie]

I find it odd that Christians stick to their creation story so strongly since it allows one to argue against the omnipotence of God. The story claims that it took six days and therefore implies a maximal power output. Combining the equations Energy = [mass x C^2] and Power = (dE/dt) yields Power = (dm/dt) x C^2. The only way to reach infinite power is to have infinite mass, but then with infinite power what took so long?

Or... why does an omnipotent behing need to "rest" on the seventh, or any other day?

[Jennifer]

It is important stuf and should be debated passionately (and honestly!) within our society.

But so far there have been absolutely no honest debates coming from the ID proponents. They are pretending that there is a legitimate debate among scientitsts, when there is not.

[Phil]

Also, Dave, suppose that instead of people defying tenets of science which go against their religious beliefs, what would your response be to neo-Nazis who want history classes to teach that the Holocaust was a lie invented by Jews to drum up support for the nation of Israel? Should the people who believe in the Holocuast have the burden of proving in court that they are correct, or should the neo-Nazis have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their story is true?

Oh, he already addressed that, Jennifer. Remember? Since the President of Iran is a Holocaust denier, Dave thinks it's incumbent on the State of Israel to prepare a report and fax it to Iran. So, yes, he'd want the Jews to prove the Holocaust happened.

[Dave W.]

Also, Dave, suppose that instead of people defying tenets of science which go against their religious beliefs, what would your response be to neo-Nazis who want history classes to teach that the Holocaust was a lie invented by Jews to drum up support for the nation of Israel? Should the people who believe in the Holocuast have the burden of proving in court that they are correct, or should the neo-Nazis have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their story is true?

Why can't the Holocaust be proved with historical evidence? I am not understanding your concern. Isn't the evidence there? It better be! Taxpayers paid for all those cameras and all that film and all those war trials. I don't want to hear that the evidence doesn't exist or can't be accessed. the evidence does exist and can be accessed. Therefore, no need for prejudice, even about something as awful as the Holocaust.

Of course, the Ukraine famine was both bigger and more hidden (at the time), but the convincing proof is made of that genocide on a regular basis. No problemo. I can't figure out your concern here, J.

[Captain Holly]

Yeah, it will go away with a cheer of "Hallelujah! Praise JEEZ-us and ignorance here we come!"

In a society so disgustingly saturated with religion, I doubt that non-religious private schools and science education will survive if there is no protected stop gap measure to

How on earth did that Renaissance ever happen with all those Papists in control of Europe? Indeed, how did our society ever invent or discover anything before the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1962?

This statement confirms a sneaking suspicion I've had about many "libertarians": If there were a way to jettison the Religious Freedom clause in the First Amendment they'd do it in a heartbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky Christer theology.

[mediageek]

"Anyway, you probably get me Jennifer and I doubt Zach and MG ever will, so that is probably as good as it gets."

No, Dave, I don't think I'll ever "get" you, because logic and rational thinking is on my side, and the world of verbal bullet-dodging and bullshit obfuscation is your world.

[Jennifer]

Why can't the Holocaust be proved with historical evidence? I am not understanding your concern. Isn't the evidence there? It better be! Taxpayers paid for all those cameras and all that film and all those war trials.

That wasn't my question, Dave. The Holocaust HAS been proven with historical evidence, but some people refuse to believe it. So if Neo-Nazis want Holocaust-free history lessons, who should bear the burden of proof? Should the school board have to go to court each year to prove again that the Holocaust deserves a place in the history books, or should the Neo-Nazis be the ones who have to demonstrate that there are reasons why the story of the Holocaust should be doubted?

Who bears the burden of proof?

[Akira MacKenzie]

IMHO, people who need to have ID / Creationism taught in govenment schools to buttress their beliefs have no faith in God. They are looking to people to make life more comfortable for them at the expense of scientific methodology.

Oh, I think it's more insidious than just that, cliff. Most Evangelical adults are well past their school days, but their religion is such that they must make sure that their offspring believe the same things they do. They believe that it's their duty as Christians to make sure that their children are not lost to the "Godless" world that would lead them down the path to Perdition's flames. Of course, it doesn't stop there.

Remember, in their worldview, it's not enough that THEY have faith, everyone must be made to share the same belief, lest even the "righteous" be judged unworthy of salvation at the End of Days for having slacked off on their evangelizing.

[Phil]

. . . before the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1962 . . .

Um . . . this event never took place. Ever.

[Jennifer]

Also, Dave, suppose I've decided that unlike most humans, I will never grow old and never die. Scientists, of course, say I am wrong. If someone wants to teach my own immortality in public schools, should it be up to the scientists to spend time and money proving that I am mortal, or should it be up to me to prove that I am not?

There's a difference between legitimate skepticism and skepticism just to cloud the truth. The ID supporters, like the Holocaust deniers (and me, if I really claimed to have an immortal body) all belong to the latter group.

[Dave W.]

Who bears the burden of proof?

Since the proof is there, this is not an important question. If the proof is there, then you just dump it on somebody everytime somebody challenges it. As a good faith gesture.

If the person doesn't believe the proof, then you can get tough after that. Getting tough prior to making your case suggests that you are a bully and that you are cheap. Don't be a bully. Don't be cheap. Just make your proof.

Sometimes a person wants to see your proof so that he can use your own proof to prove facts to you that he wants you to recognize. For example, that Iranian leader wants to see proof of the Holocaust not so much so that he can prove the Holocaust happened, but rather to prove that the real oppression of the Jewish people took place someplace other than the vicinity of Iran. That is a fair reason for him to demand proof. So that he can compare for us, using our own factual evidence, the scale of atrocities that befell Jewish people in Europe versus the scale of atrocities in the Middle East. Whatever his planned arguments does or does not prove concerning modern Israel, it is only fair to give him the facts he needs to raise it. Facts and evidence should be accessible. that is called transparency and it is a good thing.

[Hakluyt]

Phil,

As I've stated many times, Dave W.'s mind is so open his brain has fallen out.

[Timothy]

But so far there have been absolutely no honest debates coming from the ID proponents. They are pretending that there is a legitimate debate among scientitsts, when there is not.

There's legitimate debate among scientists, just not about Evolution & ID. Because ID is bunk.

[zach]

The only way to reach infinite power is to have infinite mass, but then with infinite power what took so long?

That's the equation for physical power. They're still working on the equation for heavenly, Godlike power. Rest assured it takes longer.

This statement confirms a sneaking suspicion I've had about many "libertarians": If there were a way to jettison the Religious Freedom clause in the First Amendment they'd do it in a heartbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky Christer theology.

That's a new one.

[mediageek]

With infinite mass comes infinite responsibility.

[Dave W.]

If someone wants to teach my own immortality in public schools, should it be up to the scientists to spend time and money proving that I am mortal, or should it be up to me to prove that I am not?

Okay, great, I'll play the school board. Show me your proof that you are immortal or else I will refuse to teach that in my district. Any time you are ready.

I am not saying that everything has to go to court. I am saying that anyone who makes an important decision in any (non-faith-based) sphere should make the decision based on facts and evidence and not prejudice. Sometimes we trust others to make decisions for us, but we should recognize that this trust is tentative and we should be prepared to analyze evidence without prejudice if the decision we are making is somehow important (eg, affects a lot of other ppl's kids).

[David]

Ben Parker is God? Does that makes Peter his Job?

[zach]

Since the proof is there, this is not an important question. If the proof is there, then you just dump it on somebody everytime somebody challenges it. As a good faith gesture.

Isn't this, you know, what high school biology classes do? My teacher certainly didn't just say "evolution happened the way Darwin thought it did and that's that". We went over how the theory came to be and the genetics, etc., behind it.

[Timothy]

If the person doesn't believe the proof, then you can get tough after that.

That's the bloody point, the IDers/creationists steadfastly refuse to believe scientific evidence. We're already to the point to get tough about what is and isn't included in the curriculum for just that reason. It's up to the folks who want that crap taught in science classes to demonstrate that it is science. Nevermind, I give up, fuck it.

For example, that Iranian leader wants to see proof of the Holocaust not so much so that he can prove the Holocaust happened, but rather to prove that the real oppression of the Jewish people took place someplace other than the vicinity of Iran.

Been talking to him on the telephone at night? He a good chum? Are you really the Ayatolla? Because barring that you're one hell of a prophet knowing the mind of some dictator thousands of miles away. Call the CIA, we have a psychic on our hands, boys!

[Jamie Kelly]

"This statement confirms a sneaking suspicion I've had about many "libertarians": If there were a way to jettison the Religious Freedom clause in the First Amendment they'd do it in a heartbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky Christer theology."

Paranoia, combined with delusionary hyperbole. Do your Christ on your own time, not mine.
BTW, my "sneaking suspicion" is that if there were a way for Chistianists to jettison the establishment clause in the First Amendment, they'd do it in a hearbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky "reason," "rationalism" and "scientific inquiry."

[Jennifer]

Okay, great, I'll play the school board. Show me your proof that you are immortal or else I will refuse to teach that in my district. Any time you are ready.

Then why don't you hold the ID people to the same standard? They are the ones claiming that the scientific community is wrong, despite a lack of legitimate evidence, so they should be the ones with the burden of proof.

[Akira MacKenzie]

How on earth did that Renaissance ever happen with all those Papists in control of Europe?

It wasn't easy, just ask Galileo.

Indeed, how did our society ever invent or discover anything before the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1962?

Again, it wasn't easy, ask John T. Scopes.

This statement confirms a sneaking suspicion I've had about many "libertarians": If there were a way to jettison the Religious Freedom clause in the First Amendment they'd do it in a heartbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky Christer theology.

Oh puh-lease! Cut out the fucking "poor, embattled, Christian, versus the International, ACLU/Communist/Atheist Conspiracy" bullshit!

My personal disgust with the irrational stupidity that is religion has no bearing on my beliefs on whether people have a right to believe or practice their particular brand of stupid irrationality. Believe what you want. Preach it to your friends, family, and anyone else who wants to listen in the privacy of your home and church or in an acceptable public forum where you don't have a captive audience. Just keep it out of my life and out of the lives of those who don't want agree with you.

Thank you...

[Qbryzan]

Ben Parker is God? Does that makes Peter his Job?

I think Peter would be Jesus, which would make Mary Jane - Mary Magdalene, and Harry Osborne - Judas. I'm not sure about Doc Oc, though. Maybe Pilate?

[Phil]

For example, that Iranian leader wants to see proof of the Holocaust . . .

Everything after the word "leader" in this sentence is false.

[Akira MacKenzie]

BTW, my "sneaking suspicion" is that if there were a way for Chistianists to jettison the establishment clause in the First Amendment, they'd do it in a hearbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky "reason," "rationalism" and "scientific inquiry."

Precisely!

[Akira MacKenzie]

Ben Parker is God? Does that makes Peter his Job?

Remember, Gwen Stacy died for your sins.

[Dave W.]

Jennifer,
Like I said -- I agree with the specific result in the Dover case (but not overbroad judge opinion). If Dover had been my school district, there would have been no case. Not everything needs to go to court.

What I am suggesting is that in a world where we let important decisionmakers freely indulge their prejudices, we will get a lot of dumb decisions. In a world where ppl can, should and do demand to know and access relevant facts we will get better decisionmaking. My world will actually have fewer court cases because people will make better decisions outside the courthouse.

[Eddy]

If there were a way to jettison the Religious Freedom clause in the First Amendment they'd do it in a heartbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky Christer theology.

Actually, that clause is what keeps us from having "that icky Christer theology" from being rammed down our throats more than it already is. I, for one, am not looking forward to the sequel "Spanglish, The Inquisition Part Deux."

[Dave W.]

For example, that Iranian leader wants to see proof of the Holocaust . . .

Everything after the word "leader" in this sentence is false.

No. You are wrong. Ha!

[David Koresh]

No, dude, that was totally me!

[Jennifer]

What I am suggesting is that in a world where we let important decisionmakers freely indulge their prejudices, we will get a lot of dumb decisions. In a world where ppl can, should and do demand to know and access relevant facts we will get better decisionmaking.

How does this mesh with your earlier comment that only the "bad" young-earth evidence should be kept from kids? Your argument only makes sense if "belief in science" is considered a form of prejudice.

Say a person tells me "I have invented a perpetual-motion machine which creates more energy than it consumes." I refuse to believe this person. Does this make me prejudiced, or does it make me scientifically literate? I say the latter; based on your discussion of ID, I suspect you might say the former.

[Phil]

My world will actually have fewer court cases because people will make better decisions outside the courthouse.

No, your world will be full of gullible doofi who actually believe the poor, underinformed Iranian president is desperately seeking evidence of the Holocaust to take the heat off of the Middle East vis a vis treatment of Jews in the mid-20th century.

[Seamus]

"Also, Dave, suppose that instead of people defying tenets of science which go against their religious beliefs, what would your response be to neo-Nazis who want history classes to teach that the Holocaust was a lie invented by Jews to drum up support for the nation of Israel?"

Well, it certainly wouldn't be rushing into court to get their views banned from the schools. It would probably take the form of working to make sure that school board members were elected who better reflected my ideas of sound pedagogy.

[Dave W.]

How does this mesh with your earlier comment that only the "bad" young-earth evidence should be kept from kids? Your argument only makes sense if "belief in science" is considered a form of prejudice.

You are forgetting the process I established:

step 1: some person says they have some young earth evidence;

step 2: I, as decisionmaker, demand to know what that evidence is;

step 3: the person who wants a favorable decisions shows me their evidence

step 5: I decide if the evidence is good or bad. If it is good, then process flow proceeds to step 6a. If it is bad, then process flow proceeds alternatively to step 6b.

step 6a: give the person a favorable decision based on their good evidence. proceed to step 7.

step 6b: give the person an unfavorable decision based on their bad evidence. step 7.

step 7: put the evidence, my decision and my reasoning on the world wide web for all to see.

NO SHORTCUTS, J.!

[Timothy]

Laws of physics be damned!

[Dave W.]

step 4: review the evidence and do further independent research, if needed, to evaluate it.

[Jennifer]

Dave, what the hell does your comment at 1:41 have to do with the ID arguments going on today?

[Phil]

Of course, if your school boards has already been packed with Religious Right "stealth candidates," as has been the strategy for over a decade now . . . well, that should reveal the flaw in Dave's brilliant strategy. Particularly Step 5. At least to the non-gullible.

[zach]

Dave, what the hell does your comment at 1:41 have to do with the ID arguments going on today?

Shh. Dave works in mysterious ways.

[Phil]

P.S. The sciences which demonstrate that ID and young-earth creationism are carts full of horseshit are sufficiently well-established and readily available to all that anyone claiming to have "evidence" had better be referring to something that's been extensively published and peer-reviewed in legitimate journals, not some crap that's already been debunked a million times elsewhere.

[Timothy]

Phil: Not to mention it assumes the arbiter has enough background knowledge to understand the difference between evidence and not evidence. Dembski and Behe are very clever liars who've taken in any number of smart folks whose understanding of statistics isn't that great.

[Eddy]

'Way back in the day' we had electives like this but they were done on weekends and it was called catechism. What ever happened to catechism, sunday school or whatever it's called nowadays?

[Dave W.]

J.: are you asking for what my standards of good evidence and bad evidence are at step 5?

if so, my standard draws from objective liklihood of objective truth as nearly as I can subjectively determine it (with appropriate help, but not with delegation of my own judgement).

The point is that I think this needs to be done on a piece-of-evidence by piece-of-evidence basis, rather than on a broader worldview-by-worldview basis.

[Captain Holly]

Statements like

BTW, my "sneaking suspicion" is that if there were a way for Chistianists to jettison the establishment clause in the First Amendment, they'd do it in a hearbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky "reason," "rationalism" and "scientific inquiry."

and

Actually, that clause is what keeps us from having "that icky Christer theology" from being rammed down our throats more than it already is. I, for one, am not looking forward to the sequel "Spanglish, The Inquisition Part Deux."

kinda confuse me. I thought we Icky Christers ran America before the 1960's. So how did we fail to establish our wonderful Republic of Gilead?

[anon2]

The question of what should the answer be is separate from the question of who decides the answer. I think the school shouldn't teach the course, because it's a bad course. I'd object to them offering substandard courses in any subject, not just "philosophy."

However, letting a judge or worse yet, the supreme court, decide that the course can't be taught due to the establishment clause would be a very bad thing. If a judge can strike down a course due to the establishment clause, he'll also be able to strike down a different course due to the free exercise clause. That means, if some school somewhere decides to teach a course that shows why Intelligent Design is bunk, some judge somewhere can say "hey, you're violating some kids' right to free exercise."

Giving judges more power seems like a good idea when they're proscribing things we dislike or requiring things we like. It seems like a horrible idea when they go the other direction. If education is privatized, private schools (in the U.S.) will still be subject to the Constitution. Woe be to those private schools who run afoul of a broad interpretation of the 1st and the 14th.

There is no way 100% of bars would prohibit smoking in any city were it not due to the wrong answer to the question "who gets to decide." Similarly, there's no way good education can be held back from all of the schools without centralizing the decision making. I'm much more afraid of all schools being prohibited from teaching modern science and critical thinking than I am of allowing some schools to screw up.

Warren,

It all depends on how broadly one interprets the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. There's no guarantee that they even have to be interpreted equally broadly. In a previous thread, I provided links showing that Clarence Thomas doesn't even think that the establishment clause is incorporated by the 14th, but that the free exercise clause is. I no longer add links to my posts though, since that tends to get them quarantined. It's easy enough to find via Google (Clarence Thomas establishment exercise incorporation).

Here's a nice over-simplification for people to tear apart:

Broad establishment + Narrow exercise: you can't teach ID

Narrow establishment + Broad exercise: you can't point out biblical stupidities

Extremely Broad establishment + Extremely Broad exercise: no public education

Narrow establishment + Narrow exercise: local decision making

The supreme court has a history of making very tortured rulings, designed to get the results they want. Wickard v. Filburn comes up a lot as well as Roe v. Wade. So even though the above table is a gross over simplification, I have no doubt that with the wrong people on the Supreme Court, we can get some pretty bad decisions, regarding "free exercise."

And yes, I thought Dover was a horrible decision. I'm just not comforted by the words "It can't happen here."

[mediageek]

"if so, my standard draws from objective liklihood of objective truth as nearly as I can subjectively determine it (with appropriate help, but not with delegation of my own judgement)."

Wow. Once again, Dave squirts a bunch of ink and escapes unscathed.

How do you expect anyone here to take you seriously when you can't even provide a rational method for establishing fact from fabrication?

[Phil]

The point is that I think this needs to be done on a piece-of-evidence by piece-of-evidence basis, rather than on a broader worldview-by-worldview basis.

As regards the particular topic of "Intelligent Design" and YEC, this is crap. One worldview -- in this case, science -- has already, to the limits of every available piece of knowledge we have today, won the goddamned argument. Anyone who had useful evidence of either of these things -- evidence that was revolutionary enough and well-confirmed enough to take the place of the prevailing theories -- would be too busy collecting the Nobel prizes in chemistry and physics and biology and medicine to be bothering high school children in America.

So, yes, in all cases, ID and YEC are something that can be dismissed out of hand.

[zach]

That's it. Dock Ock is Dave W.

[linguist]

Dave W,

Your arguments have been very logical. Don't worry, some of us are following them. I think the problem is one of scope; you've defined a narrow scope for your logic, but others are interpreting it as applying in a much larger scope.

I'd like to see some more discussion about the issue of PERSONAL CHOICE in this matter. A couple of people have said that since the class is an elective, it's fine. I have to agree.

If we can leave aside for the moment the issues of funding (which take us into the land of public/private/vouchers, etc.) and get away from arguing the value of the curriculum, I'd like to ask again what Dave did early on:

Is being presented with illogical theory (Creationism) actually such a challenge to logical theory (evolution)?

How is it that we have so many discussions about choice, in which most people here agree that teenagers are perfectly capable of weighing choices and making reasoned decisions about things like drugs and sex, yet we find it so hard to believe that students who CHOOSE to look at these two side by side lack the capacity to judge the evidence, using a process like the one Dave laid out?

[Jennifer]

Dave, if you're still here, to whom were you referring when you talked about the danger of "important decisionmakers [who] freely indulge their prejudices"? Was it the judge or the ID proponents whom you felt were prejudiced?

[linguist]

Usually I don't correct my typos, but this one changes the meaning significantly:

yet we find it so hard to believe that students who CHOOSE to look at these two side by side have the capacity

[zach]

Linguist, if you leave out the fact that it's a public school which relies on public funding, there's no discussion to be had. No one here is arguing that Catholocism shouldn't be allowed to be taught in Catholic school.

[rmark]

There is no god but Zoltar, who lives in the pond behind my house.

[linguist]

Linguist, if you leave out the fact that it's a public school which relies on public funding, there's no discussion to be had.

Exactly. And I think most here agree that the best solution, if workable, would be privatisation.

But I'm asking an honest question about the libertarian philosophy: do we believe that 16-yr-olds can evaluate facts, or no? Because if they can, then I don't see why people get so emotional about the idea that some could opt to sit through this stupid class.

Several people here have given their ideas of what they think would happen in this class: the teacher would proselytize, the students would eat it up, the test would be about faith rather than content.

Well here's what I think would happen: a dozen brainwashed ninnies would enroll so they could feel good about their beliefs. 2-3 or more scientific and/or atheist types would also enroll, and would gum up the works spectacularly. I'm still wondering, Where's the Harm?

[Dave W.]

"important decisionmakers [who] freely indulge their prejudices"

Well, I had trouble figuring out exactly what the IDers in Dover were saying, so my judgements about them were frustratingly tentative. I think it was a poster here who set forth some kind of statement to be read or curriculum directives (not sure that it was clear which it was) used by Dover. If I recall that document correctly, it had some good stuf and some stuf that seemed bad. But I can't really speak either to my conclusions bout the Dover IDers from memory.

However, as you probably know, I have a relatively high amount of respect for the intellectual integrity of judges. Since I am not the decisionmaker, I was initially happy that there was a judge (instead of a jury) opinion and that the judge would parse the good parts from the bad of what Dover had to say. I had a strong hunch (still do) that some of what Dover did say was bad.

The Dover judge let me down in at least two big ways:

(1) he lumped all intelligent design theory together; he lumped together what one might call philosophical agnosticism with what one might call thinly-veiled evangelical Christianity. that is one of those shortcuts I warned you against. Understandable in an HnR poster. Not forgiveable in a judge

(2) he looked way too much at the personal beliefs of the scientists and not at the evidence the scientists were putting forward. Again, a bad prejudicial shortcut. There are times when it is okay to look at motives, but that is for things like the OJ case where ppl are hiding things -- not here where all the scientists and alleged scientists are being very forthcoming about what they believe and why they think science should agree.

Having had some litigation experience, I am fairly confident that the judge would not have written the opinion in the hamfisted, prejudicial way he did if he thought there were any chance of appeal. I am still confident that any reviewing appellate court would remand the hell out of what the judge wrote. And I think the judge knew that, but also knew that there would be no appeal because of the school bd turnover.

Although I can't relitigate the Dover case from memory, it might be helpful if I restate what I think about ID type stuf in school:

I think part of science class should involve the limits of what science can tell us. My public school science classes (as many other ppl's I am sure) already does this as far as the observational limits of science go. We learned about the debate over the shape of the earth and the debate over the center of the universe in science class. they explained that science used to not have the observational tools to answer these questions (but then it got them). My physics class also explained that there is an observational limit to how closely we can see inside matter and explained that there were currently scientifically unresolvable questions about how matter would behave if you looked at a small enuf piece of it. So far, so good, probably.

We learned other limits to science. We learned that there are predictive limits imposed by quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg principle. Probably still so far so good.

But I also think there are "philosophical" limits to science. Science can't say that the universe is random anymore than science can say that it is ultimately non-random. Who made that ape lie out in the sun so that the chromosomes in his spermatazoa cells got mutated? If that is to interventionist for you -- who, if anyone, set the starting conditions at the big bang? These are philosophy questions. Science does not answer them or even seriously try. When they come up, science calls them "philosophy" and so do I. At this level I think ID (horrible label) is valid and should be taught in science class. To guard against people mistaking the silence of science on these issues as an endorsement of atheism or Dawkins or something like that.

as you have probably guessed, I think even some of the fine HnR regular posters make such mistakes on a regular basis. It is a science-related mistake and should be dispelled by science class.

[Eddy]

I thought we Icky Christers ran America before the 1960's. So how did we fail to establish our wonderful Republic of Gilead?

It's a common misunderstanding. Diest != Christian. Better?

[Qbryzan]

Dave W, your assumptions about the Dover decision are incorrect. I would suggest you read the entire decision, rather than the paragraph or two you don't particularly like.

[David]

But I'm asking an honest question about the libertarian philosophy: do we believe that 16-yr-olds can evaluate facts, or no? Because if they can, then I don't see why people get so emotional about the idea that some could opt to sit through this stupid class.

In my opinion, more choice, including choices that I don't agree with, is always better. I think the average sixteen year-old can and should be able to make such decisions for themselves.

[thoreau]

You know, I do see some legitimate philosophical issues to discuss concerning evolution. Drawing scientific conclusions about past events does involve issues that don't come into play when studying phenomena in the present. There are certain assumptions that need to be stated.

The problem is that the ID folks don't seem to be interested in an honest presentation of these issues, even in a philosophy class. Why? Well, even though a careful examination of these issues would suggest that evolutionary claims should be made with a certain amount of modesty and caution, these same philosophical considerations would lead to even more caution concerning ID and other supernatural claims concerning the past.

Evolution may pose some delicate philosophical concerns, but ID would fare much worse under a careful philosophical examination.

[s]

Mediageek.

"How do you expect anyone here to take you seriously when you can't even provide a rational method for establishing fact from fabrication?"

Go ahead mediageek. Provide away.

Just saying.

I think Linguist is on to something here. As happens frequently on this post, posters do not give enough credit to the intelligence of others. Kids are smarter than they are being given credit for. As are communities, and schools, and christians, and... the list goes on.

I have noticed a trend on the board to see external controls to be the primary mover in people's lives rather than internal control of one's own situation. Strange that so many Libertarians seem to think this way. But, maybe it has something to do with why certain people are attracted to the ideology. If you see control as external, then maybe you are more motivated to free yourself of those external controls, and find libertarian ideas attractive.

Sorry, that was off topic... Again. I think lingusit is dead on here.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Again, in the class "[p]hysical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions." The word "Philosophy" in the title is a sugar coating of bullshit.

California liberals are just reactionist nuts.

Well I guess its Young Earth Creationism then, not ID, but I'd still wouldn't get up in arms, atleast not to the point of suing because this is wasted effort on a compromised solution (meaning this class is not required and makes the fundies happy and less prone to fret about the secularisation of society). Pat the teacher on the head and move on.

[zach]

The fact that this course is an elective doesn't matter at all!! We're still paying for it!! Unless no students elect to take it, and the "teacher" gets fired and the course canceled, we're still paying her salary and providing all the related materials to teach our kids that the Earth was created in 6,000 years.

In fact, I would much rather have a disclaimer at the beginning of a biology course implying the idea that God created us is a scientific theory, than have my tax money pay for an entire semester of even less coherent bullshit. Whether or not students have to take it has nothing to do with anything. Should public schools perform baptisms as long as students elect to take part in them?

If Capt. Holly can accuse libertarains of being reflexively anti-Christian, I'll go ahead and accuse us of seeing the word "elective" and prematurely ejaculating.

[zach]

Sorry... created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago.

Did I sound frustrated enough in that post? Heh. It's been a long day.

[linguist]

If you see control as external, then maybe you are more motivated to free yourself of those external controls, and find libertarian ideas attractive.

Likewise, s, I think you're on to something here.

[linguist]

Gotta run, otherwise I'd look it up, but has anyone checked to see who IS funding this course? The article did say it was for one month, not a semester, which makes me wonder if it was even a class during school hours.

[Kwix]

Captin Holly,
This statement confirms a sneaking suspicion I've had about many "libertarians": If there were a way to jettison the Religious Freedom clause in the First Amendment they'd do it in a heartbeat, just to make sure no child was ever exposed to that icky Christer theology.

I don't see how this is the case. I personally do not believe in any god. My spouse believes in many. You belive in the Christian god and rmark apparently believes in the grand exhalted Zoltar (who lives in a pond, yada yada).

Here is the issue, if the roles were reversed and Zoltarism was the predominate religion in this country, would you want your child to be indoctrinated at a government funded/run school to belive that Zoltar created the earth out of pond scum and duck weed? I suspect not. You would most likely like to teach your child your beliefs in the Christian god. That is what the Freedom and Establishment clauses do. They allow you to speak your beliefs to anyone who will listen but be assured that your government isn't going to subvert those beliefs with thier own form of superstition while your child is a "captive audience" in the government school.

Even if this "elective" course in the Philosophy of Zoltarist Design was taught, do you want your tax money going to an unproveable religious belief that you do not subscribe to? What about tax vouchers for private religious based schools? Do you want your money to pay so some heathen Zoltarist can learn religion on your dime?

Remember, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the nation for which it stands, one nation, under Zoltar, with liberty and justice for all."

[Akira MacKenzie]

Kwix:

Zoltarism? Hmmmmm... Oh! You must mean Scientology.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Zach,

Yes, you're paying for it, but so are the fundies, so teaching evolution could be seen as an anethema they shouldn't have to pay for. Of course the solution is a true free market solution with private schools, but as that's not available right now, I'll subsidize a theological elective if that will keep my biology classes untouched.

[fishbane]

California liberals are just reactionist nuts.

Bite me. You'd be surprised how many "California liberals" are serious libertarians. That attempting to infuence one's local environment currently requires interaction with a government isn't a flag of some free-floating "liberalism". I know that "aiding and abetting" the government is a topic, but ignoring people's need to live with The Beast is just silly.

If you disagree, please post scans of your California Franchise Tax Board letters as proof of your moxie.

[Rick Barton]

Ron:

I once again offer my solution to the problem--privatize the schools and let parents choose where to have their kids educated.

The Best! Private property and private institutions are humankind's greatest inventions toward conflict resolution and avoidance.

But still; within the coercive rubric of government schools, allowing parents to teach a class in something that they believe in, and something that runs counter to a doctrine taught by the government schools is a libertarian development. Also, since the course is called, "Philosophy of Design", there is no claim to science in the title, although as Ron points out, that title does not reflect all of the content. But that happens in lotsa courses.

I think strongly that ID didn't happen, but I welcome the liberty that allows a limited exposition by those who contend otherwise in the government schools until we can abolish those cradles of tyranny.

[Rick Barton]

The class should certainly be an elective only, and open questioning and debate should be encouraged (it should be in all classes) so that the BS may be challenged.

[Rick Barton]

Jennifer at January 12, 11:35 AM:

If not for public education, I seriously wonder if that girl's parents would have even let her learn how to read.

That doesn't follow. It has more to do with mandatory attendance laws.

Among those who are not favorably disposed to education for girls, a wide-spread healthy appreciation for female learning will more likely be fostered by seeing the good results obtained by the daughters of their social peers from education, rather than forced attendance, which will engender resentment.

As a tangential aside, since Jennifer was talking about an Indian girl, check out India, where capitalism and more libertarian institutions have suddenly given women new avenues of freedom to countervail ancient social strictures. (See: "In Defense of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg- translation assistance by Julian Sanchez)

[Jennifer]

That doesn't follow. It has more to do with mandatory attendance laws.

check out India, where capitalism and more libertarian institutions have suddenly given women new avenues of freedom to countervail ancient social strictures.

Among some classes. At the same time, sex-selection abortion has given the country a gender ration about as skewed as China's. But I think that's actually a good thing--at least the girls who ARE there are wanted, and if the culture has any collective sense, a severe girl shortage will make them realize they were fools to value girls so little. And if they don't, and the lack of girls ends up seriously hurting them in the future--feh. Cultural natural selection at work.

[Jennifer]

Whoops! In my last post, I'd meant to write "point taken" after Rick's comment about mandatory attendance laws.

[linguist]

and if the culture has any collective sense, a severe girl shortage will make them realize they were fools to value girls so little.

There is still a bit of a dowry system in India, which may explain why people would want fewer daughters. (Hmm. Might having fewer women also drive the cost of dowries down, as demand for women goes up?)

[Rick Barton]

Whoops for me too! I spaced a link for the Norberg volume that I cited:

http://tinyurl.com/9ctfz

[Rick Barton]

Might having fewer women also drive the cost of dowries down, as demand for women goes up?

Makes sense to me.

Hey linguist, are you familiar with the conjectured connection between ancient Sumerian and Hungarian?

[linguist]

Rick Barton,

Not really. It wouldn't surprise me that there would be some connection though. Got a theory?

[biologist]

I don't have time to read all (or any) of the comments, so if I'm repeating someone else's point, I apologize.

My main concern, since this course isn't being taught as a science course, is that the woman teaching it reportedly isn't qualified - no degree in education, philosophy, science, or religious studies. Does she even have a teaching certificate? It seems that this might be a violation of the school's accreditation, rather than any legal issue over the establishment of religion. However, I'm also concerned that she will teach that creationism is factually true (her reported belief, and in my mind a violation of the Establishment Clause), rather than studying creationism as a philosophy (in my mind, not a violation of the Establishment Clause).

[Rick Barton]

linguist

Well, it's certainly not my theory but I understand that Hungarian is like no other language in the region. It's not Slavic, nor any Indo-European language. It's grouped with Finnish in the Finno-Ugric group by some. Hungarian, like the Finno-Ugric languages is agglutinative which means, as you know, word meanings are modified by adding different and multiple endings or suffixes to the words, rather than using prefixes like, for example, in English. Some linguists believe that Hungarian is related to Turkic, rather than to Finno-Ugric languages.

I think that the case for Sumerian comes from mainly from word similarities. And now I just read that an ancient segment of Hungarian that has been preserved mainly in child songs, lullabies and verses, shows some degree of similarity to Sumerian. I think that there's also an affinity of ritual symbols between various periods of Hungarian culture up to the present and ancient Sumerian culture. It's interesting.

BTW, I understand that various regimes, including the Commies, have suppressed the Hungarian-Sumerian connection idea.

[Rick Barton]

...I think that Sumerian is agglutinative as well.

[Greg Piper]

Hey Ron, how about dropping the scare quotes around intelligent design? Show some respect toward those you disagree with. You sound like the Washington Times and their description of homosexual "marriage." Not good company to keep.

[Manchun]

nice article for Philosophy of design course: http://bit.ly/2jySMkg offer me for design.