Kansas does it again

[OGTEleven]

Can I ask what science would hope to gain from inwardly examining how it is taught,

 

if the majority of us involved in science think it's being taught just fine? 

 

Science already questions just about everything it does. 

 

That's science.

498775[/snapback]

When should science stop re-examining itself?

 

Do the majority of "us involved in science" know how evolution is being taught?

 

The two sentences in your quote that I have bolded seem to be completely opposed. What am I missing?

[Johnny Coli]

I'm not even sure that the zealots driving the agenda believe in ID, per se.  That is not the point.

 

For the 4th time in this thread let me say......I do not believe ID belongs in schools, even as an elective.

 

The point is that there has been enough angst in several communities about ID/Evolution to garner enough support to put it in schools.  It is likely that this angst is not limited to zealots alone.  If it were, there would probably be no raging debate.  This angst should be enough of a sign to educators to at least re-examine the current course.  That's it.  That's all I'm saying.  How could that hurt?

498781[/snapback]

I just don't think it's widespread enough to warrant the introspection. PA just got rid of everyone on the board that was pro-creationism. The Kansas board vote was 6-4. Whatever. Notice (timeline table ) how since 1999 it's been switched back and forth...1999:6-4 creationism....2001:7-3 evolution...now it's 6-4 creationism again. It'll change next year.

 

Quite frankly, Kansas is good in that it keeps this out in the open, and the debate shows this for what it is...a conservative religious agenda.

[Johnny Coli]

When should science stop re-examining itself?

 

Do the majority of "us involved in science" know how evolution is being taught?

 

The two sentences in your quote that I have bolded seem to be completely opposed.  What am I missing?

498785[/snapback]

But that's what makes this whole argument about self-examination a pain to debate. Science already does it, but what it won't do is change the way it does this to satisfy a few nuts. It's almost impossible to have this discussion, because you can't have a "scientifically sound" debate with someone that wants to change the meaning of "science" to fit their argument.

 

Edit: I do not mean that "someone" is you, of course.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Johnny Coli

[Fan in Chicago]

I'm not even sure that the zealots driving the agenda believe in ID, per se.  That is not the point.

 

For the 4th time in this thread let me say......I do not believe ID belongs in schools, even as an elective.

 

The point is that there has been enough angst in several communities about ID/Evolution to garner enough support to put it in schools.  It is likely that this angst is not limited to zealots alone.  If it were, there would probably be no raging debate.  This angst should be enough of a sign to educators to at least re-examine the current course.  That's it.  That's all I'm saying.  How could that hurt?

498781[/snapback]

 

Yes, I appreciate that your point is to keep it out of schools. But, I am referring to the other point that you make - that a large enough section believes in it so science should evaluate it. To answer your question of how it hurts - it is time that scientists could be spending elsewhere. Resources are limited and the question is one of opportunity costs. If we had a boatload of scientists sitting idle twiddling their thumbs, then maybe their time is better spent on trying to analyze the merits of ID.

As for the mass public, here is an example. A few years back, in India, many people claimed that statues of the Lord Ganesh was seen 'drinking' milk and that signalled the coming of an apocalypse. Given that a percent of population in India is much larger than that of KS and PA, shouldn't scientists try to analyze if an apocalypse is in the offing ? The arguments are similar, heck this is even based on 'observed' phenomena.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Take this analog to math class:

 

The math teacher says 3=3, that's the way our system of representation of the physical works in Arabic numbers.

 

A kid comes in and says to his Math teacher that the Bible says that 3=1 as a representation of the Trinity. He's right, in a way, following his interpretation of the Bible. Even so, you can't teach that 1=3 in a Math class.

 

If people got all hung up about how 1=3 should be taught in a Math class, and how it should be taught as another theory or idea of how numbers work, and in the meantime you have to repeat a million times to not offend anyone that Arabic numbers is just one way of looking at the number system, kids lose valuable time learning anything. And they'll be pretty darned confused.

 

If in science class evolution is taught as a theory with certain evidence in its favor, and that we're still searching for evidence to prove it, or, to come up with another, better theory, it shouldn't be a problem. It may even spur more kids to become curious and enter the field of science to help find answers to these questions.

 

I find it pretty hilarious that the same crowd that decries a PC world is trying to instill its own version of PC virtue in the science classroom.

[OGTEleven]

Yes, science DOES.  That is the nature of the scientific method.  What part don't you understand?

498761[/snapback]

Science is SUPPOSED to re-examine itself.

 

Saying this:

 

"Evolution is science, therefore teachers properly and continuosly re-examine their evolution curriculum."

 

is not a statement based in logic.

 

Strategic placement of the word "should" in the above quote would make it logical.

[OGTEleven]

Yes, I appreciate that your point is to keep it out of schools. But, I am referring to the other point that you make - that a large enough section believes in it so science should evaluate it. To answer your question of how it hurts - it is time that scientists could be spending elsewhere. Resources are limited and the question is one of opportunity costs. If we had a boatload of scientists sitting idle twiddling their thumbs, then maybe their time is better spent on trying to analyze the merits of ID.

498802[/snapback]

For Pete's sake read my post.

 

I do NOT think that ID should be examined, poked, prodded, evaluated, understood, given the time of day, introduced, considered, or glorified in any way shape manner or form. I think it should be summarily thrown in the toilet. Got it?

 

What I do think is that science teachers ought to take a step back for a friggin second and say "hmm, why is this evolution thingy causing such an uproar?". It seems to me that the uproar in general is pretty pervasive. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're too busy as you suggest.

 

Maybe when it is examined, they could easily spell out why the religious zealots bear 100% of the blame for the rancor. At least they will have it documented. "They're a bunch of idiots", is not a scientific assessment of the situation IMO.

 

Maybe when it is examined, they'll find that it is remotely possible that they are not perfect and perhaps there is a slight chance that they could explain things a little bit better. Maybe they bear a half o percent of the blame for all the angst. I doubt it though, because they are scientists, therefore they are already doing a perfect job a re-assessing themselves. It comes with the title.

[OGTEleven]

But that's what makes this whole argument about self-examination a pain to debate.  Science already does it, but what it won't do is change the way it does this to satisfy a few nuts.  It's almost impossible to have this discussion, because you can't have a "scientifically sound" debate with someone that wants to change the meaning of "science" to fit their argument.

 

Edit:  I do not mean that "someone" is you, of course.

498796[/snapback]

I don't think the schools should involve the zealots in their re-examination at all. I just think they should look inward, at least to some degree.

[OGTEleven]

No, I understood what you were saying: "the scientific community is unscientific".  And I am calling that pure, unadulterated, hopelessly ignorant horseshit, as somebody who's worked in the scientific community and has had publications go through the peer-review process.

498760[/snapback]

I didn't say that at all. That would have been far too broad and certainly ignorant, not to mention wrong.

 

Here is what I said in another way:

 

I see no evidence that the people teaching evolution have re-examined their methods in an effort to ensure their teaching is generating the results they desire.

 

Further, it is my opinion that everyone would benefit from such a re-examination regardless of its conclusions. If it determined that the classes were being taught perfectly, then that would now be well documented. The zealots would be called out for what they are, and the people "fooled" by them would now be "freed".

 

If the classes could be improved, then great. The "new" class would achieve the same result of rebuking the zealots and perhaps comforting the "regular" religious people.

 

 

I was indeed saying that in this particular case that the teaching community could stand being more scientific.

 

To morph that into the quote you used above was not logical. It was a steaming pile of horseshit. And it wouldn't stand up to peer review.

[GG]

What I do think is that science teachers ought to take a step back for a friggin second and say "hmm, why is this evolution thingy causing such an uproar?".  It seems to me that the uproar in general is pretty pervasive.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe they're too busy as you suggest.

 

Maybe when it is examined, they could easily spell out why the religious zealots bear 100% of the blame for the rancor.  At least they will have it documented.  "They're a bunch of idiots", is not a scientific assessment of the situation IMO.

 

498832[/snapback]

 

I thought I answered that. The reason that evolution is not sticking with creationists is that evolution is antithetical to the concept that the world was created in seven days some 10,000 - 20,000 years ago.

 

But let's follow your suggestion. What do you think that the scientists will say to the Judeo/Christians? "You folks don't believe in evolution. We have loads of scientific data that proves that we've descended from monkeys, and that our progenitors lived for millions of years. Everything that's happened in the universe is part of a big mysterious cataclysmic event, we call the Big Bang."

 

To which, the Judeo/Christians will respond, "But how do you know that the Big Bang wasn't created by a super smart being? If we were to believe that everything happened by random chance, the entire underpinning of our religion being based on a deliberate choice between good & evil goes out the window. No, thank you."

 

To which, the scientists will reply, "Religious wackos," and walk away.

 

Personally, I think that creationists' acceptance of ID is a huge progress in women's rights away from Adam's missing rib.

[OGTEleven]

Take this analog to math class:

 

The math teacher says 3=3, that's the way our system of representation of the physical works in Arabic numbers.

 

A kid comes in and says to his Math teacher that the Bible says that 3=1 as a representation of the Trinity.  He's right, in a way, following his interpretation of the Bible.  Even so, you can't teach that 1=3 in a Math class.

 

If people got all hung up about how 1=3 should be taught in a Math class, and how it should be taught as another theory or idea of how numbers work, and in the meantime you have to repeat a million times to not offend anyone that Arabic numbers is just one way of looking at the number system, kids lose valuable time learning anything.  And they'll be pretty darned confused.

 

If in science class evolution is taught as a theory with certain evidence in its favor, and that we're still searching for evidence to prove it, or, to come up with another, better theory, it shouldn't be a problem.  It may even spur more kids to become curious and enter the field of science to help find answers to these questions.

 

I find it pretty hilarious that the same crowd that decries a PC world is trying to instill its own version of PC virtue in the science classroom.

498812[/snapback]

1=3 should never be taught in a math class (unless for self esteem purposes ). Teaching 3=3 has never seemed to cause a debate over God vs. math. I don't know if this means religious zealots can be "reasonable" but I wouldn't go that far.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is a little more nebulous than 3=3. Not so much in its science (although not much matches 3=3) but moreso in how it is interpreted.

 

If kids are leaving school with the impression that God does not exist because evolution does, I don't think either the priest or the teacher should be happy. I don't think the priest should start forcing alternative "science" into schools, but also don't think the teacher should shrug his shoulders and say "oh, well". I find it hard to believe that "God is a myth" is part of the lesson. You wouldn't want a kid leaving school thinking 3=3 therefore Ice cream is made from glue. If they were, then you'd try to correct it.

 

I don't pretend to have all of the answers but it's possible there is something better than today's solution of fierce political fights. Maybe the school could publish their entire curriculum in an open fashion, and people would be free to enroll their kids in religious instruction that was directly modeled after the class. Maybe there could be an after school (optional) session on evolution and its meaning. I don't know the answers, but it seems to me the schools aren't looking, and aren't willing to even consider the possibility that something could be done better. To me, this means they bear part of the blame for the overall debate. It is easy to shoot down ID because it is pretty stupid. It is also easy to display that the people really driving it are kooks. this does not translate to: "no changes are needed".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

For Pete's sake read my post.

 

I do NOT think that ID should be examined, poked, prodded, evaluated, understood, given the time of day, introduced, considered, or glorified in any way shape manner or form.  I think it should be summarily thrown in the toilet. Got it?

 

What I do think is that science teachers ought to take a step back for a friggin second and say "hmm, why is this evolution thingy causing such an uproar?".  It seems to me that the uproar in general is pretty pervasive.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe they're too busy as you suggest.

 

Maybe when it is examined, they could easily spell out why the religious zealots bear 100% of the blame for the rancor.  At least they will have it documented.  "They're a bunch of idiots", is not a scientific assessment of the situation IMO.

 

Maybe when it is examined, they'll find that it is remotely possible that they are not perfect and perhaps there is a slight chance that they could explain things a little bit better.  Maybe they bear a half o percent of the blame for all the angst.  I doubt it though, because they are scientists, therefore they are already doing a perfect job a re-assessing themselves.  It comes with the title.

498832[/snapback]

 

No, I got that. You said that science is not examining its own theories, and they should. And I'm telling you they do, you're dead-nuts wrong, and don't have so much as the first clue what you're talking about.

[GG]

No, I got that.  You said that science is not examining its own theories, and they should.  And I'm telling you they do, you're dead-nuts wrong, and don't have so much as the first clue what you're talking about.

498911[/snapback]

 

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that while they examine their own theories, a bunch of people still don't believe them, and they should try better to explain those theories so that more people will believe them.

 

Nice concept, but failed from the beginning, because in order for those people to believe the scientists, they'll have to forgo faith.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That's not what he's saying.  He's saying that while they examine their own theories, a bunch of people still don't believe them, and they should try better to explain those theories so that more people will believe them. 

 

Nice concept, but failed from the beginning, because in order for those people to believe the scientists, they'll have to forgo faith.

498917[/snapback]

 

Ah...so science should examine non-scientific theories...

 

 

...because...?

[OGTEleven]

No, I got that.  You said that science is not examining its own theories, and they should.  And I'm telling you they do, you're dead-nuts wrong, and don't have so much as the first clue what you're talking about.

 

 

That's not what he's saying.  He's saying that while they examine their own theories, a bunch of people still don't believe them, and they should try better to explain those theories so that more people will believe them. 

 

Nice concept, but failed from the beginning, because in order for those people to believe the scientists, they'll have to forgo faith.

498917[/snapback]

Both wrong.

 

CTM, I have no idea where you are coming from. Maybe you're just trying to be obnoxious because in my last reply to you I used very specific words.

 

Here they are again:

 

In this particular case, I don't think the teachers are using proper science to examine their teaching methods.

 

That statement makes absolutely no generalizations whatsoever about science. If you think that it does, you have a reading/logic problem.

 

If you think the teachers are using proper self examination, you should probably cite an example.

 

All I see is the teaching communitiy calling zealots idiots. Maybe I have missed some evidence introspection or something similar in an article. If you have seen this evidence as you appear to claim, I'd be glad to read it. If it's more fun to hold it back and just call me an idiot, than have at it.

 

While I agree that it is highly probable that the zealots are idiots and at least 90% to blame, probablity and assertions are not proof.

 

 

GG,

 

Of course all theories should be continuosly re-examined but that is not releveant to my point. Personally, I've seen enough to be convinced regarding evolution. I think this is the third time I've stated that here. I'm not even saying they should "try harder until people believe in evolution".

 

I'm saying that the current results include people getting up in arms over something that should be easily accepted. This likely isn't the desired result of the educators. Although this is probably mostly the fault of those up in arms, there is no reason to assume someone else is 100% to blame.

[CookieG]

I just don't think it's widespread enough to warrant the introspection.  PA just got rid of everyone on the board that was pro-creationism.  The Kansas board vote was 6-4.  Whatever.  Notice (timeline table ) how since 1999 it's been switched back and forth...1999:6-4 creationism....2001:7-3 evolution...now it's 6-4 creationism again.  It'll change next year.

 

Quite frankly, Kansas is good in that it keeps this out in the open, and the debate shows this for what it is...a conservative religious agenda.

498791[/snapback]

 

 

It won't last long. I doubt many of the schools will bother to change the standards before a new board change:

 

http://cjonline.com/stories/110905/loc_evo2.shtml

 

3 of the more prominent nutcases already have challengers to their elections next year.

 

But since I have 2 sons in the Kansas public school system (K and 2nd grade), and now that the State Board has changed the definition of science to come to supernatural causes, what should I recommend to my second grader for his science project next spring? (he did a kickass tornado last year).

 

I'm leaning towards the Blair Witch Project.

[Fan in Chicago]

For Pete's sake read my post.

 

Maybe when it is examined, they could easily spell out why the religious zealots bear 100% of the blame for the rancor.  At least they will have it documented.  "They're a bunch of idiots", is not a scientific assessment of the situation IMO.

 

498832[/snapback]

 

Okay, I am going to back off simply because this debate is getting too acrimonius. I will end by saying that teachers and scientists don't have to spend their valuable time because I am convinced the opposition comes from one group alone. It is not wide spread and their protests are not based in science. If the teaching methodology was wrong, we would all be confused by now which all involved in this debate in this thread do not appear to be. I say leave well enough alone. {exiting debate}

[GG]

I'm saying that the current results include people getting up in arms over something that should be easily accepted.  This likely isn't the desired result of the educators.  Although this is probably mostly the fault of those up in arms, there is no reason to assume someone else is 100% to blame.

498951[/snapback]

 

And this is where you lose me. Defining something as "easily accepted" means that the facts surrounding the theory are so compelling that only an idiot would not accept them as the best available explanation of whatever you're trying to prove.

 

So if you admit that evolution should be easily accepted, and if most of the opposition are likely not idiots, then there's probably a fundamental reason why evolution isn't accepted by them, and no degree of introspection by scientists is going to change that.

[OGTEleven]

And this is where you lose me.  Defining something as "easily accepted" means that the facts surrounding the theory are so compelling that only an idiot would not accept them as the best available explanation of whatever you're trying to prove.

 

So if you admit that evolution should be easily accepted, and if most of the opposition are likely not idiots, then there's probably a fundamental reason why evolution isn't accepted by them, and no degree of introspection by scientists is going to change that.

498970[/snapback]

I did word that part poorly. Instead of saying it "should be easily accepted" I should have said "should be easily accepted and unthreatening". Clearly it is threatening to many, and not just creationists.

 

Introspection may not change the teaching methods and/or results. Then again it may. The underlying science should never be abandoned. At least not from what I can see. How it is being taught is up for debate IMO.

 

I'm in sales (I know this qualifies me as stupid and unworthy of posting in an opinion forum). Let's say I have 100 customers for which my product is the best. Let's say 6 of them improperly view it as a threat to their jobs. In point of fact it is not, but they perceive it to be.

 

I could simply conclude that they are idiots and not review how I'm selling my product. I still have the other 94 customers. I could also be inquisitive as to why my message was being received in a distorted manner. In the end I might tweak my pitch. If not, I'll still have 94 customers. If I do, I might have 100, or 97, or still 94. Maybe I'd even lose some. That doesn't mean I should simply write off the 6 as morons and not give it a second thought. I should take the 6 naysayers as a signal that I should at least examine my practices.

[TheMadCap]

I think that GG and CTM are correct, the opposition to evolution is from a very specific, minority group. People who push for ID are the same people who are not interested in examining the issue, they just want it thier way.

 

This is nothing new. The christian church had a great deal to do with delaying scientific progress about a thousand years. They change the rules (ie, the Bible) as it suits them, adding and deleting material as they deem necessary. Religion is the antithesis of science for them.

 

I am a chemist, have been for years. While I personally do not believe in creationism as stated in the bible, that does not mean I don't believe in God. Very few of my colleagues are what would be called atheists.

 

The problem with your arguement OTG is that you assume that the other side here, the ID folks, are interested in the debate. They can't be convinced, because they incorrectly believe that evolution somehow cheapens thier faith. Much like it was once considered blasphemy to have the audacity to say that Earth was not the center of a perfect universe designed by the God of Isreal...