Antievolution Legislation

[Savonarola]

Splitting the thread caused Hogeye's post to be moved in its entirety. I will reproduce the pertinent portion of his post here. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion.

Barbara, we agree that there were a lot of immigrants. We disagree on whether the "Prussian" school system was necessary or beneficial, as well as on the motivation of the instigators.

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.

We all agree that undermining education is bad; we disagree on whether using the coercive power of the State to enforce teachings is more or less undermining than error and its uncoercive propagation by some people. I think that having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is much more dangerous to free thought than a marketplace of ideas with a few rotton products for sale.

[Savonarola]

[...] we disagree on whether using the coercive power of the State to enforce teachings is more or less undermining than error and its uncoercive propagation by some people. I think that having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is much more dangerous to free thought than a marketplace of ideas with a few rott[e]n products for sale.

Wait, wait, wait.. You think religion is "uncoercive"? Also, it's not "error," it's a conscious effort to promote a view with the knowledge that most people will not understand the technical aspects of the opposing evidence... which leads us to...
Except of the "much" part, I generally agree with your second sentence above; however, in my opinion it is countered by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't engage in actual freethought. They are not educationally prepared to deal with the information.

Maybe I can make a crude analogy...
Speaking of "rotten" products, let's say shoppers could buy two kinds of apples. The first kind is beautifully waxed and buffed but has a rotten center. It is displayed prominently in the center of the produce section. The second kind of apple is hidden in a corner, or behind a door, and generally not presented with aesthetics in mind. However, this second kind has no rotten centers.
Creationism makes its living by presenting itself as simple and advertising itself loudly. However, until shoppers make the effort to find the second kind of apples (i.e. educate themselves about evolution) and realize that apples without rotten centers actually exist, they will ignorantly buy the "pretty" (yet bad) apples while not understanding why some people buy the "ugly" apples.
Freethinkers will check out the ugly apples. Most people won't.

[Hogeye]

You think religion is "uncoercive"?

Where on earth did you get that? I wrote that I would not use force against people peacefully promoting thier ideas, even if those ideas are in error. Many/most creationists are non-aggressive in the promotion of their ideas. I've never been assulted by one; have you?

Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is more dangerous to free thought than a marketplace of ideas with a few rotten products for sale.

So, we both agree with the statement above. That's good - I've made my point. I don't quite understand your follow-up: "In my opinion it is countered by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't engage in actual freethought." Are you saying that you'd sacrifice freethought for the "remnant" like us (by endorsing State intervention), simply because the majority of the dumb masses are incapable of freethought?

[Savonarola]

Many/most creationists are non-aggressive in the promotion of their ideas. I've never been assulted by one; have you?

Not physically, but physically isn't the kind that counts the most.

So, we both agree with the statement above. That's good - I've made my point. I don't quite understand your follow-up: "In my opinion it is countered by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't engage in actual freethought."

You seem to have a real problem with qualifiers and caveats.
As worded, the statement is true. But there is missing information. This would be like my showing you three pieces of paper with 10, 20, and 30 written on them, respectively, and asking you to pick the highest number. After you choose 30, I reveal a piece of paper with the symbol for infinity (or even just the number 40) and ask you why you picked 30.
The question that needs to be asked is whether there is anything more dangerous than the state setting curriculum. The answer is yes. A well-funded, well-honed, conscious effort to deceive is more dangerous than a non-deceptive mandated curriculum.


So let's analyze:
Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is more dangerous to free thought than a marketplace of ideas with a few rotten products for sale. -- True

Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is more dangerous to free thought than my participating on this forum. -- True

Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is more dangerous to free thought than allowing butterflies to live. -- True

These statements don't show that the state shouldn't set the curriculum, they only show that the state setting a curriculum is the greater evil of the two parts of each statement.

Likewise,
Having a President who encourages "teaching the controversy" is more dangerous to free thought than allowing butterflies to live. -- True

This doesn't mean that we should outlaw the President's encouragement of "teaching the controversy."

Contrast that with:
Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is more dangerous to free thought than a well-funded, well-honed, conscious effort to promote deliberate falsehoods. -- False

Here, the latter is the greater of the two evils, and though this statement also doesn't show that the state should set curricula, the former happens to currently be the best way to hinder the latter.

"In my opinion it is countered by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't engage in actual freethought."

Are you saying that you'd sacrifice freethought for the "remnant" like us (by endorsing State intervention) [...]

No, I just chose that wording based on your statement. It was my way of characterizing the the creationists' efforts.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculae CAN BE (not necessarily IS) more dangerous to free thought than a marketplace of ideas with a few rotten products - which is not the situation we are dealing with - but definitely is NOT as dangerous to free thought as a well-funded, well-honed, conscious effort to promote deliberate falsehoods - which is the situation we are dealing with. Since we cannot, while still upholding constitutional rights of free speech and religious choice, stop the latter from what they are doing, we must support the counter to them.

Now we come to the real question - not, should the state be doing this, but how are we involved with the state that is doing this? What little we can do involves writing letters to editors and to governmental representatives - and participating in the election process, including voting. While my single vote may or may not be considered important in a voting populace of 100,000 or so (statewide), it still may be the one that puts my views "over the top" - and my views quite probably won't go "over the top" without it.

[Hogeye]

I see. You don't understand that Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is mutually exclusive to having a marketplace of ideas. Thus, you offer spurious non-mutually-exclusive contrasts like "allowing butterflies to live."

You don't seem to realize that all non-aggressive conduct is compatable with "the marketplace of ideas" - even "a well-funded, well-honed, conscious effort to promote deliberate falsehoods." (Not that I agree that the creationists' falsehoods are deliberate; I suspect for most it's simply ignorance.)

So now it seems that you disagree with, Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is more dangerous to free thought than a marketplace of ideas with a few rotten products for sale. You think that a marketplace of ideas is more dangerous to freethinking, if that marketplace has some strong competition to your opinion. If there exists well-funded competition, you support State aggression to squelch it. Is that a fair summary?

I'm the guy that will be laughing at the poetic justice if your glorius State outlaws the teaching of evolution. (Authoritarians are amazingly optimistic - they seem to always assume that the State will serendipitously come around to their side, forever and ever, amen.)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye, we have both - the state curriculae is at the public school (k-12) level, but at the post-secondary level, there is a "marketplace of ideas". It is from this research at the post-secondary level that the information comes to be used in the state curriculae. When new information becomes integrated into the university environment, it then moves into the public educational environment. This takes time and the public schools will always be behind "cutting edge" information, because it will not be moved into the public schools until it's been firmly established, which by definition means it's no longer "cutting edge" (i.e., serial commas were on their way out at the university and professional level in the 70s, but my younger sisters were still being taught them in high school English). On the other hand, it means students in their 50-minute classes aren't confused with untested information still in the "base knowledge of facts" stage of learning.

And tree rings, while not a good indicator of temperature, are a very good indicator of climate change.

[Coralie]

Evolution should be taught in science classes, because it is science, as defined by scientists and a long tradition of what defines science. Creationism along with a number of other creation myths from other cultures could be taught in a course called "Creation Beliefs." Some of these are great stories. The course could be considered as Literature or World Religions.
Intelligent Design is neither science nor literature nor good red herring, so I don't see any reason to include it at all.

[Savonarola]

I see. You don't understand that Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is mutually exclusive to having a marketplace of ideas.

I can't say I agree, and Barbara makes a good point to that effect. Mandating topics of secondary education doesn't prevent ideas from being discussed in post-secondary education or non-education venues.
Also, mandates aren't permanent. For example, the Ohio state school board inserted a very creationistic benchmark and lesson plan just a couple years ago, and just this month they were removed. The idea is that the board of education listens to the argumentation before setting the curriculum. This means that, even if a curriculum is set, not only is there still a marketplace of ideas, but the marketplace of ideas still influences the board that sets the curriculum.

You don't seem to realize that all non-aggressive conduct is compatable with "the marketplace of ideas" - even "a well-funded, well-honed, conscious effort to promote deliberate falsehoods."

But look at what DI and the ID proponents tried to do: rather than use the actual pathways that science uses, and trying to build scientific support for their claim, they simply tried to shoehorn ID into curriculum. (And for a while, they succeeded!) This is not "non-agressive" conduct; it's not playing by the rules that we use to make these decisions.

So now it seems that you disagree with, Having a State powerful enough to set the curriculum is more dangerous to free thought than a marketplace of ideas with a few rotten products for sale.

I really see no need to explain my position to you again. If you don't understand my view, it is a comprehension problem on your part, not a poor explanation on mine.

You think that a marketplace of ideas is more dangerous to freethinking, if that marketplace has some strong competition to your opinion.

Is it legitimately "strong competition," or is it successfully exploitative illegitimate competition? When you have the latter, you have a problem. If they're not going to play by the rules, we don't want to play with them at all.

If there exists well-funded competition, you support State aggression to squelch it. Is that a fair summary?

I'm the guy that will be laughing at the poetic justice if your glorius State outlaws the teaching of evolution.

Been there, done that. Don't you remember? Back when they gave John Q. Taxpayer more say in curriculum than the scientific community...

(Authoritarians are amazingly optimistic - they seem to always assume that the State will serendipitously come around to their side, forever and ever, amen.)

So now I'm an authoritarian? But then, compared to you, I guess everyone is. *shrug*

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Savonarola - Hogeye has apparently never tried to teach an 8th grade science class who decided, when the majority of the class got certain questions wrong, they were really right, since majority rules. Or maybe he was a member of one like that. (He wasn't in mine, I'd have remembered!) The Socratic method tends not to work in classes of 35 or more.

[Hogeye]

But look at what DI and the ID proponents tried to do: rather than use the actual pathways that science uses, and trying to build scientific support for their claim, they simply tried to shoehorn ID into curriculum.

I see both sides trying to use the "shoehorn" of State to coerce their opponents. Currently the pro-science statists use relatively more aggression - they've succeeded in using State power to legally gag the other guys - preventing their point of view from being taught at all in govt schools. (The opposite side is on top from Scopes, but it is the same old govt aggression.)

Is it legitimately "strong competition," or is it successfully exploitative illegitimate competition?

As noted, both sides use the State apparatus to force others, so both sides use illegitimate means to some extent. To the extent the conflict is carried on through education, discussion, and persuation, both are legitimate. I don't see one side being any more "exploitative" than the other. They both make their films, put up their web pages, have their conventions, etc., and (unfortunately) both try to use government power to bludgeon each other.

So now I'm an authoritarian? But then, compared to you, I guess everyone is.

Right - almost everyone. I hear there's a guy named Kevin Carson who's as radical as I am.

[Savonarola]

they've succeeded in using State power to legally gag the other guys - preventing their point of view from being taught at all in govt schools.

But only in schools. This is not preventing scientific evidence that supports creationism from being presented to the scientific community. (Rather, the lack of any substantial scientific evidence that supports creationism is what is preventing substantial scientific evidence that supports creationism from being presented to the scientific community.)

To the extent the conflict is carried on through education, discussion, and persuation, both are legitimate.

This is baloney, as I explained in my previous post. Science works by the scientific method, informed debate, and peer review. Creationism fails all three, so rather than work toward finding scientific evidence to support their view, creationists jump straight to boards of education.

I don't see one side being any more "exploitative" than the other.

Then either you don't know much about the debate, or you don't look even remotely hard.

and (unfortunately) both try to use government power to bludgeon each other.

This is precisely the point. Creationism has already been bludgeoned by actual science, so creationists are trying to skip the actual science step of obtaining and verifying information. By taking the step of trying to use government to push their agenda, they not only rationalize but justify the use of the government against them.

[Hogeye]

they've succeeded in using State power to legally gag the other guys - preventing their point of view from being taught at all in govt schools.

But only in schools.

Right. No one's claiming that government control over school curriculum is extreme authoritarianism, only that it is a step in the wrong direction.

To the extent the conflict is carried on through education, discussion, and persuation, both are legitimate.

This is baloney, as I explained in my previous post.

We're miscommunicating here. I mean legitimate social interaction in the quote above, while you mean legitimate science in your response. My position is that neither side should use aggression, either personally or through the State; aggression is an illegitimate means for social change.

[Savonarola]

No one's claiming that government control over school curriculum is extreme authoritarianism, only that it is a step in the wrong direction.

I really see no need to explain my position to you again. If you don't understand my view, it is a comprehension problem on your part, not a poor explanation on mine.

Nevertheless:
It would be "a step in the wrong direction" if this were a perfect world. This is not a perfect world. The current situation has been significantly bastardized, such that this is actually a step in the right direction.

I mean legitimate social interaction in the quote above, while you mean legitimate science in your response.

If you think blatant lying, misrepresenting, misquoting, and all the other tactics used by creationists are examples of "legitimate social interaction" (especially considering you have misrepresented my position numerous times), I see no reason in continuing this discussion.

[Hogeye]

If you think blatant lying, misrepresenting, misquoting, and all the other tactics used by creationists are examples of "legitimate social interaction"...

I don't think those tactics are nice, but I also don't think aggression (personnally or through State) is the answer to such tactics. I would prefer keeping the dispute between creationists and evolutionists a matter of discussion and persuation. I see the brute force of State as an anathema to both science and freethought. You apparently feel that free thought is impotent against lies, so you want to use the State to impose your views and curriculum.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Now I'm a member & can vote, but this poll doesn't give me my preferred choice. I think evolution is the only legitimate scientific topic listed, and thus is the only topic to be taught in science class. The other two are perfectly fine for a philosophy or comparative religions class.

Hogeye, homeschool your kids, if you have any, and you can teach them however you wish - but don't be surprised if they can't get into a university, presupposing you wish them to have that choice, if they don't have the information needed to pass the ACT. In the real world of education - and the real world of employment - certain things need to be taught and there is just not enough time to deal with multiple ideas that haven't even reached the testible stage of hypotheses. Somebody has to mandate curriculae based on the already tested and currently accepted base of facts and the only entity with that authority is the state.

[Hogeye]

In the real world of education - and the real world of employment - certain things need to be taught and there is just not enough time to deal with multiple ideas that haven't even reached the testible stage of hypotheses.

Right.

Somebody has to mandate curriculae based on the already tested and currently accepted base of facts and the only entity with that authority is the state.

No, it could be decided by owners of schools (private schools or homeschooling), it could be decided by local school boards (rather than state or fed governments), it could be decided by students and parents as customers (if govt simply funded by vouchers, rather than both funded and controlled) and so on. Saying "only the Lord can do that" is not good freethinking!

[Savonarola]

If you think blatant lying, misrepresenting, misquoting, and all the other tactics used by creationists are examples of "legitimate social interaction" (especially considering you have misrepresented my position numerous times), I see no reason in continuing this discussion.

You apparently feel that free thought is impotent against lies, so you want to use the State to impose your views and curriculum.

[...] it could be decided by local school boards (rather than state or fed governments), it could be decided by students and parents as customers [...]

This has been discussed already. Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid.

Now I'm a member ...

Welcome aboard, Barbara!

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye - private schools don't school "the masses" & homeschooling is fine if you can afford to stay home and do it (the irony of welfare mothers is that they can afford to homeschool, just like the wealthy) but those of use at 1/4 to 1/2 the median income can't. We currently have much of curriculum - at least the textbooks - decided by the local school boards, and it doesn't work. Kids going to school in Peapatch, AR can't get into a university and can't get a high paying job requiring post-secondary education because their local school board mandated education is insufficient. Only the federal government - and if the country is ruled by corporations controlling market forces, then those corporations are government - is a big enough entity to do this. Every other entity is regional, and I am talking about education at allows a kid from the tiniest, most rural town in AR or MS or ND or wherever to pass the ACT, SAT, or any other college entrance exam in any other part of the country. They may not want to, and that's fine - if it's their choice. "Don't want to" is a whole different kettle of fish from "can't".

As to vouchers, that disperses money at the very point it needs to be consolidated. Per capita funding has always been a misleading measure for education (why RWs can get away with saying "throwing money at the problem" doesn't fix it). You have to consolidate a whole lot of "per capitas" to build the school building, hire teachers, buy textbooks and other supplies, provide programs for special populations (ESL, special ed, etc). Split that money up and you can do none of that.

[Hogeye]

Luckily, I suspect that the internet will make centralized schools obsolete, just as email is making monopoly State postal services obsolete. I predict that children herded together in the same building will give way to telelearning supplemented by roving tutors. The century-old "Prussian experiment" of centralized schools will lose out to more efficient decentralized education. Is technology great or what?