Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Setanta,

I accept your arguments here. However they do have limits - At sdome point excessive taxes become counter productive and penalize everyone equally in reduced beneficial economic activity. Our constitution and past practice in the matter of education would permit either option - pay the tax & opt out or opt out & get a rebate or voucher for the service.

I believe Thomas rather consistently advocates free market solutions for these and other matters - I am generally in sympathy with these views myself. However, even setting those principles aside for the moment, I believe a case can be made (perhaps not compelling, but strong neverthelesss) that our educational system has become excessively "locked" in a not-very-satisfactory operating mode. The performance of our primary & secondary educational systems falls dangerously behind what will be required to maintain our economic prominence in and increasingly competitive world. The shock of competition - on a large scale - is needed to create the accountability and innovation the present system refuses to deliver. Perhaps after a period of competition and innovation we could go back to a more controlled & universal system, but one that has been substantially reformed. The alternative view pushed with consistent vigor by the education establishment is "give us more money". The problem is the correlation nationally between per capita spending and measured performance (where data is availablke ) is not particularly strong.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The most common form of this type of private contribution to public schools are the bake sales to raise money for specific use. Sometimes large donations are received by people like Bill Gates who can donate schools with computers. Some major public universities like Cal Berkeley also receive money from alumnus that are considered significant donations.

Thanks! My point about private donations is that everybody is free to make them to any school he wants to. No school, public or private, can hold anyone at gunpoint and extract a donation from unwilling people. Thus, if private schools received more donations and endowments, maybe they were just better at producing grateful alumni than public schools and maybe that says something about the quality of public schools in America. (I don't know if that's indeed the case),

cicerone imposter wrote:

As for your $9,000 per student figure, that seems to be the high-end budget for high income communities where the tax base is much higher than the average [...]

The following link provides the funding for one of our local school district, Californa, and some of the high-end schools on the East Coast. http://www.lgef.org/financeabcs.html

Thanks for the link. Apart from my slipping back to saying, $9000 instead of $8700, I suspect the discrepancy between my figure and yours is that your figures reflect average state spending, whearas mine reflects average federal, state, and local spending. It makes sense to me that my figure might look like a high-end state spending figure.

0 Replies

Yes george and Thomas, let them eat cake. But watch your heads. It's impossible for a public school system to clean up it's act with no money. Have you talked to any teachers lately?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Parados has very cogently and succinctly stated the case for not giving any tax exemption or rebate to those who avail themselves of other services than those provided the general community--and often to services additional to those provided the general community.

While I disagree with both of you on this point, allow me to join you in praise of Parados. Over the last couple of months, we have fought both on the same and on opposite sides of debates, and in either setup the experience has always been thought-provoking and stimulating for me. People who keep me on the toes like Parados does are the reason I spend way too much time here with no regrets. They are way underappreciated, so -- kudos!

Setanta wrote:

Another more obscure point needs to be taken into consideration as well--wealthy people don't get wealthy all by themselves.

I agree, and this is one reason I am not arguing against public funding of schools. I am only arguing against the privileged position of the government in running the schools. I would point out that the American republic has been existing for several generations before public schools came to dominate schooling. It did a pretty good job even then. Conversely, Prussia, which was early to introduce public schools and compulsory attendance, was no less authoritarian for the fact.

Setanta wrote:

That's how it works, and as Churchill observed, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms which have been tried. The religiously fanatical need to accept what the wealthy have been obliged to accept for two centuries--democracy.

I am not denying that the democratic majority has the rightful power to enforce mistaken opinions against minorites -- only that its opinion about how to spend property taxes are correct.

Lola wrote:

Yes george and Thomas, let them eat cake. But watch your heads. It's impossible for a public school system to clean up it's act with no money. Have you talked to any teachers lately?

I am not saying, "let them eat cake". I am saying, give people the money to buy bread, and let them choose their own baker to buy it from. This is not about the public bakery system, this is about feeding people.

0 Replies

In any case, Thomas, given that this very interesting and reasoned discussion is an off shoot of the thread title ("Intelligent Design: Science or Religion"), it illustrates, I think that both questions (ID/Science and who and how public education should be funded) are political questions and have almost nothing to so with rational thought. It's an interesting exercise, however and very educational.

0 Replies

Thomas,

I think it still comes down to checks and balances. I know you have good reason, excellent reason to be doubtful of state control. However, if wise controls are not in place, fanatical proponents of either side of this argument will take us to a dangerous and destructive place.

Superstition (fanatical, closed minded, literal thinking religion) taught as science or science taught as religion, as it very well could be with the power in the hands of fanatics on either side, will be disasterous for the evolution of man.

0 Replies

Not true Lola. I believe a principal part of the motivation of those who don't like what the schools are teaching is that they don't have ready alternatives to it and they don't want to pay twice for the education. This is an important factor in the motivation for the controversy we are discussing.. I suspect if vouchers were generally available the issue would simply dissappear.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I think that both questions (ID/Science and who and how public education should be funded) are political questions and have almost nothing to so with rational thought. It's an interesting exercise, however and very educational.

I would have said that the relative merits of school systems, like evolution, can be illuminated by evidence. The existence of an intelligent designer cannot. If you doubt the latter point, we have a common friend in New Jersey who will no doubt be happy to talk to you about it. Wink

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Lola wrote:
I think that both questions (ID/Science and who and how public education should be funded) are political questions and have almost nothing to so with rational thought. It's an interesting exercise, however and very educational.

I would have said that the relative merits of school systems, like evolution, can be illuminated by evidence. The existence of an intelligent designer cannot. If you doubt the latter point, we have a common friend in New Jersey who will no doubt be happy to talk to you about it.

If only, dear Thomas......but man is more than his pre-frontal cortex alone. One must recognize the influence of both the hypothalmus and the pre-frontal cortex in evaluating the motivation of man. :wink:

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

However, if wise controls are not in place, fanatical proponents of either side of this argument will take us to a dangerous and destructive place.

Would you make the same point about state control of religion and speech? Do religious fanatics justify that the government runs or establishes churches? (According to David Hume's History of England, that was the point of establishing one in the first place.) Does hate speech justify that most of the mass media be run by government? (The Catholic Church made a similar argument for justifying censorship after the printing press was invented.) If you wouldn't make such an argument, and I don't think you would, why take the opposite position on schooling -- which shapes people's opinions just as much, if not more?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Not true Lola. I believe a principal part of the motivation of those who don't like what the schools are teaching is that they don't have ready alternatives to it and they don't want to pay twice for the education. This is an important factor in the motivation for the controversy we are discussing.. I suspect if vouchers were generally available the issue would simply dissappear.

As Parados pointed out, even private schools must meet state education standards. If education standards are changed in order to denigrate evolution, this would affect both private and public schools.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I suspect if vouchers were generally available the issue would simply dissappear.

It would certainly eliminate the incentive for religionists to evolve strain after strain of increasingly first Amendment-proof mutants of creationism. Some of my biologist friends have worked in America for a couple of years, and they report about increasing exasperation in America's scientific community. It seems they can't debunk the creationism of the week as fast as religionists come up with new ones.

Another benefit would be this: If you are currently a creationist parent advocating for "ID" lessons in biology class, you reap the benefits of establishing yourself a righteous Christian in your creationist community -- and everybody else's child suffers from the corruption of the biology curriculum. In a voucherized system, you still reap those reputational benefits -- but your child bears the cost, not those whose parents choose a sensible biology curriculum. I expect substantial frustration of the creationist zeal when the parents notice that their righteousness is holding back their own children, and their own children alone.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Lola wrote:
However, if wise controls are not in place, fanatical proponents of either side of this argument will take us to a dangerous and destructive place.

Would you make the same point about state control of religion and speech? Do religious fanatics justify that the government runs or establishes churches? (According to David Hume's History of England, that was the point of establishing one in the first place.) Does hate speech justify that most of the mass media be run by government? (The Catholic Church made a similar argument for justifying censorship after the printing press was invented.) If you wouldn't make such an argument, and I don't think you would, why take the opposite position on schooling -- which shapes people's opinions just as much, if not more?

Perhaps you could say more, Thomas. I don't know what you're talking about. Have I said anything about the state establishing churches or free speech? I support the exercise of free speech and certainly church should be established by the members of the church. But school should not be church. That's the controls I'm speaking of. If schools want to teach "intelligent design" as science, I suspect their graduates may find it difficult to pass entrance exams in science programs in institutions of higher learning (unless those institutions are also run by those who want so badly to pass religion off as science, in which case the student's education is severely compromised and so is science and our ability to study anything). Your examples do not equate.

You're the great lover of reason, as am I.........so explain to me how the field of science could rationalize accepting a religious idea as a scientific one. It's either science or it's not. The concept (or political manipulation) of "intelligent design" will either pass the test (whether it's science or not) or it won't. So far, the concept is so full of logical holes it can't even stand up. It's being sold to people in a massive PR campaign and it has nothing to do with reason. If it did, we would have not a problem at all.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I suspect if vouchers were generally available the issue would simply dissappear.

It would certainly eliminate the incentive for religionists to evolve strain after strain of increasingly first Amendment-proof mutants of creationism. Some of my biologist friends have worked in America for a couple of years, and they report about increasing exasperation in America's scientific community. It seems they can't debunk the creationism of the week as fast as religionists come up with new ones.

Another benefit would be this: If you are currently a creationist parent advocating for "ID" lessons in biology class, you reap the benefits of establishing yourself a righteous Christian in your creationist community -- and everybody else's child suffers from the corruption of the biology curriculum. In a voucherized system, you still reap those reputational benefits -- but your child bears the cost, not those whose parents choose a sensible biology curriculum. I expect substantial frustration of the creationist zeal when the parents notice that their righteousness is holding back their own children, and their own children alone.

And are questions giving saction to theories of "intelligent design" to be included on college entrance exams?

0 Replies

On the motivation of religious fundamentalists, you are naive, Thomas (and maybe george.) Think of religious fundamentalists all in the same category. Christians, Muslims, non-religious fundamentalists, whatever, all have one thing in common. They seek to explain the complex through adherence to punitive, guilt provoking, fear based authority alone. The folks pushing for intelligent design will not be quieted by school vouchers. They're not concerned about their own children and what they are taught. They are concerned instead about what every child is taught. And they will not rest until they either have their way or they are defeated.

I don't object to what others teach their children regarding religion, as long as it's taught at home and in church, but when the attempt is made to pass off religion as science, something has to be done.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

parados wrote:
I disagree with your argument for the same reason I disagree with any argument that one shouldn't pay taxes because they don't use the service. Should I be exempt from property taxes since I have no children in school and have not needed the fire department or police department?

No, because as Setanta and others have argued, an educated citizenry strengthens the republic, and you benefit from a strong republic even when you don't have children in school. My issue is not with your paying property taxes -- I just think that parents are better qualified than the school board to spend them. After all, parents would pay the cost and their children would receive the benefit, while currently the school board receives the cost and has no direct self-interest the benefits public schools provide.

Aren't those with children that opt out also paying for an educated citizenry? They have just decided they want to educate their children differently. Why can you have it both ways? Some people get to decide where to spend their money and others don't? I understand where you are coming from with your argument about health care but I still don't buy it. In National health if you want service above what the govt pays for you don't get to take a voucher somewhere else, you have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

Quote:

parados wrote:
I think it would be the destruction of our society if people could opt out of taxes or take their tax dollars and use them elsewhere just because they don't use a particular service. By deciding to send their children to a private school, the parents are not being denied anything. Rather they are deciding to not avail themselves of a service. They do not become exempt from paying taxes because they didn't use it.

I agree that your society and mine are both more attractive because society pays for educating our children. But I believe you are failing to distinguish between society paying for a public good, and the government producing it. I am guessing, without actually having read your posts on the issue, that you support a system of universal health care. Against my ideological biases, I agree such a system would be a good idea -- you have a single payer (the government) fund the system, but the services themselves are provided by private agents, to customers who choose to be treated by this doctor rather than by that one. (At least that's how the health care system works in Germany.) A voucherized school system need not be any different in design than universal health care. Its principal strengths and weaknesses are the same.

Yes, it might be possible to revamp a school system like a health care system but it would take major revisions. The present school system in the US gets funding from 3 or more seperate govts, local, state and Federal. The majority of that funding comes from local govt unlike a single payer health care which usually has one national govt collecting funds and paying. The govt sets the standards for what is paid for on a national basis. There are many complaints about what little Federal control exists now in local school systems in the US. The push is to try to get and keep local control. This is one of the complaints about the school system in the US. Rich school districts do well and those in poorer neighborhoods suffer based on the tax base. This variation in funding is one of the reasons for variations in school performance. States have tried to even out funding by taking over more of it and doling money out to those districts with a lower tax base. It helps to some extent.

The problem with a single payer for schools is it will result in the same issue that there is with health care - Rationing. In a national health care system, you might be able to find a Dr that is better for you personally but your basic care won't change. The same tests will still be the ones that are paid for. You still only get the same drug options. It won't be as simple as taking your $9000 and getting the exact education you want from anyone you want. The money will come with Federal restrictions as to how it can be spent. It could well be a nightmare of regulations. People would still have to spend their own money for a better education because of the rationing.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Perhaps you could say more, Thomas. I don't know what you're talking about. Have I said anything about the state establishing churches or free speech?

No, I said that the principles you use to defend that the school-system be run by the government can consistently be applied to churches, the press, and any other institution that shapes people's outlook on the world. My question is, if you believe the government shouldn't be in the business of shaping people's worldview through religions and the press, why do you think it should be in the business of shaping children's worldview through the schools?

Lola wrote:

You're the great lover of reason, as am I.........so explain to me how the field of science could rationalize accepting a religious idea as a scientific one.

It couldn't. I think I said in my first post to this thread that intelligent design is not a scientific theory, because, among other flaws, it makes no refutable predictions.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

While I disagree with both of you on this point, allow me to join you in praise of Parados. Over the last couple of months, we have fought both on the same and on opposite sides of debates, and in either setup the experience has always been thought-provoking and stimulating for me. People who keep me on the toes like Parados does are the reason I spend way too much time here with no regrets. They are way underappreciated, so -- kudos!

Thanks Thomas, I always try to rise to the level of my opponent. Unfortunately sometimes I am afraid I sink to their level. (No one presently here is in that category.)

As I said in a different thread, I don't mind disagreeing with people if they look at the facts and come to a different conclusion. They are free to prioritize them differently but not free to ignore them. You usually make it easy to see how you came to your conclusions, Thomas. I can disagree with them but not the logic of how you got there. It keeps me on my toes trying to defend how I came to a different conclusion.

0 Replies

Thomas said

Quote:

In a voucherized system, you still reap those reputational benefits -- but your child bears the cost, not those whose parents choose a sensible biology curriculum

Not so, in fact, with a voucher system, the already established consolidated school system is subtracted of its funding base.
Its interesting that tyhe Catholics were the first to use the Supreme Court (Pierce v Society of Sisters) to break awy from the Public school system of the early 1920s. The later break by the Amish (Pa v Fisher et al) allowed the Amish to be the only group to terminate education at an age younger than 8th grade.
It was Jefferson who stated that education should be the right of everyone and the state should be responsible to provide an education to all , despite station. (AND, it should be free of all religious bias).
The fact that, because the US is a big country, the public school systems have consolidated from well over 100000 to about 1200. These consolidated systems have developed their infrastructure by muni bonds and state grants (feds kick in less than 10%). The states and local districts generally split the costs and where "voucher for Creationists" is going to be felt the most is in a lot of the poorer rural consolidated systems of the southern states. The vouchers will, buck for buck, be removed from public schools and, with little guarantee that "private enterprise" can pull it off at a cheaper price(your assumption has been all along that it can be done as free market service better than a bloated beaurocracy-we disagree mightily here) The "Bible belt schools will be
1a starved public school system because many parents will move their kids for religious reasons

2 we will have to watch an see whetrher the Creationist chrater schools actually work and can teach the full load of required subjects and still spin science.
I would rather we adjudicate the whole thing, find the ID crowd without another Louisiana case and then be done with it.
FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POINT TO ME
"You make it too easy on yourself... you merely allow them to opt out by fining them 9K"
I still dont give a damn on that point. Im in the fight to make sure that the public school system is not ravaged by another insult to our national intelligence. You want to be fair to the Creationists and IDers.
I have no patience nor time to spend in being fair to their financial plight. If they wish to send their kids to school to become wheelwrights, I shall not be underwriting them with my taxes. Youve reversed the issue to make it appear that we somehow" owe" the IDers and their Creationist ilk a"fair deal". When all the fixed costs are talleyed to maintain the existing public school system and then we still are doling out these "conscience vouchers" That will add up to 1.5 times the cost and most of those costs will be borne by districts least able to support them.

As far as the Catholic SChool system , they were the first bunch to opt out in a Supreme Court Decision. I see no reason to subsidize them either, even though their vouchers would not be based upon an ID principle.

Now, I, like Lola, feel that this is a topic that should probably have its own thread. It has somewhat hijacked the original point of this one.

0 Replies

The US public school system has not been "ravaged" by the voucher programs that exist today and I doubt that it would be ravaged by those being proposed (unless you suppose the costs in the public school system are all fixed and inelastic). It hasn't even been ravaged by proponents of intelligent design. However it has indeed been ravaged by the often mindless and ever-growing bureaucracies of Federal, State and local officials who run the system as a personal fiefdom and who resist accountability or even objective measurement of the results they achieve in any and every form. Their only prescription for fixing things is more money. They are far more focused on the continuous recycling and updating of "programs", endlessly revised texts and their socialization role than real education. The problem here is that - from a scientific perspective more money won't work - the correlation between per pupil costs and measured achievement nationally is at best only weekly positive

Bottom line is we have an increasingly authoritarian and compulsory educational system that is less and less attentive to the wants of the parents of the children they pretend to serve. Moreover it is increasingly in the grip of modern secular zealots who morph their opposition to ANY questioning of evolutionary THEORY to a broad and implicit rejection of any admission of the possibility of a creator and the false proposition that science precludes any such possibility. This is not education, and it is not science either.

No surprise that there is growing resistance to all this. The image of a Bible-thumping redneck as the source of all this is also false, though it is a comforting one to the true believers in secular authoritarianism.

Farmerman - there are good environmental consultants and not-so-good ones. I believe ours are pretty good - and our record of long-term client relationships demonstrates it. While it is true that some consultants hide their failures behind their contract provisions, it is also true that some clients, particularly in this area, try to micromanage the hours and rates they will allow (in effect forcing the use of unqualified people) while ,at the same time, attempting to hold the consultant accountable for delivering a preordained regulatory outcome - occasionally in defiance of the measured data. We are willing to take outcome-based contracts, but not without a risk premium and the ability to control the effort. Developers are particularly notorious for this. We generally decline their offers.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know