Kansas does it again

[Mickey]

Your misinterpratation of what I was saying seems to have led to some sort of meltdown.  I'll refrain from calling you hopelessly ignorant because I probably could have used better wording. 

 

My statement was not about the theory of evolution at all.  I have no problem with evolution or the science behind it. 

 

What I was saying is that the scientific community, or at least its purported advocates, are not employing scientific method to the results of their teaching.  If I were teaching evolution and enough of my community objected, I would probably be angry at first and think of these people as ignorant jerky losers.  But if my scientific side truly kicked in, I might at least examine why so many people were angry.  I'm talking about applying scientific method to the teaching practice.

 

If so many people are angry, enough to drive changes in laws, shouldn't I want to know why?  Shouldn't I at least give some perfunctory attempt to explain that the science in question does not offer value judgements on God?  Shouldn't I at least listen when they explain why they think it does?  Shouldn't I repeatedly inspect my teaching methods?  Or should I just call them a bunch of ignorant jerky losers and leave it at that? 

 

I have never seen any introspection evident in the teaching community on this topic.  Maybe it is there but just doesn't show up in these articles.  Or maybe they just go with the "ignorant jerky loser" strategy because it works.

498634[/snapback]

You are taking them to task for not doing what in fact, they do. Scientist have looked at intelligent design/creationism, at length. Many scientists have taken the position that evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. They haven't called these people "jerky losers", they have very patiently examined their postions and, as the science shows, the so called "scientific" claims of intelligent design/creationism simply don't stand up. What do you want them to do? I don't think a minister should have to mention science in church and I don't think a scientist should be going on about God in my kid's science class. There is little enough time to get physics taught without adding in a dose of theology.

 

They aren't debating teaching and educational theories here. They are forcing religion into a science class.

 

I think many christians fear evolution because it threatens their beliefs, especially if their beliefs include a very literal intepretation of scripture. For them, if evolution is true, then their beliefs are not. They seem to me to then make the assumption that since for them accepting evolution is atheism then all who accept it, scientists, must therefore be atheists. The constant painting of scientists as being anti-religion, dismissive of religion or disrespectful to people of faith is simply not supported by the facts. Most scientists are themselves people of faith.

 

This isn't a contest between people who believe in God and people who don't. It is more a contest between people who believe in God and evolution and people who believe in God but not evolution.

 

I have no studies to cite on all this, its strictly base on my own opinions and observations of an issue that I have followed very closely for some years now.

[OGTEleven]

You are taking them to task for not doing what in fact, they do.  Scientist have looked at intelligent design/creationism, at length.  Many scientists have taken the position that evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God.  They haven't called these people "jerky losers", they have very patiently examined their postions and, as the science shows, the so called "scientific" claims of intelligent design/creationism simply don't stand up.  What do you want them to do?  I don't think a minister should have to mention science in church and I don't think a scientist should be going on about God in my kid's science class.  There is little enough time to get physics taught without adding in a dose of theology. 

 

They aren't debating teaching and educational theories here.  They are forcing religion into a science class. 

 

I think many christians fear evolution because it threatens their beliefs, especially if their beliefs include a very literal intepretation of scripture.  For them, if evolution is true, then their beliefs are not.  They seem to me to then make the assumption that since for them accepting evolution is atheism then all who accept it, scientists, must therefore be atheists.  The constant painting of scientists as being anti-religion, dismissive of religion or disrespectful to people of faith is simply not supported by the facts.  Most scientists are themselves people of faith.

 

This isn't a contest between people who believe in God and people who don't.  It is more a contest between people who believe in God and evolution and people who believe in God but not evolution. 

 

I have no studies to cite on all this, its strictly base on my own opinions and observations of an issue that I have followed very closely for some years now.

498656[/snapback]

Here are my opinions so you understand from where I'm coming (only opinions so I prefer not to have them called steamingly ignorant by a monkey):

 

Evolution has a preponderence of evidence backing it up. It should be taught in schools as part of science.

 

ID is generally bunk which was partly contrived by zealots whose own weak faith fostered an irrational fear of evolution. IMO, it does not belong in school, elective or not.

 

There are other Christians that see evolution as an affront to their realtively strong faith. This may be from a lack of understanding on their part. It may be a result of poor/incomplete teaching at the school. It may be a combination. For whatever the reason, there are enough people in this category to help the zealots move their agenda forward. This is bad for everyone.

 

This should lead the teaching community/adminstration(s) to re-examine their methods, and/or better explain what they are currently teaching, so that the public understands. I don't think that this is unreasonable and I believe it would help the school systems in the long run. Perhaps it would leave the courses intact, perhaps they might require tweaking.I find it curious that they disagree.

[Johnny Coli]

This should lead the teaching community/adminstration(s) to re-examine  their methods, and/or better explain what they are currently teaching, so that the public understands. 

498692[/snapback]

Why?

 

Teaching the scientific method using the scientific method has worked pretty damn well up until now. Why should scientists bow to the whim of a bunch of zealots with a theological agenda, who I don't believe give a damn about science at all? Why should we change a damn thing?

[Fan in Chicago]

You are taking them to task for not doing what in fact, they do.  Scientist have looked at intelligent design/creationism, at length. 

498656[/snapback]

 

I will add that the onus of providing proof lies with the person making a claim not on the person listening to it. It is like saying there is intelligent life out there but you prove me wrong. It should be up to me to go to mars, get soil samples, find biological material or a living alien to substantiate my claim. Why should scientists evaluate and try to prove what the ID theorists are claiming ?

[GG]

This should lead the teaching community/adminstration(s) to re-examine  their methods, and/or better explain what they are currently teaching, so that the public understands.  I don't think that this is unreasonable and I believe it would help the school systems in the long run.  Perhaps it would leave the courses intact, perhaps they might require tweaking.I find it curious that they disagree.

498692[/snapback]

 

I believe this was the topic at Dover, but the issue revolved whether this discussion belonged in a science class or not. Since you also agree that ID is not science, that discussion was moved to the religion class.

 

If I had to guess on why evolution studies are having a hard time penetrating a heavily religious community, my guess is evolution runs counter to the religion, and no introspecive thinking on the part of the science communirt will change the outcome.

[sweet baboo]

There are other Christians that see evolution as an affront to their realtively strong faith.  This may be from a lack of understanding on their part.  It may be a result of poor/incomplete teaching at the school.  It may be a combination.  For whatever the reason, there are enough people in this category to help the zealots move their agenda forward.  This is bad for everyone.

 

498692[/snapback]

 

there was an attractive black girl from mobile alabama that came and did a summer internship in one of the labs on my floor last summer...she comes from a good family, is well educated and is currently attending tuskegee medical schoo

all sounds good until you talk about anything involving religion...the girl is batshiat crazy...somehow, after taking all the biology classes required for premed, she believes in adam and eve and thinks evolution is bunk (i recall something about fossils and dinosaur bones were placed on earth by satan to fool people)...she also thinks the apocalypse is coming (pointed at the tsunamis in thailand and earthquakes from who knows when as coming signs...no idea what she thought of hurricane katrina, but i know it hit mobile pretty hard)

also told me any non-christians were going straight to hell...doesn't matter if you heard of jesus or not

pity...she was HOT!

[Mickey]

I will add that the onus of providing proof lies with the person making a claim not on the person listening to it. It is like saying there is intelligent life out there but you prove me wrong. It should be up to me to go to mars, get soil samples, find biological material or a living alien to substantiate my claim. Why should scientists evaluate and try to prove what the ID theorists are claiming ?

498705[/snapback]

I think he is trying to say that part of the blame for people erroneously believing that evolution is a threat to religion is in part due to the manner, method and means employed in teaching science. I think the problem is far more caused by those who insist that evolution and atheism are the same. That point has been made so loudly and so often that preople who know little of evolution but cherish their faith repond negatively in polls about believing in evolution. They say "no" because they have been told that to do otherwise would be to deny the faith they hold dear.

 

Really, the problem in our science classes are that we aren't teaching enough science, not that teachers are not adequately addressing related theistic issues. These kids, I fear, are lagging behind much of the rest of the world when it comes to science. That worries me, not whether or not christians understand that it is okay for them to believe in evolution.

[OGTEleven]

Why?

 

Teaching the scientific method using the scientific method has worked pretty damn well up until now. Why should scientists bow to the whim of a bunch of zealots with a theological agenda, who I don't believe give a damn about science at all?  Why should we change a damn thing?

498704[/snapback]

I'm not talking about teaching the scientific method or even evolution. I'm talking about applying scientific method to the way in which evolution is being taught.

 

If a community uproar is the desired result of the teaching method, then the method need not be re-examined. If that is not the desired result shouldn't the teaching community at least take an inward look? If this re-examination concludes that the religious fanatics are the sole cause for all of the issues, then so be it. I'd be all for publishing that and if it were sound I'd back it wholeheartedly.

 

Your approach seems to be concluding that all of these protests are completely invalid and spawned by idiots and that all of the teaching methods must be good simply because they are teaching methods.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

there was an attractive black girl from mobile alabama that came and did a summer internship in one of the labs on my floor last summer...she comes from a good family, is well educated and is currently attending tuskegee medical schoo

all sounds good until you talk about anything involving religion...the girl is batshiat crazy...somehow, after taking all the biology classes required for premed, she believes in adam and eve and thinks evolution is bunk (i recall something about fossils and dinosaur bones were placed on earth by satan to fool people)...she also thinks the apocalypse is coming (pointed at the tsunamis in thailand and earthquakes from who knows when as coming signs...no idea what she thought of hurricane katrina, but i know it hit mobile pretty hard)

also told me any non-christians were going straight to hell...doesn't matter if you heard of jesus or not

pity...she was HOT! 

498716[/snapback]

 

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that if we are all going straight to hell, you'll be a couple seats in front of the rest of us!

[OGTEleven]

If I had to guess on why evolution studies are having a hard time penetrating a heavily religious community, my guess is evolution runs counter to the religion, and no introspecive thinking on the part of the science communirt will change the outcome.

498710[/snapback]

That's clearly possible, but science owes it to itself to try. Yet, they still don't.

[Hirly5]

For any of you interested, here is a link to tons of info on the Dover Monkey Trial in Pa.  It includes transcripts.  Check out the ones where the Judge started asking questions of the School Board witnesses.  These people are dedicated christians who first tried to get creationism taught and then switched to "Intelligent Design" which is basically the same thing.  They are the ones who pushed for the Intelligent Design statement that led to the law suit.  Anyway, they lied like crazy on the stand and the Judge finally had enough of it and started to ask questions himself.  His questioning of a guy named Bonsell (day 18) and some woman named Geesey (day 17) was interesting to read.  He nailed them both, on the record.  Just look where it says "examination by the court".

 

Dover Monkey Trial

498500[/snapback]

That was some interesting reading. I liked it how 3 of the Board Members were the only people informed on the new books. Two wanted the books and other didnt. The Geesey lady had no idea what the books were about, didnt do any independent research yet found it possible to vote on the subject due to what other people said about the books. I find that amazing. I guess if the others told her to jump off a bridge she would do it.

 

I liked how the judge got involved. The Bonsell guy got called out at the end by the judge. It was very entertaining read. It helped my work day move along. Good find.

[Johnny Coli]

Your approach seems to be concluding that all of these protests are completely invalid and spawned by idiots and that all of the teaching methods must be good simply because they are teaching methods.

498724[/snapback]

Bingo .

 

I guess you'd have to examine how widespread the problem is, and if it's worth it to sacrifice the way science has been taught, which has been pretty damn effective. Personally, I think it's a waste of time, because these people don't give a rat's as$ about science or evolution, and are using ID to push an agenda. You let in ID, and a few years later you have to bow to them again?

[Johnny Coli]

That's clearly possible, but science owes it to itself to try.  Yet, they still don't.

498729[/snapback]

Science doesn't owe these people anything.

[OGTEleven]

Science doesn't owe these people anything.

498751[/snapback]

Read my post again. I said science owes it to itself.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your misinterpratation of what I was saying seems to have led to some sort of meltdown.  I'll refrain from calling you hopelessly ignorant because I probably could have used better wording. 

 

My statement was not about the theory of evolution at all.  I have no problem with evolution or the science behind it. 

 

What I was saying is that the scientific community, or at least its purported advocates, are not employing scientific method to the results of their teaching.  If I were teaching evolution and enough of my community objected, I would probably be angry at first and think of these people as ignorant jerky losers.  But if my scientific side truly kicked in, I might at least examine why so many people were angry.  I'm talking about applying scientific method to the teaching practice.

 

If so many people are angry, enough to drive changes in laws, shouldn't I want to know why?  Shouldn't I at least give some perfunctory attempt to explain that the science in question does not offer value judgements on God?  Shouldn't I at least listen when they explain why they think it does?  Shouldn't I repeatedly inspect my teaching methods?  Or should I just call them a bunch of ignorant jerky losers and leave it at that? 

 

I have never seen any introspection evident in the teaching community on this topic.  Maybe it is there but just doesn't show up in these articles.  Or maybe they just go with the "ignorant jerky loser" strategy because it works.

498634[/snapback]

 

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.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That's clearly possible, but science owes it to itself to try.  Yet, they still don't.

498729[/snapback]

 

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

[Fan in Chicago]

I'm not talking about teaching the scientific method or even evolution.  I'm talking about applying scientific method to the way in which evolution is being taught.

 

If a community uproar is the desired result of the teaching method, then the method need not be re-examined.  If that is not the desired result  shouldn't the teaching community at least take an inward look?  If this re-examination concludes that the religious fanatics are the sole cause for all of the issues, then so be it.  I'd be all for publishing that and if it were sound I'd back it wholeheartedly.

 

Your approach seems to be concluding that all of these protests are completely invalid and spawned by idiots and that all of the teaching methods must be good simply because they are teaching methods.

498724[/snapback]

 

Okay, let me try something else. Back since the 40s, people believing in UFOs and existence/visits of aliens on earth were termed as 'conspiracy nuts', which they very well might be. By the same logic, shouldn't those advocating ID be called 'religious crazies' ? The belief of a fair section of the public in UFOs did not cause the scientific community at large to go about trying to prove the existence of aliens. Largely, scientific process looks at evidence and tries to build up a theory to support it. There was no evidence for UFOs besides visual sightings that could be misinterpreted.

My point is, I am not convinced a large enough section of population believes in ID and even those that do have no real basis for making the claims save for theological ones. IF that is true, then it is a waste of scientists time to go about trying to prove it. given there is a lot more out there to be discovered.

[OGTEleven]

Bingo  .

 

I guess you'd have to examine how widespread the problem is,

 

and if it's worth it to sacrifice the way science has been taught, which has been pretty damn effective. 

 

Personally, I think it's a waste of time, because these people don't give a rat's as$ about science or evolution, and are using ID to push an agenda.

 

You let in ID, and a few years later you have to bow to them again?

498748[/snapback]

1.

It seems to be pretty widespread, but that is certainly anecdotal. In the places where the debate is hot (KS, PA) i would think there is a good impetus.

 

2. The strongest word I used was tweak and I only applied it to the way evolution is taught and the conclusions that are reached. that is hardly an indictment of scientific method, and nowhere near a sacrifice.

 

3. IMO, you are definitely at least partially right, but it is also possible that current teaching methods are somewhere south of perfect. Why not have at least some introspection if for nothing else but to prove you are taking the high road?

 

4. I don't think ID should be in school.

[Johnny Coli]

Read my post again.  I said science owes it to itself.

498758[/snapback]

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.

[OGTEleven]

Okay, let me try something else. Back since the 40s, people believing in UFOs and existence/visits of aliens on earth were termed as 'conspiracy nuts', which they very well might be. By the same logic, shouldn't those advocating ID be called 'religious crazies' ? The belief of a fair section of the public in UFOs did not cause the scientific community at large to go about trying to prove the existence of aliens. Largely, scientific process looks at evidence and tries to build up a theory to support it. There was no evidence for UFOs besides visual sightings that could be misinterpreted.

My point is, I am not convinced a large enough section of population believes in ID and even those that do have no real basis for making the claims save for theological ones. IF that is true, then it is a waste of scientists time to go about trying to prove it. given there is a lot more out there to be discovered.

498765[/snapback]

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?