More fodder for the ID-Evolution debate

[Mickey]

I agree that teaching ID is a bad idea.  I agree that some advocating it are whack jobs with nefarious intent.

 

But I see thousands (I've seen 1,000 and assume that there are some out there that haven't driven by me yet) of bumper stiickers which directly equate Darwin and God.  I've also spoken with several atheists who cite Darwin's studies as one of their main "proofs" that God is a myth.  It is certainly not their only argument, but it is prominent.  The conclusions these people have reached are incorrect with respect to Darwin.  I am merely suggesting that a science teacher should be concerned with this and open to changing teaching methods.  I am not in favor of removing Darwin from schools.  I have seen no evidence of willingness to make any changes.  With all due respect, you do not even seem to acknowledge the possibility that something is being done incorrectly. 

 

Whether or not religion or atheism are rising or falling is not the point.  The point is that people see a direct correlation between evolution and God.  There is none.  Some of this (maybe even more than half) is the fault of religious fanatics.  Some of it is the fault of "science".  You can acknowledge that or not.

 

If "science" and "religion" are seeking truth, they should both be willing to examine their methods of search on a continuing basis.

405662[/snapback]

I am not trying to defend the teaching methods of thousands of science teachers because I have no idea what they are doing. I am sure there are some whose techniques could be vastly improved. So I have no problem with the notion that there could be something wrong here. That is really why I have asked for the evidence, to see if there reallly is anything to that notion. I even looked myself, hence all the links I provided.

 

What I found was that there just is no significant evidence that this problem exists. Balancing that is the argument you have made to the contrary and though I respect and appreciate your thoughts on the issue, I remain unconvinced. In the end, I found the stats I located more convincing than your arguments and the "bumper sticker hypothesis", and I don't mean to mock that set of observations.

 

I think the bumper stickers are more a reflection, not of the number of atheists, but of their increasing willingness to be open about their beliefs or, if you prefer, their non-beliefs.

 

In the end, we agree on the ends, just not the path that gets us there.

 

Apparently, I am descended from a particulary argumentative species of ape.

[OGTEleven]

It is not a public (or secular private) HS science teacher’s job to bolster a student’s faith in a higher power.  It is their job to teach science and the scientific method.  There is nothing to fix or examine with the way they are teaching science, because in my mind teaching a student evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and other than 1001 bumper stickers in upstate NY there isn't any evidence that says otherwise.  You say above that there is no direct correlation between evolution and god.  Then why should a science teacher address it?  If that child’s faith is that fragile and that easily shaken, how the hell is that the teacher’s fault?  Should all science lessons begin with the caveat "This lesson in no way has any bearing on the existence of God/Allah/Zeus"?

 

I am surrounded by scientists, scientists that studied evolution in HS, college and grad school.  By your assumptions I should be surrounded by atheists.  I’m not.  I don’t see any Darwin fish in the parking lot either.  Maybe they all migrated to upstate NY?

405706[/snapback]

Is it a remote possibility that any science teacher, anywhere at any point could be teaching something improperly or is the word "science" enough to give them a pass?

 

I don't claim to know the right way to fix the classes, and acknowledge that some religious upbringings make the problem worse.

 

I'll even give you that the problem might not be directly related to evolution class, but more to science in general. People are in fact using Darwin as evidence that God does not exist. That is improper use of data because it does not relate.

 

I'm not sure whether you disagree that people use Darwin as evidence, or think that Darwin is actually evidence.

 

 

As for the italicized part:

 

I never said or meant to imply that all scientists are atheists, or even have a higher propensity than the general population. I'd go so far as to guess that of those actual scientists that are atheists, less use Darwin as a crutch than your run of the mill atheist (just a guess, don't ask me for a study).

 

Also please note that people are migrating away from upstate NY, not toward it.

[finknottle]

I'll even give you that the problem might not be directly related to evolution class, but more to science in general.  People are in fact using Darwin as evidence that God does not exist.  That is improper use of data because it does not relate.

 

405736[/snapback]

 

I've heard this claimed by evangelicals, but I've never heard a scientist say this. Frankly, it sounds like they a strawman argument. Can you give an example? A single reference will do.

[finknottle]

I think the bumper stickers are more a reflection, not of the number of atheists, but of their increasing willingness to be open about their beliefs or, if you prefer, their non-beliefs.

 

405727[/snapback]

 

I agree. It doesn't reflect a swelling movement so much as pent-up protest.

[finknottle]

I ask you to go back and read again the polls I presented, especially the column with the surveys of numerous polls going back to the 1970's.  What they show is that belief in God has increased over time, not decreased.  For example, in 1987, 60% of Americans agreed that they "never doubted the existence of God".  Thirteen years later, that number rose to 69%.  In 1973, 77% believed in life after death but by 1998, that number grew to 82%.  Before you pronounce a 5% rise to be insignificant, recall that you declared a study showing that 95% of people in the US believe in God to be "completely irrelevant" because of no comparison with a poll taken before evolution was taught.  If you are right, under a worst case scenario for my argument, 100% of Americans would have been believers before evolution was taught and after 50 or 60 years of such teaching, the number of true believers has plummeted a whopping 5%.  That is if I give you the benefit of every doubt and assume, to help your argument, that there wasn't a single atheist alive in the US before the teaching of evolution in American schools became widespread.  If you are right, why is the number of true believers increasing the longer evolution is being taught?  If your hypothesis is correct, wouldn't the numbers being going the other way?

 

Another huge survey done in 2001 covering over 14,000 congregations in the United States found that about half of those congregations were founded after 1945.  If teaching evolution creates atheists, why did the nation experience a doubling of its religious organizations during the time when teaching evolution became prevalent in the nation's schools?

 

On a list of 50 nations, the US was ranked 43rd in the proportion of atheists as it has only 3-9% of its people who are either agnostic or atheist.  Italy has more atheist for goodness sakes.  This was a 2005 study by the way (Stats on American Athesists).

 

405602[/snapback]

 

On the flip-side, it is worth examining trends in public views towards evolution. I don't have any stats, but there is an interesting article in the April issue of 'The Smithsonian' recalling the Scopes trial. Here's a noteworthy passage:

 

'Bryan and the creationists claimed victory because the jury in Dayton upheld the state's ban against teaching evolution and, by implication, the right of parents to control what their children learned. Darrow and the evolutionists, on the other hand, believed that in exposing the ignorance behind creationism they had stymied its threat to academic freedom. Time has proved both sides wrong. "As a result of the Scopes trial, evolution largely disappeared in public school science classrooms," says historian Edward J. Larson, a professor at the University of Georgia and author of 'Summer for the Gods,' a Pulitzer Prize-winning account of the trial and its aftermath. Larson acknowledges that there is "more mandated teaching of evolution now than ever before." But that doesn't translate into actual teaching. According to a recent report in the New York Times, many teachers simply ignore evolution or play it down to duck controversy.'

 

As I think back on my own AP Biology class in the otherwise excellent KenTon district circa 1980, it occurs to me that while we did study genetics I can not recall having been exposed to a single thing about evolution or human origins.

[TheMadCap]

Hello. My name is MadCap, and I have contributed nothing to this thread...

[Ghost of BiB]

Hello. My name is MadCap, and I have contributed nothing to this thread...

406278[/snapback]

 

I started to, but quit around page 4 I think it was. But, I have a distant relative pondering our future.

[OGTEleven]

I'm not posting this in an effort to make it look like the be all and end all of what I've been stating. I also realize that it makes no direct connection to HS evolution class. It is from an atheist group web sites where they appear to discuss all issues surrounding atheism. Darwin is very prominent. I think this connection is short sighted at best. If they are in favor of all things scientific, why is Darwin offered as as disproof of God rather than only disproof of strict biblical interpretation of creation? The sites have different styles of describing this. The first is a central point with links. The 2nd is more direct.

 

link

 

Link2

[Mickey]

On the flip-side, it is worth examining trends in public views towards evolution. I don't have any stats, but there is an interesting article in the April issue of 'The Smithsonian' recalling the Scopes trial.  Here's a noteworthy passage:

 

'Bryan and the creationists claimed victory because the jury in Dayton upheld the state's ban against teaching evolution and, by implication, the right of parents to control what their children learned. Darrow and the evolutionists, on the other hand, believed that in exposing the ignorance behind creationism they had stymied its threat to academic freedom. Time has proved both sides wrong. "As a result of the Scopes trial, evolution largely disappeared in public school science classrooms," says historian Edward J. Larson, a professor at the University of Georgia and author of 'Summer for the Gods,' a Pulitzer Prize-winning account of the trial and its aftermath. Larson acknowledges that there is "more mandated teaching of evolution now than ever before." But that doesn't translate into actual teaching. According to a recent report in the New York Times, many teachers simply ignore evolution or play it down to duck controversy.'

 

As I think back on my own AP Biology class in the otherwise excellent KenTon district circa 1980, it occurs to me that while we did study genetics I can not recall having been exposed to a single thing about evolution or human origins.

406197[/snapback]

Good point, I was in HS from '74-'78, back when a calculator was called a "computer", and I don't recall learning anything about evolution. Of course, mini-skirts were so short back then that I was too distracted to learn much of anything.

[Mickey]

I'm not posting this in an effort to make it look like the be all and end all of what I've been stating.  I also realize that it makes no direct connection to HS evolution class.  It is from an atheist group web sites where they appear to discuss all issues surrounding atheism.  Darwin is very prominent.  I think this connection is short sighted at best.  If they are in favor of all things scientific, why is Darwin offered as as disproof of God rather than only disproof of strict biblical interpretation of creation?  The sites have different styles of describing this.  The first is a central point with links.  The 2nd is more direct.

 

link

 

Link2

406288[/snapback]

OG, I wouldn't deny that to many atheists, evolution is prominent and even thought of as dispositive as to the non-existence of God to some. I just don't think that science teachers are using it that way, nor should they.

 

People are all over the block on this is my guess. Some see evolution and other discoveries/theories as leaving less and less room for the divine. Others see no conflict at all between science and religion while still others see nothing but. As for science classes though, I am more worried that 45% think the Earth is only 10,000 years old than I am with the possibility that the 5% of people who are atheists became so because of something their science teacher said. Frankly, I think nasty priests and the occasional sadistic nun have created more atheists than Darwin.

[Mickey]

Hello. My name is MadCap, and I have contributed nothing to this thread...

406278[/snapback]

Yet your silence spoke volumes, hinting of a deeper, profound but unspoken wisdom.

[Reuben Gant]

duck controversy.'

 

406197[/snapback]

Apes, not ducks, apes.

[OGTEleven]

OG, I wouldn't deny that to many atheists, evolution is prominent and even thought of as dispositive as to the non-existence of God to some.  I just don't think that science teachers are using it that way, nor should they.

 

People are all over the block on this is my guess.  Some see evolution and other discoveries/theories as leaving less and less room for the divine.  Others see no conflict at all between science and religion while still others see nothing but.  As for science classes though, I am more worried that 45% think the Earth is only 10,000 years old than I am with the possibility that the 5% of people who are atheists became so because of something their science teacher said.  Frankly, I think nasty priests and the occasional sadistic nun have created more atheists than Darwin.

406430[/snapback]

Did you find the links intersting at all?

[finknottle]

I'm not posting this in an effort to make it look like the be all and end all of what I've been stating.  I also realize that it makes no direct connection to HS evolution class.  It is from an atheist group web sites where they appear to discuss all issues surrounding atheism.  Darwin is very prominent. 

:

link

406288[/snapback]

 

I applaud you for providing a link, but I don't find it convincing. In fact, I was surprised not to find any arguments against God, and in particular no religious discussion at all among the evolution resources. The site seemed more a resource center for those committed to freedom from religion.

 

In favor of your views on the way evolution is taught, the alliance does claim the goal

"Atheist Alliance International (AAI) is an organization of independent religion-free groups and individuals in the United States and around the world. Our primary goals are to help democratic, atheistic societies become established and grow and to work in coalition with like-minded groups to advance rational thinking through educational processes."

 

This could be consistent with a program of consciously using evolution education to generate athiests. However, when they expand on atheist educational goals they essentially only say

"Atheist education begins with our own members learning about the struggle of courageous men and women who defied the superstitions of their day and advanced the culture of reason and science. The Alliance seeks to reclaim our heritage and provide the largely misunderstood facts of our history to the public in order to dispel ignorance about atheist contributions to civilization. Most atheists, entangled as we are in a religious culture, are only vaguely aware of its impact -- as when we are made to feel impolite for expressing doubt about the supernatural. Most atheists have never studied atheist history or learned the importance of atheism to science and social progress. Atheism is left out of discussions in schools."

 

To summarize, what I got out of reading their 'about & why' page is a sense of their priorities, as captured by

"Blind religious mania is a rising threat to society. It seeks to repeal the advances made in establishing civil rights and civil liberties for all citizens. It seeks to abolish our First Amendment right to freedom of and from religion. It encourages a global population explosion that is destroying the environment and creating immense human suffering. It is, through a heavily funded political machine, making a major effort to get organized prayers and religious observances into public schools and other public venues, and creationist doctrines into science classes. Schemes abound to acquire taxpayer funding for parochial schools. Religious zealots, not content with self-regulation, seek to censor the reading and viewing choices of all of us. An Inquisitional spirit infects everything from politics to the Boy Scouts -- and sometimes even the workplace. Because of these and other assaults on our civil liberties, there is an urgent need for a concerted rational atheist influence on society -- the application of reason and common sense to solving our problems."

 

So I went to the 'Creationism vs Evolution' section. There was no AA position text, instead about 20 external links to various resources, each of which was itself typically a set of links. I skimmed much of it and nowhere found any 'proof of atheism,' or indeed any discussion of theological questions at all. Most were scientific expositions of aspects of evolution, some were devoted to debunking creationism. I found nothing anti-religious; the closest was a collection of links mocking creationist web-sites that made particularly goofball claims (Australian Aborigines killed off the dinosaurs 12,000 years ago, etc).