Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

In response to your first point, Thomas, about dollars and what a "creationist" losses, i simply refer back to the conditions implicit in locally controlled democratic institutions. Many, many people hold religious points of view, teach them to their children, and send those children to public schools. Those whose feelings are so vehement that they cannot abide the notion of the children even being exposed to scientific teaching which they consider at odds with their belief system need to bite the bullet and pay the extra costs. Millions of tax- and ratepayers in the U.S. pay for educational systems, the services of which they never avail themselves, having no children in school. In an old 'Merican expression--tough titty.

In response to your second point, that creeps me out. Having children is doing a service to the state? How so--preserving the race? I do not believe that i am at all incorrect in stating that the principle underlying public educational systems is to provide the republic with educated and therefore, ostensibly, responsible citizens.

I would be interested to know, with regard to your third point, precisely what you would propose in place of a single science curriculum (and states traditionally provide curricula guidelines, and make available curriculum aids, without mandating the details of any curriculum). I'd like you to explain that better.

As to your fourth point, i personally have not suggested that an understanding of the theory of evolution contributes to the ability of individuals to function in society. I have been particular about pointing out that it is one part of the life sciences component of general science education. I personally do not consider it practical to attempt within a single school district to provide more than one science curriculum, except insofar as the curriculum of each instructor may embody variations on the same themes. Once again, i think you need to better explain what you're getting at.

And finally, with regard to Dorothy, Toto and all of the other surreality of Kansas--in fact if i were living there with school age children, no i wouldn't like it, but my personal view of how republican government works and ought to work would lead me to accept that i'd need to suck it up and cope. Or, as i suggested in the reverse situation, vote with my feet.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Those whose feelings are so vehement that they cannot abide the notion of the children even being exposed to scientific teaching which they consider at odds with their belief system need to bite the bullet and pay the extra costs.

Let's agree to disagree then. I believe there are settings under which they don't need to, and that they are more attractive than the current settings.

Setanta wrote:

In response to your second point, that creeps me out. Having children is doing a service to the state? How so--preserving the race?

Not to the state, but to society. While nobody talks about "preserving the race" here, there is a fairly broad consensus that a childless society is unattractive. Among other things, on a more materialistic note, they keep our public pension system solvent once they've grown up. There is a fairly common perception that those who choose not to have children are to some extent free-riders on those who choose to have some, and that they ought to pay their fair share of the benefit they are receiving.

Setanta wrote:

I do not believe that i am at all incorrect in stating that the principle underlying public educational systems is to provide the republic with educated and therefore, ostensibly, responsible citizens.

Agreed. But the benefit to the republic is that its citizens are educated in some way, not that they are educated in one way as opposed to another. To make the case against opting out with vouchers, you would have to argue for the latter proposition. (I just notice that this is the first time I say that vouching out is the alternative I propose. I assumed it was clear from the context, but I didn't articulate it in my previous posts. My mistake, sorry)

Setanta wrote:

I would be interested to know, with regard to your third point, precisely what you would propose in place of a single science curriculum (and states traditionally provide curricula guidelines, and make available curriculum aids, without mandating the details of any curriculum). I'd like you to explain that better.

I would propose that every parent gets a voucher covering the full cost of having their child educated. For a first pass, call it $9000 per child, to be paid out of the same taxes that currently pay them. All parents who like the public school system can spend their voucher there. All who don't, would spend it in any other school. The government would not interfere with the curriculum of any school it doesn't run. For a second pass, to make the system work in the real world, I anticipate there would have to be some complications and adjustments. For example, the government would still have to check whether something is a school. It would have to prevent people from setting up "schools" that simply pay the voucher money back to the parents in cash. There would have to be yet another correction to make sure that parents can still use voucher money to home-school their children. For another example, there would have to be a way to increase the amount of the voucher when a child is disabled. No doubt there would be lots of other adjustments of this kind. But I hope this will do for a basic outline, and I don't expect any complications that would be show-stoppers.

Setanta wrote:

And finally, with regard to Dorothy, Toto and all of the other surreality of Kansas--in fact if i were living there with school age children, no i wouldn't like it, but my personal view of how republican government works and ought to work would lead me to accept that i'd need to suck it up and cope. Or, as i suggested in the reverse situation, vote with my feet.

And if Kansas gave you a full voucher so you could send your child to that heretic, secular school that teaches the theory of evolution -- would you prefer that to voting with your feet? Do you think it would impose an excessive burden on the creationist majority?

0 Replies

Your first point refers to a remark of mine which is a statement of how it works here now. My personal opinion happens to be largely consonant with that, but i was intent on describing the system as it works, not necessarily saying how it ought to be.

As to your second, i see the point, but still find it rather bizarre basis for such decisions. I am rather addicted to a concept that republics ought to concern themselves with prinicples of governance based on individual equality, and in my view, the decision to have or not to have children is irrelevant to that basis for governance. I'm not indulging in bashing the views of your society, just taking note a point of view unfamiliar to me.

I find your third point somewhat disingenuous. Those who teach a theory of evolution are not making an arbitrary choice about what to teach, they are teaching one of the core assumptions of contemporary science. I cannot at all accept a description of that as somehow being an abitrary choice among equal options. More about vouchers in a moment.

Both vouchers and "charter schools" have been tried here in Ohio. The results have been mixed, but have largely been a disappointment both to those who agitated for them, and those who opposed them. I've already noted a particular case in which voucher recipients forced the state to pay for a private aircraft to fly their children to the mainland to use their vouchers. Charter Schools were instituted a few years ago to a great deal of fanfare, and ran into trouble right away. It seems that quite a few people took this as a cue to set up their idiosyncratic ideal of a school, and others seem to have seen it as an opportunity to scam the state. I would recommend a web search of "charter school+Ohio" for some informative research. One of the problems which the voucher program encountered was after the fact, when people became uncomfortable with the notion of handing a check to someone. Although supportive at first, they began to realize that a public school was a tangible which they could control, at least in part and perhaps indirectly, but that with vouchers, they were in effect handing their tax money over to strangers with no restraints on how it were used, and no opportunity for oversight. Additionally, a voucher system will either be an honor system open to scandalous exploitation, or the state, and therefore the taxpayers, will have to have a second governance and oversight system for institutions receiving voucher payments equivalent to that in place for the public schools--the costs would be far higher than the current "public schools or you're on your own" system. Not a snide observation, but "lots of other adjustments" is an incredible understatement.

With regard to Kansas, although it may be true, it is not axiomatic that there is a "creationist" majority there. It would be more precise to state that there is an apparent creationist majority among those members of the electorate who can be relied upon to vote, in the estimation of Kansas politicians. This is a crucial point in all the issues arising from religion in this country--that the vocal conservative christians may well be (i think it fair to say definitely are, but don't insist upon the point) simply a politically activist minority with whom a majority of the electorate don't have a quarrel as opposed to an expression of the opinion of an absolute majority. No, i definitely would not consider such a voucher system an imposition on a putative creationist majority, inasmuch as they have changed the existing system due to a demand that their special point of view be accomodated. Sauce for a gander being sufficient to grace a goose, they'd need to grin and bear it.

0 Replies

The entire issue in Kansas is an unripe banana at this point. Let it fully ripen . Itll be a close race between Dover and Kansas , as to which one ends up at the USSC.(Not a reality that Im particularly thrilled about these days)

Thomas, your original comment to my post regarded the fact that , inorder for Creationist views to be embraced in an ed system, the parents would, in effect have to "pay twice".
YOU BETCHA. In this country we have a tax supported ed system that is governed locally with state guidelines that must be met. (this theoretically guarantees a "one size fits all sorta" curriculum). If your personal beliefs are at odds with the curriculum, say , you are an Orthdox Flat Earthist, you may be free to set up your own flatearth ed system. (Now merely substitute Creationism or ID).To enjoy this opportunity to spread the word of flatearthism, you must first support the public ed system with your taxes, then you may be free to add additional . units of geography toyour own schools program. However, you are still obliged to have your students perform at a prescribed "guideline" level for all relevant core subjects.

We have plenty of private, parochial, prep, military, and agricultural schools that are privately funded and attended by kids whose parents pay the double fee. To paraphrase what set said, "So what?" participation in the public school system doesnt imply that you have a say in morphing the curriculum into something that is more aligned with your personal beliefs.

I dont believe I equated evolution with function for citizenship. Whoever said that was engaging in a bit of hyperbole. However, since evolution is a conclusion that depends upon evidence developed by a matrix of other sciences, its going to be hard to traqin top scientists in almost any field without recognizing this matrix and acknowledging its power. eg Beers law (taught in High school chem) is the basis of spectrochemistry, spectrochemistry depends upon "c", ""C" affects the lamda constants in isotope breaqkdown,. The age of the earth is somewaht a conclusion of isotope chemistry, and finally, eviolution is based upon an earth that has a readable andold history. Start chinkin away at any of the bricks and you affect the outcomes of the conclusions. The Creationists know this, thats why they arent only picking at evolution. THEY NEED to disprove a lot of science. I for one, am not interested in my kid, who wishes to be a geneticist, having to relearn biology in college.

As set said, the Charter school experiment is still in the data collection stage. Here in Pa, as one would expect, weve had good news and bad.For example, A number of Charter schools have been raided and charged under RICO(racketeering) statutes. (Im so proud of the entrepreneurial spirit that is still alive here in Pa).We have a number of the charter schools that were involved in student "kiting", an elegantly brilliant yet simple way to turn individual students into vast headcounts of revenue. Until the charter school system has been (probably by burdensome regulation) brought into line, the concept of vouchers is still out.

Since I was a product of the Catholic SChools of the Allentown diocese, I swore that, come bombs or plagues, I would never send my dear kiddies to have their minds crimped by the "Sisters of Painand Eternal Guilt". Even though scholarship has been foremost in the Parochial schools, It exacts a price that results in stifled creativity.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

parados wrote:
The thing is that we do care about what all kids learn. The point of education standards is that we set what children should learn to function in society. Every state in the US has minimun standards that need to be met to graduate. All children are required to meet them even those that are home schooled or in Jerry Falwell's school.

Is it your contention that one cannot function in society without understanding the theory of evolution? That contention would be absurd -- if it were true, anyone who lived before 1859 could not function in society. I believe I must have misunderstood your statement.

Schools teach many things, math, science, language. All are needed at some level in order to find work in society, particularly as we become more and more advanced and physical labor is no longer a work option. Someone schooled in 1859 could function in the 1859 society. Would they be able to function as well in the 2005 society? Some skills would translate but in other areas they would be lost. A prospective employer would have no idea what their basic skill levels would be. Any job training would involve areas that are now expected in HS graduates.

As others here have stated far more elegantly than I, this is not just about the theory of evolution. It is about the building blocks of science. Can a person really understand science if sometimes they have to follow the scientific method and other times they can ignore it? If a person can ignore science when they see fit in the field of biology why can't the ignore it in math or physics? Already the US is starting to trail the rest of the world in engineers and other science fields. Do we really want to allow a standard that would make all students from the US suspect?

ID is an hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. If we teach kids that an hypothesis can have the same weight as theory then why can't an hypothesis that a supreme being will support a bridge have as much weight as the theories used in engineering?

0 Replies

thomas said[/QUOTE]So sure, nobody is denying the fundamentalists any rights -- just imposing a $9000 fine per year on anyone who excercises this particular one.

Quote:

Please, my heart weeps for them, they are a bunch of cynical data twisters and deniers of fact.TheCreationist believers dont want to really improve education by petitioning for Creation and ID included in school science, they are just( in their zeal) attempting to screw up the matrix of science to include some pre-Victorian alternate world view that has been proven incorrect over and overWhy should their views be given equal time any more than phlogiston or "vis plastica"? The teachers have only so much time in the year to get the basics across, and
our ed system is F*cked up enough even before we install a further watered down curriculum that believes that
"everybody's science has merit and should be taught and we'll just let the parents sort out the chaff at home. Or better still, wait for college"
Maybe knowledge about Darwinian evolution wont make better citizens, but "teaching the controversy" as a valid prep to a college education will surely create a bunch of confused ones

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Thomas wrote:
So sure, nobody is denying the fundamentalists any rights -- just imposing a $9000 fine per year on anyone who excercises this particular one.

Please, my heart weeps for them, they are a bunch of cynical data twisters and deniers of fact.

I notice that you make no effort to argue that this particular fact is false.

farmerman wrote:

Why should their views be given equal time any more than phlogiston or "vis plastica"?

I think they shouldn't. I also think this is not my decision to make for other people's children, and not other people's decision to make for mine. In my view, your "so what?", and Setanta's "tough titties", boil down to "might makes right, and we enlightened folk still have might around here". With respect, might does not make right. I agree with both of you that evolution is the only persuasive explanation we have for the fossil, morphological, and genetic records. But that doesn't give anyone the right to enforce this notion on the children of unwilling parents.

(Off to follow Setanta's advice and Google for Ohios voucher- and charter school experiences. Will be back with more once I've studied it.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

In my view, your "so what?", and Setanta's "tough titties", boil down to "might makes right, and we enlightened folk still have might around here". With respect, might does not make right.

Although i enjoy a vigorous intellectual inquiry in many of your posts, there is also a subcurrent of snide contempt which ruins much of what you write for me. When browsing threads, i often skip over your posts for exactly that reason--seeing you gratuitously take a subtle swipe at your interlocutor. What i have quoted above, along with your earlier remark about "that heretic, secular school" are fine examples of this. Just to be as snotty about this as you feel justified in being, if a school is secular, it cannot be heretical, because that which is secular is certainly not that which is religious, and therefore heresy is not relevant--except of course, in the minds of those who cannot see life and society in any other terms.

This phrase: "might makes right, and we enlightened folk still have might around here"--is another disgusting example of this penchant on your part. I have displayed not the least bit of elitism with regard to those with whom i disagree. I have not once characterized myself as superior to religious people in the least. The "might" to which you are referring is the power embodied in locally controlled democratic institutions. In those institutions, the majority makes the might, and the might makes the regulation--whether or not anyone is pleased to describe said regulation as right or wrong is a matter of indifference to the process and its results. My "tough titty" remark was simply to acknowledge the reality of how the system works, and has worked for quite a long time. Realizing that simple passage of time does not "hallow" regulation and practice, i will point out that the passage of time has been of sufficient length for the majority to have fundamentally altered the rules of the game were it widely considered to be prenicious.

Please spare me your psuedo-indignation, the more especially when you find it necessary to twist the meaning of what i have written in order to prepare the exalted platform from which you plan to sneer at me. It is your right to hold and promote conservative and selfish values--i don't deny that for a moment. It is also my right to castigate you for a pathetic and invidious attempt to erect a strawman with which to object to my observations on the traditional American methods of funding and regulating public schools.

0 Replies

" Among other things, on a more materialistic note, they keep our public pension system solvent once they've grown up."

Whoa. Make children to keep our pension system solvent? If that's your idea of making children, what is life supposed to be about? Social security?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Although i enjoy a vigorous intellectual inquiry in many of your posts, there is also a subcurrent of snide contempt which ruins much of what you write for me.

I am sorry I came across to you as snide and contemptuous -- especially since in this thread, I perceived a genuine effort on your part to restrain your own temper, and to teach me something about how things really work in Ohio. Your efforts are much appreciated, and I assure you there is no contempt on my part towards you, nor to anyone else in this thread. Instead, what offended you is probably an offshot of my habit to exaggerate my points, often in a snotty way, to make sure they come across. Since your own writing is often characterized by a blunt and confrontative way of putting things, I wrongly assumed you would understand that. Please accept my apologies.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I think they shouldn't. I also think this is not my decision to make for other people's children, and not other people's decision to make for mine. In my view, your "so what?", and Setanta's "tough titties", boil down to "might makes right, and we enlightened folk still have might around here". With respect, might does not make right. I agree with both of you that evolution is the only persuasive explanation we have for the fossil, morphological, and genetic records. But that doesn't give anyone the right to enforce this notion on the children of unwilling parents.

Don't we as a society have a responsibility to try to educate children? We have the right to prevent child abuse of other forms. At what point do we decide parents can treat their kids any way they want to?

The area may be grey but the historical fact has been that US states can set an educational standard and require all students meet it. In order to home school you have to demonstrate to the state that you are meeting those standards. Children are required by law to get an education. As to what that education is, might does make right. The might of the majority decides what the standards should be. The majority has left that standard up to professionals to decide. What we have now is a vocal minority demanding that science be changed to fit their world view and then all students taught that. Without it being applied to all students they won't be able to meet the universal standard applied to all kids when they teach theirs.

When it comes to paying for schools, society has decided to tax and spend for that purpose. Someone can't opt out of that anymore than they can opt out of paying for the police just because they have bought a gun for their home or they live in a gated neighborhood with a private protection company patrolling their streets. They are free to buy more than what the state provides but can't use that as an excuse to opt out of paying taxes.

0 Replies

parados, Good points made, and I agree with your opinion.

0 Replies

Thomas again

Quote:

With respect, might does not make right. I agree with both of you that evolution is the only persuasive explanation we have for the fossil, morphological, and genetic records. But that doesn't give anyone the right to enforce this notion on the children of unwilling parents.

Whew, have you gotten up on the wrong side of the web this morning? Your reference to might and right is particularly charming coming from a European source. At least we havent rounded up and shot people whove disagreed with this controversy. Weve patiently adjudicated every stinking case on behalf of aggrieved Creationists until finally the SUpreme Court said "STOP IT" . NOW, theyve come back with their creationism all bedecked in a shiny clean white lab coat, and have anointed themselves as Intelligent Design proponents. For which they want the same rights and priviledges no longer afforded the Creationists. Unlike Britain, who murdered the followers of Ned Ludd and his out of work weavers, we patiently are going to go through through the legal process.

May I ask how your country handles this controversy. I rarely hear anything from EU other than snide remarks about how silly we are for entertaining such foolishness.

Thomas comments on my post and then his final point was

Quote:

farmerman wrote:
Thomas wrote:
So sure, nobody is denying the fundamentalists any rights -- just imposing a $9000 fine per year on anyone who excercises this particular one.

Please, my heart weeps for them, they are a bunch of cynical data twisters and deniers of fact.

I notice that you make no effort to argue that this particular fact is false.

WOW, caught that by yourself with no outside help did you. ALERT THE MEDIA

0 Replies

parados said

Quote:

When it comes to paying for schools, society has decided to tax and spend for that purpose. Someone can't opt out of that anymore than they can opt out of paying for the police just because they have bought a gun for their home or they live in a gated neighborhood with a private protection company patrolling their streets. They are free to buy more than what the state provides but can't use that as an excuse to opt out of paying taxes.

One mo time. well said parados,just in case in case Thomas missed the point. I sorta have the feeling that Thomas is just being an imp today, and is trying to stoke the fires for fun. Am I close there Thomas?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Lola,
Sadly what we have far too often in public schools today is pseudo science taught as religion. Is that any better?

Can you tell me more about which science is "pseudo science" and why you believe it not to be legitimate science?

0 Replies

Lola, Good question. Wink

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

May I ask how your country handles this controversy.

As for creationism vs. evolution, for all practical purposes we have no such controversy to handle. I would have to look up the exact number, but the share of creationists in the German population is some low single digit percentage. As for the controversy about school vouchers, we don't have any such controversy either -- perhaps because our public school system is slightly less bad than yours, as international comparisons like PISA indicate. Personally, I would prefer it if we did have a voucher controversy.

farmerman wrote:

parados wrote:
When it comes to paying for schools, society has decided to tax and spend for that purpose. Someone can't opt out of that anymore than they can opt out of paying for the police just because they have bought a gun for their home or they live in a gated neighborhood with a private protection company patrolling their streets. They are free to buy more than what the state provides but can't use that as an excuse to opt out of paying taxes.

One mo time. well said parados,just in case in case Thomas missed the point. I sorta have the feeling that Thomas is just being an imp today, and is trying to stoke the fires for fun. Am I close there Thomas?

I don't think I'm any more impish today than at any other time. I believe the state does three conceptually independent things with regard to schooling: a) require every child to receive a minimal amount of schooling, b) pay for that schooling, c) produce that schooling. I agree with you both that a) and b) are legitimate infringements on individual liberty, for the reasons you and Setanta gave. Nevertheless, I would prefer it if schooling was produced by the free market rather than government. The reasons are the same as for my preference to having most other things produced by the free market: quality and product diversity. As a side effect of the product diversity part, I expect a decrease in toxicity in America's culture wars. And since vouchers seem like a workable tool for separating point c) from points a) and b), I support them. The manner in which I present my arguments may be impish from time to time, but my underlying opinions are serious. But thank you, farmerman, for building me that bridge. I appreciate it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I am sorry I came across to you as snide and contemptuous -- especially since in this thread, I perceived a genuine effort on your part to restrain your own temper, and to teach me something about how things really work in Ohio. Your efforts are much appreciated, and I assure you there is no contempt on my part towards you, nor to anyone else in this thread. Instead, what offended you is probably an offshot of my habit to exaggerate my points, often in a snotty way, to make sure they come across. Since your own writing is often characterized by a blunt and confrontative way of putting things, I wrongly assumed you would understand that. Please accept my apologies.

In that case, please accept mine for having misjudged your intent. Yes, when i intend to belittle or injure, i use blunt weapons. I do so with malice aforethought and a due regard for honestly avowing my purpose. I feel much worse about those occassions when i indulge an ironical humor in the almost certain knowledge that the object of my ridicule will be completely unaware of what has transpired.

I accept at face value your stated interest in this controversy, and would like to point out that i came here with no grudge, and therefore have not needed to restrain my temper. The "heretic" and "might makes might" remarks rankled, so i responded.

Again, my apology for having misjudged you.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I don't think I'm any more impish today than at any other time. I believe the state does three conceptually independent things with regard to schooling: a) require every child to receive a minimal amount of schooling, b) pay for that schooling, c) produce that schooling. I agree with you both that a) and b) are legitimate infringements on individual liberty, for the reasons you and Setanta gave. Nevertheless, I would prefer it if schooling was produced by the free market rather than government. The reasons are the same as for my preference to having most other things produced by the free market: quality and product diversity. As a side effect of the product diversity part, I expect a decrease in toxicity in America's culture wars. And since vouchers seem like a workable tool for separating point c) from points a) and b), I support them. The manner in which I present my arguments may be impish from time to time, but my underlying opinions are serious. But thank you, farmerman, for building me that bridge. I appreciate it.

The problem I see with vouchers and the free market is you lose accountability. The free market works fine when you can buy a product and if it doesn't work as promised you can take it back, demand your money back and go buy a different product.

I can think of no product used universally where a free market has created a base level that all recieve. In the case of schools, you can't get back the 2 years of a child's life where they failed to learn because their school was designed to make money for investors and nothing else. We are already seeing the failures in the US as private companies have taken over school systems or opened charter schools. At least with a public school system you have elected officials to hold accountable if it fails.

Bad parents are the problem with the present public schools and will continue to be if we go to a voucher system. Imagine a school that gives a 5% kickback on the voucher to the parent of the student enrolled. How many parents would be happy to take the money, for whatever reason, and not be overly concerned about the education or incapable of telling the quality?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Nevertheless, I would prefer it if schooling was produced by the free market rather than government. The reasons are the same as for my preference to having most other things produced by the free market: quality and product diversity. As a side effect of the product diversity part, I expect a decrease in toxicity in America's culture wars. And since vouchers seem like a workable tool for separating point c) from points a) and b), I support them. The manner in which I present my arguments may be impish from time to time, but my underlying opinions are serious. But thank you, farmerman, for building me that bridge. I appreciate it.

There is an underlying assumption that "the free market" (a mythic creature) can be trusted to provide that quality and product diversity predictably. In fact, the history of capitalism in action strongly suggests that, as i pointed out in other words before, a structure of bureaucracy for oversight at least as large as that which currently administers the public system would be required. It would be necessary to assure that the minimum standards of each state board of education are met, and it would be required to protect society from the "toxicity" of unscrupulous would-be exploiters. For every quality product on offer in the public forum, there are ten or more to which the minatory injunction caveat emptor applies with a vengeance.

As for the culture wars in America, they are a product both of the freedom which allows crackpots of the right and the left to prosper, and the cynical exploitation of said lunatic fringes by politicians. Don't look for it to go away any time soon.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know