Antievolution Legislation

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye, If you know how much evidence goes into declaring something a theory, then you explain why you seem to think it OK to teach something that is obviously not a scientific theory in the same science class and receiving the same weight as a theory.

We are a nation of 300 million people, governmentally divided up into 50 states and subidvided into hundreds of thousands of counties, towns, and cities. We live in a society that no longer has ditch digger level occupations, nor rooming house/one-room shack level living facilities. Not only should the individul states be mandating what is at least minimal education, the United States - the state at the federal level - should be doing so. We need an approved curriculae that is going to be taught across the board from border to border and coast to coast. It truly needs to be based on the best standards available at any given time, and reassessed periodically to upgrade based on new evidence It truly does not need to rise and ebb with the tide of local knowledge or lack thereof. A kid from a small town in Arkansas should have a good enough education to get a decent job in New York, L.A., or Houston, if so desired.

It is not that the private sector can't do things like education, banking, transportation, and so forth, but they won't. They had their shot at it and basically failed on the larger scale - whether due to graft, corruption, or ineptitude - government involvement is a RESPONSE to vital needs not being met. (History, NOT being bunk, shows this very clearly.) We cannot now, and have not been able to for at least 60 years, afford a populace in which only the wealthy are educated. We cannot afford roads, railroads, etc. whose quality is based on local wealth or lack thereof. Banking regulation came about after greed or ineptitude caused mulitple bank failures - taking thousands of people's life savings down with them. We are still paying off the bailouts from deregulating them again. Utilities asked for regulation and it worked until changes that allowed energy companies like Enron to purchase utility companies, allowed those same mega-giants to lobby for deregulation so they could control the market (as they did in California) rather than the market controlling them. There are reasons, and very good ones, for a framework of rules enforced by government, within which market forces are free to play. Without that framework, those of us who can't afford our own army are hosed. I want my tax dollars spent to keep a "level playing field" and stop cheating - a level playing field never determines who is going to win, just makes sure the winner didn't start with unequal advantages as far as the ground is concerned - and didn't win by taking the ball outside the stadium, bribing the goal keeper or killing the ref.

[Hogeye]

Barbara, you still don't understand my objection. I have not said that it's "OK to teach something that is obviously not a scientific theory in the same science class and receiving the same weight as a theory." My point has absolutely nothing to do with whether any particular theory is correct or not. My point is this:

Neither States nor Churches should dictate or unduly influence what should be taught in schools.

I agree with you totally that creationism is a stupid, irrational myth. Where we disagree is whether the State should prohibit irrational teachings in the schools it subsidizes and regulates. I, like most freethinkers, believe that man and society should be free to make up their own minds. I, like most freethinkers, am not willing to let the State say which theories are correct, politically or otherwise, and brainwash the children appropriately. Let me put it this way: Any government powerful enough to promote evolution as the only correct theory, is powerful enough to promote creationism as the only correct theory. I don't believe in your omnicient infallable State, final arbiter of truth. My own mind is my "god," the ultimate evaluator. I can figure it out without the State to force me. To me, when you write something like, "We need an approved curriculae that is going to be taught across the board from border to border and coast to coast," that's like something out of 1984: Let Big Brother be the final judge of all knowlege, and put the rest down the memory hole.

(The general anarchism stuff I'll answer in the politics "Anarchism" section. I hate to hijack threads.)

[Savonarola]

I, like most freethinkers, believe that man and society should be free to make up their own minds.

Then consider me an atypical freethinker. While this situation would be ideal, we do not leave in an ideal world; people are stupid, and as long as you have stupid people making important decisions, nothing will be ideal.

I, like most freethinkers, am not willing to let the State say which theories are correct [...]

I agree. It helps that the bill presented defers to the definition of science used by a professional science organization, not what non-science legislators think is science. Does that bill endorse a theory as correct or just propose that it be taught in state schools?

Barbara, your blind faith in government is ... amazing. You went to a government school, didn't you?

Maybe I could say the same about your blind faith in people's intelligence? You have to remember, if people were more generally intelligent, this topic very well may not have come up.

[Hogeye]

It's not that I have any great faith in the dumb masses, I think the nub of the issue is that you put more importance on the end, scientific truth, whereas I put more importance on the means, the process of discovering truth. What this translates to for this particular issue is: You are willing to use the coercive power of the State to promote truth, but I see that as using a misguided means - one which undermines the foundation of free thought.

I'm kind of early John Stewart Mill to your, uh, (John Dewey?, Rawls?.)

[Savonarola]

I think the nub of the issue is that you put more importance on the end, scientific truth, whereas I put more importance on the means, the process of discovering truth.

It appears we've slowly made our way to nearly common ground.

As I mentioned above, I don't especially like the idea of the government deciding what is "truth" and what is not. However, I will say again, the government is largely deferring to more qualified truth-seekers to tell us what "the truth" really is.

As to the common ground, I love emphasizing the means. The scientific method is -- as I habitually describe it -- one of the (if not the) most powerful tools mankind has ever devised. However, young schoolchildren often don't have a grasp of the vast amount of work it takes to follow the scientific method in a highly accurate and reliable way, and they certainly won't understand technical details that support an advanced theory. Because this is the case, I believe that presenting scientific theories in the science classroom is more beneficial than telling the students, "Well, I know what I accept, but I can't share any of my knowledge with you; you'll have to figure everything out for yourself."
(In fact, one could argue that this would lead to more people taking the view, "I don't understand it, but the Bible describes it, therefore I'll accept that God did it.")

Let us go back to the slightly imperfect example of Fivism. If a significant number of students believed that 2+2=5, even though this is demonstrably false, and the belief that 2+2=5 led to detrimental results (e.g. falling bridges and wasted money), then it is my opinion that mandating the teaching of 2+2=4 would be beneficial to both students and the future.

The imperfection of course is that Fivism is still math (just bad math) whereas creationism as a whole is not science. However, because some creationist arguments might be considered science, albeit certainly bad science, the above analogy still applies.

[Hogeye]

We both approve of the scientific method, but you believe it should be supplemented with government power, whereas I see that very power as a danger to freethinking.

The government is largely deferring to more qualified truth-seekers to tell us what "the truth" really is.

LOL! It's statements like that which really floor me. Are these the qualified truth-seekers who told the public about Saddam's WMDs and Al Qaida connections? Are these the truth-seekers who make cannabis a schedule A drug, but alcohol and tobacco legal, and maintain the highest incarceration rate in the world to enforce their "science." To me, your statement is totally ridiculous - the height of naivete. What planet are you from?

If a significant number of students believed that 2+2=5, even though this is demonstrably false, and the belief that 2+2=5 led to detrimental results (e.g. falling bridges and wasted money), then it is my opinion that mandating the teaching of 2+2=4 would be beneficial to both students and the future.

Sure, I would too - as the owner of a school. But "mandating" other people's schools with the force of State - no I don't approve of that. I think that, without a bit of State intervention, teachers who taught 2+2=5 would usually be fired. Books that taught 2+2=5 wouldn't sell very well. We don't need Big Brother to force anyone. The market will handle it.

[Savonarola]

We both approve of the scientific method, but you believe it should be supplemented with government power [...]

Don't forget the Ford Frick-esque asterisk. I believe it is acceptable to have the government support the teaching of scientific concepts supported by the scientific method in the face of a conscious effort that targets those sound concepts and the scientific method. You won't find me calling for or advocating legislation that mandates that 2+2=4, but that's because Fivism isn't a threat.
In other words, the reason I can't agree with your idealized proposal is because this is not an ideal situation. I feel I have made this point rather clear, but you seem to want to give it a little spin.

Are these the qualified truth-seekers who told the public about Saddam's WMDs and Al Qaida connections? Are these the truth-seekers who make cannabis a schedule A drug, but alcohol and tobacco legal, and maintain the highest incarceration rate in the world to enforce their "science."

Nope. How about you check the memberships of the NAS and the AAAS?

To me, your statement is totally ridiculous - the height of naivete.

Of course it sounds ridiculous to you if you think professional scientists sit around all day listening to wiretaps and tracking shipments. Perhaps I should say the same of your insinuations, since you seem to think that scientists are responsible for the 21st Amendment, jury decisions, and state and federal legislation.

What planet are you from?

Not one you're familiar with, it would seem. But I do know that here on Earth, pretending that things are ideal doesn't make them ideal.

I think that, without a bit of State intervention, teachers who taught 2+2=5 would usually be fired.

I don't consider "usually" to be a high enough rate. Furthermore, a teacher with tenure cannot be fired. Behe is still at Lehigh, and he won't be going anywhere soon, despite the wishes of the university administrators.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but because most current schools are run by the state, don't those schools need some legal reason to terminate employees? If there is no policy against teaching 2+2=5, how is the teacher going to know that he or she has done wrong by teaching it? How can an employee be fired for no reason?

[Dardedar]

Savanarola wrote:
"The government is largely deferring to more qualified truth-seekers to tell us what "the truth" really is."

HOGEYE responds:
LOL! It's statements like that which really floor me. Are these the qualified truth-seekers who told the public about Saddam's WMDs and Al Qaida connections?

DAR
This is a terrible analogy. US Military foreign intelligence has often been notoriously bad and then Bush & Co. went to great trouble to pressure, cherry-pick and distort what they did have. Political pressure adversely affected an already flaky field. This is hardly analogous to the government mandating teaching science, good science, as determined by the best, qualified "truthseeking" scientists in the land.

Are these the truth-seekers who make cannabis a schedule A drug, but alcohol and tobacco legal,...

DAR
This analogy fails as well. Having worked with the pro-medical MJ movement in Arkansas and meeting lots of people while running their table etc., it is clear that a considerable majority of medical professionals are for medicinal access to MJ. That's not a very extraordinary claim since last I checked, 66% of Arkansans were for it as well (in Canada it is over 90%). So it's politics and drug war insanity driving this policy, not good science.

and maintain the highest incarceration rate in the world to enforce their "science."

DAR
The US has the highest incarceration rate but this is not from the government mandating the teaching of good science to the kiddies.

I think that, without a bit of State intervention, teachers who taught 2+2=5 would usually be fired.

DAR
Nonsense. Without state intervention schools all across the land would be teaching creationism and young earth bullshit along with Adam & Eve and the apple, which is nearly as ridiculous and false as Fivism. We already have 5-10% of schools teaching this WITH it being against the law.

Books that taught 2+2=5 wouldn't sell very well.

DAR
You can't be serious. Crichton's "State of Fear" sold very well. Pseudo-science sells great. People love to be told lies. Convicted Fraud Kevin Trudeau's latest piece of crap ("Natural Cures "they" Don't Want You To Know About") sold 1.5 million copies. I can bury you in examples. We plan to put up a page roasting his book at some point.

We don't need Big Brother to force anyone. The market will handle it.

DAR
45% of Americans are so ignorant they think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church. Leaving the determination of what is good science to the ignorant horde and your "market" will spread this ignorance farther and wider as these parents purchase the 2+2=5 religious (but call it science) education that 45% of them want.

D.
----------------------------
“All valid scientific theories are predictive, and
evolution theory predicts quite well. Theories and hypotheses are tested
by examining the results of their predictions, so if a conjecture either
makes no predictions or can't be tested, it is not scientific. The theory
of evolution makes predictions testable by observations, experiments, and models, and makes postdictions testable by observations. It has been making successful predictions (about genetics, systematics, morphology, anatomy, physiology, behavior, etc.) for about 140 years.”
--Steven Schafersman (schafersman@utpb.edu)

[Savonarola]

Convicted Fraud Kevin Trudeau's latest piece of crap ("Natural Cures "they" Don't Want You To Know About") sold 1.5 million copies. [...] We plan to put up a page roasting his book at some point.

Oh man, yet another item for my website to-do list. I haven't touched any of the stuff since last week. And I was the one who got all worked up about Trudeau...

[/derail]

[Hogeye]

Savanarola wrote:
"The government is largely deferring to more qualified truth-seekers to tell us what "the truth" really is."

HOGEYE responds:
LOL! It's statements like that which really floor me. Are these the qualified truth-seekers who told the public about Saddam's WMDs and Al Qaida connections?

DAR
This is a terrible analogy. US Military foreign intelligence has often been notoriously bad and then Bush & Co. went to great trouble to pressure, cherry-pick and distort what they did have. Political pressure adversely affected an already flaky field. This is hardly analogous to the government mandating teaching science, good science, as determined by the best, qualified "truthseeking" scientists in the land.

That wasn't an analogy: it was evidence that the government, in general, is not interested in the truth, nor in deferring to truth-seekers. And you agree. You note that the governent has been "notoriously bad" in this regard, and is "adversely affected" by politics. Now you're thinking more objectively, taking into account the perverse incentives of politics, public choice theory, and the elitist model of political decision-making.

Believing in the truthfulness of State is a lot like believing in a perfect God. It sounds like you're ready to retract the claim that "The government is largely deferring to more qualified truth-seekers to tell us what "the truth" really is."

Of course it sounds ridiculous to you if you think professional scientists sit around all day listening to wiretaps and tracking shipments.

Don't be ridiculous. All I'm saying is that scientists, like everyone else, respond to incentives. If you get win a grant by proposing to "prove" global warming or the dangers of cannibis, but not if you propose to show land use is a bigger factor in climate change than greenhouse gasses or that cannabis shrinks cancer tumors, then scientists will tend to apply and write for the former grants. I've even seen abstracts that flatly contradict text conclusions in "scientific" papers, just to be politically correct and score the next grant. I've heard scientists admit "spinning" their proposal to counter the political nature of grant-giving, e.g. Saying they want to show cannabis causes throat cancer, when in actuality they expect to disprove that hypothesis. The "truth-seeking" govt grantors will only give money in the former formulation.

Having worked with the pro-medical MJ movement in Arkansas and meeting lots of people while running their table etc., it is clear that a considerable majority of medical professionals are for medicinal access to MJ.

And where are your government "truth-seekers" who "defer" to these people? They are busy maintaining the highest incarceration rate in the world, and figuring out how they can put more people into custody via drug courts, ankle bracelets and house arrest. You are making my point: the government rulers care about power a lot more than truth. That's why your "I love Big Brother" blind faith that government defers to truth-seekers is so funny. You give all these cases where they don't, and somehow that's supposed to convince me that, in the one case of science in school, somehow they magically become hard-core truth-seekers!

[Hogeye]

The ability to mandate the curriculum allows the molding of people's minds in the same way that the ability to establish a church does. The State mandating that only (evolution/creationism/drug prohibitionism) be taught in "its" schools is no different in principle than the government mandating that only pietist protestant Christianity be taught.

[Savonarola]

It sounds like you're ready to retract the claim that "The government is largely deferring to more qualified truth-seekers to tell us what "the truth" really is."

I'm not sure if you're just confused or what, so for the record: I am not Darrel. Please attribute my comments to only me and his comments to only him.
I'm not ready to retract the claim that the bill in question would defer the question of truth to professional scientists. Do not take my statements out of context.

My lunch break is over. I'll continue later.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye - the problem with the "let them figure it out for themselves" attitude is, unless they have been taught both a volume of facts and the method to figure it out with, they won't be able to. You have to have a basis of knowledge to start from to be able to figure out anything. For example, I can firgure out how to pronounce a Spanish word, even if I don't know the meaning, because I have a knowledge base that includes a similar alphabet and the Spanish pronunciations for those characters. I cannot do the same with an Arabic or Russian word - my knowledge base does not include those alphabets.

It is the duty of the State, since education is part of and contributes to the general welfare, to make sure the populace is educated. Since "market forces" didn't product an educated populace (just an educated elite), government stepped in. Government is now the major purchaser of education. By your "market forces" argument, they can mandate anything they want to - they pay for it. By my argument, they are responsible for seeing that the best education possible (for the money) is available to the populace, since an educated populace is necessary for the continued well-being of both the state and the populace - and that means a basic curriculum standard. Politicians don't determine the standard, just what its source will be - for science, it's the community of scientists. Do not blame the Dept of Education for the faults of the Dept of Justice or Defense. The State is not the monolith some people seem to think it is (although, admittedly, W is trying in that direction, too).

[Savonarola]

My lunch break is over. I'll continue later.

I want to apologize to Hogeye for the extended delay. Yesterday involved a last-second decision to take a long road trip, and today sees the need for me to invest time in website preparations before the CAT show. I assure you I haven't forgotten about this thread.

[Hogeye]

Sorry, Savonarola, I was confused and thought Darrel had made the claim. Your claim was about that one law: "The government is largely deferring to more qualified truth-seekers to tell us what "the truth" really is." You approve of the government blessing the wisdom of its court intellectuals. You stress that the court intellectuals were right this time. I stress the danger of such a system to free thought.

It is the duty of the State, since education is part of and contributes to the general welfare, to make sure the populace is educated.

I very strongly disagree, of course. The only duty of government (Nockian sense) is to provide justice. Any addition "service" violates the primary raison d'etre of government - justice. All other services should be provided (or not) by voluntary society. (Note to self: look up early freethinker's position on govt schooling.)

Since "market forces" didn't produce an educated populace (just an educated elite), government stepped in.

Barbara, it's enjoyable to correspond with someone who knows history, and I hope you don't mind me challenging your interpretations occasionally. Here, my take is that market forces were working fine, but the progressive "pietist" movement succeeded in centralizing and statizing schools, largely to indoctrinate the papist Irish and Italian immigrant children. (We're talkin' late 1800s - early 1900s.) The same folks that brought us blue laws, prostitution prohibition, and alcohol prohibition brought us compulsory attendence laws and (much more) govt control of education. This early progressive movement was sort of like our modern anti-immigrant movement, and the "Prussian" model of education was seen as a way to indoctrinate the immigrant children, and hopefully turn them into good Protestants.

[Savonarola]

You approve of the government blessing the wisdom of its court intellectuals. You stress that the court intellectuals were right this time. I stress the danger of such a system to free thought.

Quickly before the CAT show starts, I'm going to point this out yet again, and I certainly hope you can both understand it and quit taking my statements out of context.
I agreed with you that the government endorsing science is less than ideal. But in the face of political and religious movements that are demonstrably and blatantly false, the danger of government endorsement is less than the danger of successful religious disruption of a manifestly non-religious, incredibly successful process or of a Constitutionally secular government.

It should also be pointed out that this issue has nothing to do with "blessing the wisdom of [the government's] court intellectuals," if you are talking about judicial courts (i.e. a reference to Kitzmiller v Dover). The government is forced to "bless the wisdom" of court decisions because courts are part of the government. If you are talking about the "scientific court, then the above explanation applies.

As it is now half a minute to scheduled showtime, I will have to approach your claims of "incentives for scientists" at a later time.

[Hogeye]

Okay, I get it now, I think. It's the Lysander Spooner self-defense argument for voting. You realize that "government endorsing science is less than ideal," but you support the law for reasons of self-defense - if the science people don't use the State apparatus, the religious fanatics will. And that would be really bad. Is this a fair summary of your position?

I certainly sympathize with this position, although I take a longer view.


By "court intellectual" I refer to the age-old phenomena of the State buying off the intellectual elite. In the middle ages, it took the form of a Church-State alliance; in modern times it takes the form of hiring/funding the PHDs and other intellectuals. I'll start a new thread on this subject.

[Savonarola]

You realize that "government endorsing science is less than ideal," but you support the law for reasons of self-defense - if the science people don't use the State apparatus, the religious fanatics will. And that would be really bad. Is this a fair summary of your position?

It's close. I wouldn't say that it's so much that "the religious fanatics will [use the state apparatus]" (although they very well may finagle their way in), it's that the undermining of beneficial education by any group is detrimental.
To use the example of Fivism again: it isn't necessary that Fivists hijack state curriculum to cause problems. Even with no laws regarding Fivism (or "Fourism") on the books, having students graduate from school and proceed with their lives as if Fivism were true would lead to difficulty for everyone, Fivist or Fourist.


Now, back to "incentives"...

If you get win a grant by proposing to "prove" global warming or the dangers of cannibis, but not if you propose to show land use is a bigger factor in climate change than greenhouse gasses or that cannabis shrinks cancer tumors, then scientists will tend to apply and write for the former grants.

Generally speaking, grants are given to projects that are well-founded in our current understanding and are deemed important to research. If our current understanding is that thalidomide causes birth defects, and we have no reason to believe that thalidomide does not cause birth defects, why support a study testing if thalidomide causes birth defects? Or, if several previous studies show that 2+2=4, studies that propose to show that 2+2=4 and studies that propose to show that 2+2=5 are less likely to be funded.

I've even seen abstracts that flatly contradict text conclusions in "scientific" papers, just to be politically correct and score the next grant.

In what scientific journal can these papers be found? Which issues?

If you're going to espouse conspiracy theories, I certainly hope you're capable of supporting them.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye, you've proved my point - the immigrants were very poor and couldn't afford the education to get them off the streets, much less the education to teach them English. While it is true the public schools of the time - their teachers drawn from the private sector - pushed protestantism, they were created to educate a sizable group of people dropped by the free market system - teach them English and make them employable. While there were more employment opportunities for the uneducated in those days, we were moving strongly into the industrial revolution's factory society - it didn't require much education, but it required some (the basic 8th grade education took care of it - no problem). The immigrant issued is still with us - and one of the major complaints is lack of English language ability (while, of course, the powers that be keep cutting ESL programs). Fortunately, the ACLU, among others, brought the religion issue to the courts and public schools can no longer force somebody's idea of American protestantism down the throats of the students. Private schools, of course, are another story.

[Savonarola]

As this thread has meandered away from the topic of Antievolution Legislation, I have split this thread. The new thread is titled Split: Marijuana Research and Research Funding and can be found in the Science forum.

-- Sav, Science moderator