fayfreethinkers.com

Despite the results of the Dover trial, many state legislators continue to introduce bills that would authorize, defend, or require the teaching of Intelligent Design and creationism in public schools.

Please see our webpage listing these bills as they are introduced.

people, man, people.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb. 14 — The Ohio Board of Education voted 11 to 4 Tuesday to toss out a mandate that 10th-grade biology classes include critical analysis of evolution and an accompanying model lesson plan, dealing the intelligent design movement its second serious defeat in two months.

The board, which became the first in the nation to single out evolution for special scrutiny under the academic standards it adopted in 2002, stripped the language from the curriculum partly out of fear of a lawsuit in the wake of a December ruling by a federal judge that teaching intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., public schools was unconstitutional.

While the Ohio lesson plan does not mention intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to be explained by evolution alone, critics contend that the critical analysis language is simply design in disguise.

"This lesson is bad news, the 'critically analyze' wording is bad news," Martha W. Wise, the board member who offered the emergency motion, told her colleagues during 90 minutes of contentious debate here Tuesday afternoon. "It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science."

See the rest here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/natio ... ref=slogin

Darrel wrote:COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb. 14 — The Ohio Board of Education voted 11 to 4 Tuesday to toss out a mandate that 10th-grade biology classes include critical analysis of evolution and an accompanying model lesson plan, dealing the intelligent design movement its second serious defeat in two months.

Dr. Richard B. Hoppe, a stauch supporter of scientific sanity in Ohio, presented this information very recently on iidb.org.

The original language encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution and included a lesson plan consisting of YEC arguments. I asked Dr. Hoppe why the entire section was removed instead of just the lesson plan, as I see no threat in a "critical analysis" of evolutionary theory when done in a way that is actually scientific.

He responded, in part, as follows:

RBH on iidb.org wrote:We did take issue with just the model lesson plan last month, but the motion to delete just the lesson plan failed by one vote at the Board's January meeting. So in this meeting we went after them all after a month of lobbying and following a suggestion from a board member on the other side who last month said (in effect) 'getting rid of the lesson plan won't do anything useful unless you also get rid of the benchmark and indicator'. So we said "Okey dokey", and went after them all -- benchmark, indicator, and lesson plan -- at this meeting. And got 'em all.

The lovely irony is that had the creationists yielded the lesson plan last month, they'd not have also lost the benchmark and indicator this month.

The thread can be found here.

Did any one else see the article last Sunday about the christian group of about 200 churches were celebrating Charles Darwin's 197th(?) birthday. There have also been a couple of letters that came out of the vatican saying that evolution does not conflict with religion. These two items have given me some glimmer of hope.

What these cristocrats (found that term on workingforchange yesterday) don't get and won't listen to is that evolution describes a process - whether that process is random or "intelligently designed" is immaterial to it. Intelligent people of any or no faith can accept the process as having no conflict with their faith or lack thereof, which is why even a very conservative pope has no problem with it.

JamesH wrote:There have also been a couple of letters that came out of the vatican saying that evolution does not conflict with religion.

Sure, but JP2 dealt with it many years ago, so Catholics aren't really the problem. Non-Catholics don't care what the Vatican says, AFAIK, unless perhaps if they already agree with it.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Intelligent people of any or no faith can accept the process as having no conflict with their faith or lack thereof, which is why even a very conservative pope has no problem with it.

If you've talked to many people who do have a "problem with it," you'll know that the vast majority of them don't fit into the category of "intelligent people of any or no faith."

So in response to that and your comment here, the answer is to fix the education system, though this isn't the place to discuss that. I can't imagine it would be easy, and I have no cure-all solution, but the state of science education in this country is simply appalling (thanks in large part to the rightwing nutjobs, although that's for a different forum too.)

While I think that a good school would teach evolution theory and not creationism/ID, I am uncomfortable with the wording of the question. So I didn't vote. The question (and comments) seems to be more about what the State should mandate for local schools than about evolution vs creationism. I am against the rulers mandating anything regarding schools - I would prefer it be up to the students and parents.

Does anyone but me think it ironic that the original Scopes trial was about freedom - letting local schools teach what they want - while today it's turned around 180 degrees to prevent schools from teaching what they want. It's gone from authoritarian laws forbidding teaching evolution to authoritarian laws forbidding the teaching of creationism.

In short, I'd like to separate the questions which is a better curriculum? and should curriculum be mandated by State?. I think I'd rather have pluralistic experimentation with some schools teaching stupid shit than Lysenkoism - where the State mandates a certain teaching. The State may get it right, but when it gets it wrong, everybody's screwed. For all the same reasons I don't want the State mandating a certain religious belief, I don't want the State to mandate any scientific theory. I prefer freethinking and the marketplace of ideas.

Hogeye

I agree with what you are saying that both sides should be taugh or examined. I think where it gets sticky is that anyone who is teaching evolution we have a pretty good idea of there back ground which would be science. Now the back ground of someone teaching one of the alternate theries of the origin of man may have a whole different back ground and agenda that you are not aware of.

If it were possible the best route might be to teach evolution and all the other theries as a philosphy class without bias. But then again you would start to run into people with hidden agendas. I could not teach such a class without bias because I am a very strong believer in evolution and I know that my bias would come through.

The more light we shine on the subject will be benificial to all concerned. Evolution I believe would advance even further than it has already has because new ideas would develope with more exposure. ID and creastionism I think would slowly fade away as they were exposed to more and more sun lite because there is no room for new ideas or thought!

JamesH

Hogeye wrote:The question (and comments) seems to be more about what the State should mandate for local schools than about evolution vs creationism.

Although this wasn't my intent when writing the question, one can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. "Which should be," as opposed to "Which should be mandated to be"... In any case, nobody can be upset that you didn't vote, especially if you took the time to comment as you did.

Hogeye wrote:I am against the rulers mandating anything regarding schools - I would prefer it be up to the students and parents.

This is exactly what we don't want. Do you want people who just barely squeaked by algebra in high school to have significant say in how to teach calculus? Do you want members of the Flat Earth Society having any influence on what should be taught in astronomy/earth science classes? We called them "laymen" for a reason: they are not qualified to make decisions on topics on which they have no expertise. Education guidelines should be set by educators and by professionals in their respective fields.

Hogeye wrote:Does anyone but me think it ironic that the original Scopes trial was about freedom - letting local schools teach what they want - while today it's turned around 180 degrees to prevent schools from teaching what they want. It's gone from authoritarian laws forbidding teaching evolution to authoritarian laws forbidding the teaching of creationism.

My response to this prompt is: Decades ago, science education was shaped by religion instead of by science. Today, no science class is impeding on the free exercise of religion. The Scopes trial was about freedom of teaching scientific concepts. Current laws prevent teaching psuedoscientific concepts in science classes. The parallel is minimal.

Hogeye wrote:In short, I'd like to separate the questions which is a better curriculum? and should curriculum be mandated by State?.

Yet another perk of our board: Registered users can start their own polls. While I certainly appreciate your feedback in this thread, feel free to post one or both of those questions in a poll, along with any explanation you care into include. (On nwapolitics we had a few dicussions regarding the importance of correctly-worded polling questions, and Hogeye has shown how important this is here.)

Hogeye wrote:I am against the rulers mandating anything regarding schools - I would prefer it be up to the students and parents.

DAR
Of course you are, because, and correct me if I am wrong, you are an anarchist of some sort and therefore against any kind of collectivism or what I think you often call "statism." Perhaps you can agree with this. IF you are going to have a nation, and if you are going to have state schools, and if you are going to have science taught in those schools, THEN the ones who decide what should be considered science, should be those who know what they are talking about on such matters and not "students and parents."

Hogeye wrote: Does anyone but me think it ironic that the original Scopes trial was about freedom - letting local schools teach what they want - while today it's turned around 180 degrees to prevent schools from teaching what they want.

DAR
It was? Scopes was a set up to ridicule creationism. I am against schools teaching religion and calling it science. I am also against them teaching students palpable falsehoods such as creationism or ID. The results of such meddling with (poisoning) the minds of future citizens who we will rely upon to make important science decisions can be just to catastrophic now in the nuclear age (not that it wasn't a complete disaster in the past either).

Hogeye wrote: It's gone from authoritarian laws forbidding teaching evolution to authoritarian laws forbidding the teaching of creationism.

DAR
Good. If they want to teach the palpable falsehood of creationism, there is a tax-free church on every corner and religious schools where they can do that. I am against the state teaching things that are demonstrably false. And it's against the establishment clause anyway.

Hogeye wrote: The State may get it right, but when it gets it wrong, everybody's screwed.

DAR
How about, when the state gets it wrong, we point it out to them. If ID had a case to make and was based on good science, it would and should be taught in science class. But it does not, and should not.

Hogeye wrote: For all the same reasons I don't want the State mandating a certain religious belief,

DAR
The first amendment takes care of that. But I find a state endorsement of religion (look how well it has worked to boost secularism in Europe) less objectionable than teaching the falsehood that religion (ID) is science, when it is not.
I'll have copies of Michael Plavcan's lecture on ID at our next meeting. Perhaps you would like to get one and see just how preposterous this stuff is.

Hogeye wrote: I don't want the State to mandate any scientific theory.

DAR
I want scientists fighting it out in the freemarket of peer-review and the best theory rising to the top. If you are going to have a state, and put me down for them, then I want the state setting, mandating, the best scientific corriculum our best scientists can muster. Anything less is a disservice to our children and the human race.

Hogeye wrote: I prefer freethinking and the marketplace of ideas.

DAR
On a good day, that's what science is. A marketplace where the best ideas live and the bad ones are discarded. Religion, fundies in particular, want to circumvent this process and teach mythology. Their ideas about the world and universe don't last a moment in a skeptical truth seeking environment so this is why they talk endlessly about believing by faith in their churches. And that's fine in church (although unfortunate), but not in science class run by the state.

D.
-------------------------
"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple
and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and
because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing
honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"
[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Skeptical Inquirer"]

Teach creationism? Professor Douglas J. Futuyma summed up the issue with his observation:
"Suppose creationism had equal time in science classes. What would be taught? If creationists teach that the universe and all its inhabitants were suddenly created a few thousand years ago, and that all of extinction and all of geology were caused by a universal flood, what more can they say? Shall they provide scientific evidence that explains why blue-green algae are in the lowest geological strata and flowering plants in the uppermost? Shall they explain, in terms of modern biology, how a million or more species of animals fit into the ark? Shall they provide evidence from modern physics that explains away the fact that we can perceive light from stars that are billions of light years away, and took billions of years to get here? Shall they provide a testable hypothesis to explain the genetic similarity of apes and humans? Will they describe experiments that elucidate the mechanisms of creation, as geneticists have the mechanisms of evolution? You will seek in vain for answers…" (Futuyma 1995).

Hogeye wrote:For all the same reasons I don't want the State mandating a certain religious belief, I don't want the State to mandate any scientific theory.

Is science different than any other subject? Here's why I ask:
Let's say some group of people were trying to make the case that two plus two really equals five. Nevermind that this fact is demonstrably false, and that every qualified mathematician on the planet agrees that two plus two equals four. Yet many people grasp onto this movement of the "Fivers" and manage to insert it into school curriculum. Would you approve of this curriculum? Would you like to devote equal time to Fiver beliefs and the conclusions of real mathematicians? Would you like to have each school just duke it out to determine which will be taught?

This is essentially what is going on. With enough "Fivers" to influence educators, there needs to be legislation that "only two plus two equals four" be taught or that "two plus two equals five" not be taught. This is justifiable when "two plus two equals four" has been repeatedly tested and has tons of evidence in its favor, with nothing against it. While I agree that this is not ideal, it's certainly more ideal than releasing kids into the real world believing that two twos are five.

If you think this is trivial compared to basic arithmetic, consider the case of Baby Fae.

Savonarola> Let's say some group of people were trying to make the case that two plus two really equals five. Nevermind that this fact is demonstrably false, and that every qualified mathematician on the planet agrees that two plus two equals four. Yet many people grasp onto this movement of the "Fivers" and manage to insert it into school curriculum. Would you approve of this curriculum?

No, I don't approve of that curriculum. I would not attend such a school nor recommend it to anyone. The poll question should have been phrased like that, to separate it from the should the State mandate certain teachings question. I would be strongly against the government either forbidding or mandating the teaching of fivism. Galaleo and your namesake knew the problems with that! Note that, in the marketplace of ideas, fivism will lose out without state coercion. But with state coercion, fivism might be forced upon people, funded and subsidized and promoted like Lamarkian evolution or euthanasia projects or drug prohibition "research" or global warming alarmism.

The government has the anti-Midas touch - everything it touches turns to shit. I liked de Cleyres comparison of freethinking and anarchism - the first is the rejection of the authority of God; the second the rejection of the authority of rulers. It's no surprise that many of the early freethinkers were libertarian.


Darrel, Scopes was officially about whether the state of Tennessee could prohibit coach Scopes from teaching evolution; in particular, using a textbook that mentioned evolution. Motivations for the trial varied. For the ACLU, it was a publicity stunt to get the new org off to a roaring start. For the town and its chamber of commerce, it was advertisment, their version of Bikes, Blues, and Barbeque.

Darrel> I am against schools teaching religion and calling it science.

Me, too. But are you against using State power to enforce the teaching of politically correct belief? Of course; you're a freethinker. In principle, you should be against government authority over men's minds whether its mandating the teaching of the bible and creationism or teaching Darwin and evolutionism. We freethinkers don't want the State to mold the minds of people. We are confident that, barring force, the truth will come out and error eventually revealed by the power of free minds.

Darrel> If you are going to have a state, and put me down for them, then I want the state setting, mandating, the best scientific corriculum our best scientists can muster.

As a freethinker, I would expect better. If you have a state mandating certain beliefs and subsidizing certain "scientific" theories, a real freethinker would try to reduce statist power and control over science, and to emancipate thought from politics, science from power. Freethinkers don't try to free man's mind from the shackles of God, only to submit it to the chains of State.

Hogeye wrote:The poll question should have been phrased like that, to separate it from the should the State mandate certain teachings question.

Yes, I agree that I should have worded the question more clearly. Again, and I'm not saying this to sound rude, but if you'd like to start your own poll(s), you're more than welcome to do so. (In fact, I would really like to see how many people vote differently depending on the wording.) Because people have already voted in this one, it would be disingenuous to change the question now.

Hogeye wrote:Note that, in the marketplace of ideas, fivism will lose out without state coercion.

I'm going to disagree, with a caveat. In science, creationism has "lost out" in every form, yet it continues to be perpetuated by the generally uneducated and (especially) the educated Christian fundamentalist pseudoscientists such that it has not fallen into disfavor by the religious right.
Caveat: You may think of incorrect ideas that have lost out. I'll pick the example of a flat earth. Yes, even (most) fundies accept that the earth is spherical. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, the concept of a flat earth was still popular due to -- among others -- religious reasons an incredibly long time after Eratosthenes not only realized that the earth was curved but also estimated its circumference with remarkable accuracy.

Hogeye wrote:But with state coercion, fivism might be forced upon people, funded and subsidized and promoted like Lamarkian evolution or euthanasia projects or drug prohibition "research" or global warming alarmism.

See this iidb thread for more discussion on this topic (state coercion). It is a controversial objection. Be sure to follow the link to P.Z. Meyer's blog entry.

Hogeye wrote:But are you against using State power to enforce the teaching of politically correct belief?

Since something can be politically correct without being correct, I'm against using state power to enforce/mandate the teaching of politically correct concepts based solely on the reason that they're politically correct.

Hogeye wrote:In principle, you should be against government authority over men's minds whether its mandating the teaching of the bible and creationism or teaching Darwin and evolutionism. We freethinkers don't want the State to mold the minds of people.

In a perfect world, sure. But as a freethinker, I know perfectly well that not enough people "freethink" enough to make unbiased decisions.
More importantly, though, I think you need to make the distinction between not teaching creationism in schools funded by government money and denying people the right to believe creationism. The two are not synonymous, and in no way does teaching the best science of the day deprive anyone of their rights. You make this false analogy several times in your post, and it seems to be the crux to your argumentation, in both senses of the word.

Savarola, I don't think there's any need for a new poll. So far, it's unanimous that evolution is preferred curriculum over creationism/ID. I would simply add one to that vote.

You kind of disagree with my statement, "in the marketplace of ideas, fivism will lose out without state coercion." Yet our disagreement here seems only semantic - how we interpret "lose out." I think the flat earth and creationism has already lost out; rational people with a modicrum of scientific knowlege no longer buy those theories. Sure, there are a few insignificant holdouts. I see absolutely no danger of evolution theory losing out to creationism in any developed country. (It may be possible in a totalitarian N. Korea or Pol Pot scenerio, though.)

PZ Myers in his blog> Noooooooo! This isn't how to do it! Legislators need to keep their hands off science and science teaching, no matter what side they are taking. Promoting good science is OK; suggesting to school boards that they follow guidelines set by the major scientific ideas is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said; picking and choosing and saying which specific ideas ought to be taught and making them part of law is just plain wrong.

Hey, amazing! Someone agrees with me. Another person arguing on principle for non-coercion of the mind.

Savarola> I think you need to make the distinction between not teaching creationism in schools funded by government money and denying people the right to believe creationism.

I mean the former in this thread - I am criticizing state promotion and subsidization of science and scientific theories. If I wrote something that made you think otherwise, I apologize. I've argued that, just as the State shouldn't prohibit the teaching of evolution in government schools; it should not prohibit the teaching of ID either. I want the truth to win out because people have been convinced, with opinion vulcanized by the heat of error and the hammer of competing ideas; not because politicians have molded the minds of the dumb masses.

Hogeye wrote:Yet our disagreement here seems only semantic - how we interpret "lose out."

Semantics, sure. However, seeing students frown or get bug-eyed when I mention anything evolutionary in a biology class (not to mention these ludicrous anti-evolution bills in so many states) reminds me that creationist psuedoscience is alive and kicking, which to me is significant. It's a worldview that just won't die.

Hogeye wrote:Hey, amazing! Someone agrees with me. Another person arguing on principle for non-coercion of the mind.

Yes, and P.Z. Meyers really knows his stuff, too. But read the comments. Reasonable discussion convinced P.Z. to back off from his original view and take a less critical view.

Hogeye wrote:I am criticizing state promotion and subsidization of science and scientific theories. If I wrote something that made you think otherwise, I apologize. I've argued that, just as the State shouldn't prohibit the teaching of evolution in government schools; it should not prohibit the teaching of ID either.

These two statements are unrelated. I agree that promoting a particular topic can be dangerous, but the state "promotes" and "subsidizes" teaching topics all the time via educational benchmarks. If this is truly your beef, you must strenously object to virtually all the work of every state board of education.
More importantly, ID is not a "science" or a "scientific theory." Even ID's star scientist admits that ID isn't science. More importantly, though, every professional organization of scientists rejects ID as science. Therefore the law mandates that ID not be taught as science.

The discussion with Hogeye goes back to what I keep saying - theory is taught in school as scientific "guess" - Hogeye, among many others, apparently doesn't understand the amount of work, research, testing of hypotheses, verification of predicted outcomes, etc. that has gone on before something is called a theory & thus sees no problem with ID being taught with evolution. - ID & creationism are religious "truths" - they do not stand up to the rigorous reasearch and testing that evolution has. Hogeye also apparently doesn't (as most people don't) understand the ripple effects of the ID rock. For a really simple example, the ID-taught kid becomes a farmer who doesn't believe in evolution, so doesn't believe in a "resistent strain" bacteria problem, so feeds antibiotics to his chickens - and loses a kid to a resistent strain of strep. If you don't believe in evolution, then physics, geology, medicine, ecology - to name a few - are all myths. But atom bombs are proof of nuclear science and nuclear science gives us a timeline for the earth of 4.5 billion years. Every field of science connects to evolution at least tangentally, and every field of science leads to the proof of the "theory".

As to states, count me in on that one, too. Unless you reduce the population to under 50 per community & spread those communities out so much they can't compete for resources, we need states (& possibly even with communities of under 50). With government there may be thug rule. Without government there will be thug rule. I don't like thugs.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:The discussion with Hogeye goes back to what I keep saying - theory is taught in school as scientific "guess" - Hogeye, among many others, apparently doesn't understand the amount of work, research, testing of hypotheses, verification of predicted outcomes, etc. that has gone on before something is called a theory & thus sees no problem with ID being taught with evolution.

This is not how I interpreted his points; however, it would make his position a bit more understandable. Perhaps Hogeye would clarify for us?

Barbara, you missed my point entirely. I know what a theory is, and I know science is a lot of work. What I question is whether a government should be dictating what should and should not be taught in school. Do you believe that Coach Scopes should have been prevented by the State from teaching evolution? Me neither. The State should not be so powerful it is able to mold the minds of its subjects, just as the church should not be so powerful it is able to mold minds.

I am not speaking to whether the mandated curriculum is scientifically correct; I am speaking about intellectual freedom. Do we, as freethinkers, want a "marketplace of ideas" or do we want an authority (church or State) to create a Brave New World, with everyone in their cognitive Skinner boxes. This time (about evolution) the State policy is right, but do you really want to support and condone a system where the State says what is true? When the State is wrong, about the medical properties of cannabis or existence of WMDs in Iraq or the long-run consequences of fiat money, or the necessity of kidnapping and torturing of suspects, will you be happy with the let the State brainwash the kids approach?

Barbara wrote:With government there may be thug rule. Without government there will be thug rule. I don't like thugs.

Many of us who have looked into anarchism realize that defense, road, banking, and other services traditionally done by State could be done by voluntary organizations, using the market rather than thuggery. But anarchism should be a separate thread. If you like, read my Anarcho-capitalist FAQ and ask me a question in the thread by that name.

Hogeye wrote:The State should not be so powerful it is able to mold the minds of its subjects, just as the church should not be so powerful it is able to mold minds.

How is presenting truth in school "molding students' minds"?