Transcript of Intelligent Design case

[silkworm]

Originally Posted by Severian

The problem with letting this sort of thing go to the courts is that the lawyers don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about...

 

I'd rather let lawyers decide than schoolboards.

[Mokele]

I'm also curious as to why you think children exposed to a religious and instead of secular view of the life sciences would have a harder time getting into college or finding work?

 

For the same reason they'd have trouble in college chemistry if they were taught that atoms were fake and made up, and Jesus magically makes one chemical into another. Not learning the fundamental theory which underlies all biology is a rather large omission in a child's education.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

It shouldn't go anywhere. The schools should teach what they like and the parents should be able to decide which schools to send their kids to.

 

The Establishment Clause is there to prevent this from happening

[phcatlantis]

For the same reason they'd have trouble in college chemistry if they were taught that atoms were fake and made up' date=' and Jesus magically makes one chemical into another. Not learning the fundamental theory which underlies all biology is a rather large omission in a child's education.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Getting back to Severian's point, I've seen no evidence to suggest that grade school students at private religious institutions are less likely to advance to higher education than their public school peers. I think your assertion of the pedagogical risks of abandoning the life sciences in grade school would make for a great discussion; if it could survive the simple fact that most colleges and university do not have a chemistry or biology requirement and those that do have introductory courses. What's so hard about intro chem and bio anyway? I don't particularly care whether man evolved from ape or not, and I got through just fine. Just go to lecture or recitation, read the text, do the problem sets, take the tests, and you're set.

[phcatlantis]

The Establishment Clause is there to prevent this from happening

 

Which would be one point of view. There are definitely others, and there's a whole gang of lawyers, judges, senators and even a President or two who get a say in how the 'final' point of law plays out.

[silkworm]

Just go to lecture or recitation, read the text, do the problem sets, take the tests, and you're set.

 

I think the goal is to enlighten the child with the truth so hopefully they'll look at education as something valuable instead of something where you spend a few years filling out forms to get a piece of paper.

 

If you teach the kid something real and don't undermine with this attitude like you are doing something evil or creepy by learning science maybe then the child will look at science seriously. There's a stigma enough with being a "nerd," but it's a little rougher when the attitude of the other kids (who adopt the attitude to get out of having to make an effort) is that taking science seriously makes you some sort of creep.

 

High school is supposed to show you the basics and show you what is out there, and I'll always feel robbed (as I said in an earlier post) for not being shown because I had an excuse to not pay attention, the sake of my immortal soul.

 

I think that evolution certainly falls into the basics, along with plate tectonic theory, the laws of motion, and other fundamental scientific concepts. If we can't get kids through high school without fully understanding these concepts then we've failed as a nation.

[bascule]

Which would be one point of view. There are definitely others, and there's a whole gang of lawyers, judges, senators and even a President or two who get a say in how the 'final' point of law plays out.

 

Well, there's also the Everson v. Ewing Supreme Court decision:

 

The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'

 

So yeah, seperation of church and state. If a teacher at a public school decides to start evangelizing to his students in class, it's not the responsibility of the students to find a new class, it's the responsibility of the school to fire that teacher.

[Mokele]

I've seen no evidence to suggest that grade school students at private religious institutions are less likely to advance to higher education than their public school peers. I think your assertion of the pedagogical risks of abandoning the life sciences in grade school would make for a great discussion

 

Except I never made that point. By "child" I refer to anyone up until 18. Grade school is likely too early; at that point kids are still learning stuff like what a mammal is and how to mulitply.

 

I'd also like to note that many private religious schools (predominantly catholic) teach evolution in their science classes, from what I've heard, with the religious aspect being the concept of god working *via* the laws of nature.

 

if it could survive the simple fact that most colleges and university do not have a chemistry or biology requirement and those that do have introductory courses.

 

So just because it's not required, it's not worth knowing? I guess all that time in HS making me culturally literate by forcing me to read Hamlet and such was a waste, then?

 

I don't particularly care whether man evolved from ape or not, and I got through just fine. Just go to lecture or recitation, read the text, do the problem sets, take the tests, and you're set.

 

Then your education in biology is abysmal, and not even worth calling an education. You're a cheap version of google, able to merely spit out facts without any understanding of the concepts behind them.

 

Biology without evolution is just stamp collecting; amassing a pointless series of unconnected facts for no purpose or effect. Without evolution, one cannot actually understand genetics, physiology, behavior, morphology, development, medicine, ecology, biogeography, exercise, epidemiology, nutrition, sex, growth, parasitology, or any other aspect of biology.

 

Understanding is not the same as being able to vomit forth facts on command. Understanding *why* things are the way they are, how they got that way, and what makes certain avenues of investigation interesting and useful requires a knowledge of evolution.

 

Mokele

[phcatlantis]

Except I never made that point.

 

Which is why I said "getting back to Severian's point."

 

By "child" I refer to anyone up until 18. Grade school is likely too early; at that point kids are still learning stuff like what a mammal is and how to mulitply.

 

Sorry. I meant to say grade school, middle school *and* high school.

 

I'd also like to note that many private religious schools (predominantly catholic) teach evolution in their science classes, from what I've heard, with the religious aspect being the concept of god working *via* the laws of nature.

 

Roughly half of students enrolled in private schools are in Catholic ones. Another third affiliate with other religions and Christian denominations. [1]

 

You can also play with the NAEP data explorer to get the science scores for 12th graders in 2000 in public and non-public schools. Short story: Catholics, 161 -- secular public schools, 145. [2].

 

Either way, it doesn't answer my question. My guess is we should find some pretty hard evidence that students at religious schools fare worse academically and attend college at a lower rate than public school students. At least that's the kernel of Severian's hypothesis.

 

So just because it's not required, it's not worth knowing?

 

I don't know. Probably. I personally have little interest or use for it, so it was just another requirement for me.

 

I guess all that time in HS making me culturally literate by forcing me to read Hamlet and such was a waste, then?

 

I don't have much use for Hamlet either, and lit classes weren't required.

 

Then your education in biology is abysmal...

 

I'd say it was probably one of the best undergrad intro bio courses in the United States. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

, and not even worth calling an education. You're a cheap version of google

 

I don't think I've posted in the biology forums. Like I said, I'm not interested in the life sciences or chemistry. Something to do with mucas, I guess. As far as the discussion strays into matters of public policy--that's what interests and excites me.

 

...able to merely spit out facts without any understanding of the concepts behind them.

 

I said I took the requirements because I had to. I didn't say I learned nothing.

 

Biology without evolution is just stamp collecting; amassing a pointless series of unconnected facts for no purpose or effect.

 

Possibly, although that view apparantly hasn't occurred to 55 percent of Protestant and 73 percent of Muslim physicians. [3]. I imagine they believe they're employing biology to some purpose and with some effect. That is, insofar as we're narrowly discussing the theory's consequence towards explaining the course of life over geological periods of time. I'm quite sure few people are offended by the modest notion that allele frequency changes over time; I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't care.

 

Without evolution, one cannot actually understand genetics, physiology, behavior, morphology, development, medicine, ecology, biogeography, exercise, epidemiology, nutrition, sex, growth, parasitology, or any other aspect of biology.

 

No argument from me here. Although I fail to see how a physician significantly hampered by the additional, unscientific belief that evolution has not and does not give rise to new species. After all, what does it matter professionally to a doctor if life started its course to the present de novo as 6000 years ago?

 

Understanding is not the same as being able to vomit forth facts on command.

 

I guess understanding allows someone trained in one field to come onto boards like these and issue dicta to those trained in others--like education and public policy. After all, this began with a simple question: why does Severian predict that children educated in (presumably) religious institutions are less likely to meet the academic challege of college than those who attend secular schools.

 

Understanding *why* things are the way they are, how they got that way, and what makes certain avenues of investigation interesting and useful requires a knowledge of evolution.

 

Computer science is interesting enough without an extensive background in electrical engineering; enough that it has its own field. An even sharper distinction can be made between electrical engineers and astrophysicists. I even hear they let mathematicians do all sorts of crazy topology and diff geometry without studying cosmology.

[phcatlantis]

Well, there's also the Everson v. Ewing Supreme Court decision:

 

You might want to read the decision. Those words are Justice Hugo Black, who wrote a 5-4 decision determining that Ewing's reimbursement of costs for busing to religious private and parochiel schools did not rise to an "establishment of religion." Since 1947, the legal debate has been over the meaning of the word 'participation,' and the hottest venue for that is in Lemon test cases.

 

So yeah, seperation of church and state. If a teacher at a public school decides to start evangelizing to his students in class, it's not the responsibility of the students to find a new class, it's the responsibility of the school to fire that teacher.

 

Which is one view of Everson's ban against open or covert state 'participation.' And like any term that finds itself in legal space, participation--eventually endorsement--will be revisited by new lawyers before new judges appointed by new Presidents. On a side note, law is a fun and interesting area of study. Instead of just, as Moleke puts it, 'googling and vomiting,' take some time to get a basic understanding of how law comes to be, is applied and reconsidered. Everything about it is exciting, from something seemingly as mundane as subject matter jurisdiction all the way to the "sexier" constitutional sticking points.

[phcatlantis]

I think the goal is to enlighten the child with the truth...

 

There's a word for that. Prosyletization. Seriously, don't you think its more important that a student finds something genuinely exciting and personally lucrative to excel at instead of worrying about whether or not he or she believes man evolved from apes? If so, who cares if biology doesn't gets their blood flowing?

 

...so hopefully they'll look at education as something valuable instead of something where you spend a few years filling out forms to get a piece of paper.

 

Biology and chemistry were very valuable. It was a necessary 24 credits to complete to get a very valuable degree.

 

If you teach the kid something real and don't undermine with this attitude like you are doing something evil or creepy by learning science maybe then the child will look at science seriously.

 

I don't think there's much of a constituency out there for the "physics/engineering/mathematics are evil" mode of education. We're talking about a pretty narrow set of objections--particularly when it comes to the life sciences and almost entirely as it pertains to evolution's consequences for Earth's history on geological timescales.

 

There's a stigma enough with being a "nerd," but it's a little rougher when the attitude of the other kids (who adopt the attitude to get out of having to make an effort) is that taking science seriously makes you some sort of creep.

 

I think there's a lot more to nerds that make them creepy than pathological obsessions for the obscure. That said, there are many perfectly well adjusted people in engineering and the sciences who could give a crap about whether Kansas teaches intelligent design or evolution to high schoolers. They live fulfilling, productive lives, are competent in their professions, and are otherwise nice people to hang around. So what's so great about being a nerd?

 

High school is supposed to show you the basics and show you what is out there...

 

Strange, I thought the mode of most primary and secondary education in the United States only promises to provide students with some perceived minimum set of skills necessary to live and work in society.

 

I think that evolution certainly falls into the basics, along with plate tectonic theory, the laws of motion, and other fundamental scientific concepts.

 

How are evolution and plate tectonics as 'fundamental' as the laws of motion?

 

If we can't get kids through high school without fully understanding these concepts then we've failed as a nation.

 

I'd say we've failed as a nation if we can't get kids out of high school who can read at the appropriate level, handle math problems expected of high school graduates, and work with concepts of distance and time in meaningful, productive ways. I don't care if Joe Schmo the Electrician knows where the continents were hundreds of millions of years ago or that we can a phylogenetic tree detailing human and ape evolution from common ancestors. I doubt he cares either.

[Mokele]

My guess is we should find some pretty hard evidence that students at religious schools fare worse academically and attend college at a lower rate than public school students. At least that's the kernel of Severian's hypothesis.

 

Actually, Sev's hypothesis has more to do with teaching ID. Just breaking the schools down by religion is meaningless, since so many catholic schools teach evolution, while many public school teachers either won't for fear of controversy, or don't just because they don't get to that chapter in time.

 

I'd say it was probably one of the best undergrad intro bio courses in the United States. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

Hands up everyone with a degree in biology. Hands up those who've taught it. Right. Guess whose opinion on the worth of a biology course has more weight?

 

I didn't say I learned nothing.

 

Without the overarcing concept behind the fact, you might as well have learned nothing.

 

Possibly, although that view apparantly hasn't occurred to 55 percent of Protestant and 73 percent of Muslim physicians. [3]. I imagine they believe they're employing biology to some purpose and with some effect.

 

Meaningless statistics; you cannot assume all or even most of those individuals are creationists/IDiots. In fact, when antibiotics first came out, there was an accompanying discussion of "Do not over-perscribe these or the bacteria *will* evolve to face this challenge".

 

Or how about the fact we've made great progress towards solving many gentic diseases that previously eluded our grasp due to not being in normal genes, but rather switches for the genes (which are considerably harder to find)? Guess how we did it? Good old ape-human common ancestry. they figured any truly "junk" DNA with no use would simply mutate at the usual background rate, while anything important (like switches for developmental genes) would be acted upon by selection to keep it functional, and would show a much lower rate of change. Using this method, they were able to rapidly narrow down the search to certain promising loci.

 

That is, insofar as we're narrowly discussing the theory's consequence towards explaining the course of life over geological periods of time.

 

I don't recall you being given the authority to dictate what everyone else is talking about.

 

Although I fail to see how a physician significantly hampered by the additional, unscientific belief that evolution has not and does not give rise to new species. After all, what does it matter professionally to a doctor if life started its course to the present de novo as 6000 years ago?

 

See above. If they'e just a pill-pusher who's sole use is to make diagnoses and treat people, it problably doesn't any more than computer repair person needs to know electrical engineering in exquisite detail. But in order to actually devise the treatments? To find the genes that cause problems? To know what species are worth bioprospecting for new drugs? A lack of knowledge of evolution would severely hamper that.

 

why does Severian predict that children educated in (presumably) religious institutions are less likely to meet the academic challege of college than those who attend secular schools.

 

Because they'll fail to adequately grasp biology. Even if this has no effect on other majors, it means a certain percentage who do go into biology will be at a severe disadvantage.

 

Computer science is interesting enough without an extensive background in electrical engineering; enough that it has its own field. An even sharper distinction can be made between electrical engineers and astrophysicists. I even hear they let mathematicians do all sorts of crazy topology and diff geometry without studying cosmology.

 

False analogy except for the first part (and CS *do* have to take some level of EE courses).

 

A better analogy would be how many branches of chemistry out there don't require knowing what atoms are.

 

----------

 

As for the court stuff, why not just cite Edwards v. Aguillard and be done with it. Even though the Lemon test was used to decide it, it's pretty clear that just plain "establishment of religion" would be enough, with no further elaboration, to evict creationism from schools, let alone the fact that it lacks any merit whatsoever as a scientific concept.

 

How are evolution and plate tectonics as 'fundamental' as the laws of motion?

 

Because evolution is the basis for all study of living things?

 

Mokele

[phcatlantis]

Actually, Sev's hypothesis has more to do with teaching ID.

 

Never said it did. On the other hand, the thread discussion involved a deposition transcript specifically dealing with ID. Sev observed that lawyers gum up the works in so far as science education policy because they're not knowledgable of the issue. He then went on to argue that sustained exposure "this rubbish"--presumably ID--would hurt students attempting to get into college. I pointed out that I've seen no scientific evidence to date that this is the case. Just as I've seen no scientific evidence to date regarding any of your claims about the quality and character of life science education in high school or political pressure faced by public school teachers.

 

Just breaking the schools down by religion is meaningless...

 

How so? Sev's hypothesis is plain and simple. "The schools would pretty soon learn that if they teach the kids this rubbish that the kids won't get places at college or get jobs, and the parents won't send them there." My guess is we'd look for data sets breaking down private schools by religious affiliation and take a look at their student performance as well as their matriculation and college attendance rates.

 

Hands up everyone with a degree in biology. Hands up those who've taught it. Right. Guess whose opinion on the worth of a biology course has more weight?

 

Mine. I have a stronger math, public policy and education science background than you do. Please hold your applause until the end of the post.

 

Without the overarcing concept behind the fact, you might as well have learned nothing.

 

Which is you saying that 35 percent of Protestant and 43 percent of Muslim physicians have learned nothing. [1]

 

Meaningless statistics; you cannot assume all or even most of those individuals are creationists/IDiots.

 

I can assume that 18 percent of them are.

 

In fact, when antibiotics first came out, there was an accompanying discussion of "Do not over-perscribe these or the bacteria *will* evolve to face this challenge"

 

Which is why I pointed out that the crux of the debate is over the theory of evolution's consequences in terms of the evolution of life in the distant past. Like I said, there's not much uproar against the idea that genes change.

 

Or how about the fact we've made great progress towards solving many gentic diseases that previously eluded our grasp due to not being in normal genes, but rather switches for the genes (which are considerably harder to find)? Guess how we did it? Good old ape-human common ancestry. they figured any truly "junk" DNA with no use would simply mutate at the usual background rate, while anything important (like switches for developmental genes) would be acted upon by selection to keep it functional, and would show a much lower rate of change. Using this method, they were able to rapidly narrow down the search to certain promising loci.

 

If you're done snowing the audience, why don't you explain how this has anything to do with whether or not humans came as they were 6000 years ago de novo?

 

I don't recall you being given the authority to dictate what everyone else is talking about.

 

I don't recall you being given the authority to manufacture absurd positions for people not here to defend themselves in order to belittle them.

 

See above. If they'e just a pill-pusher who's sole use is to make diagnoses and treat people, it problably doesn't any more than computer repair person needs to know electrical engineering in exquisite detail. But in order to actually devise the treatments? To find the genes that cause problems? To know what species are worth bioprospecting for new drugs? A lack of knowledge of evolution would severely hamper that.

 

You didn't answer my question. How is a physician hampered by holding the additional, unscientific belief that life began 6000 years ago as the product of some divine power?

 

Because they'll fail to adequately grasp biology.

 

You're logic chopping. Severian has a hypothesis with no empirical support. You have nothing additional to provide. So next question, what besides contempt drives you to that belief?

 

Even if this has no effect on other majors, it means a certain percentage who do go into biology will be at a severe disadvantage.

 

Then I'm sure you have the data to back that up.

 

False analogy except for the first part (and CS *do* have to take some level of EE courses).

 

You really need to read more carefully. I pointed out that CS majors do not require an extensive background in EE.

 

As for the court stuff, why not just cite Edwards v. Aguillard and be done with it. Even though the Lemon test was used to decide it, it's pretty clear that just plain "establishment of religion" would be enough, with no further elaboration, to evict creationism from schools, let alone the fact that it lacks any merit whatsoever as a scientific concept.

 

I don't recall anyone appointing you to a Court, granting you a law degree, or otherwise giving you any authority to declare as simple assertion that the establishment clause is enough to keep creationism out of schools. Surely you have a compelling and insurmountable argument to back that up.

 

Because evolution is the basis for all study of living things?

 

If you say so. Not my area. So how is plate tectonics as fundamental as the laws of motion?

[Mokele]

I pointed out that I've seen no scientific evidence to date that this is the case. Just as I've seen no scientific evidence to date regarding any of your claims about the quality and character of life science education in high school or political pressure faced by public school teachers.

 

IIRC, part of the reason Kansas reversed it's first ID decision is that the students were being treated like lepers when it came time for college admissions.

 

How so? Sev's hypothesis is plain and simple. "The schools would pretty soon learn that if they teach the kids this rubbish that the kids won't get places at college or get jobs, and the parents won't send them there." My guess is we'd look for data sets breaking down private schools by religious affiliation and take a look at their student performance as well as their matriculation and college attendance rates.

 

If you're not going to even read the prior posts, don't bother responding to them.

 

Mine. I have a stronger math, public policy and education science background than you do. Please hold your applause until the end of the post.

 

And this means precisely dick when it comes to the merits of a biology course, kid.

 

Which is you saying that 35 percent of Protestant and 43 percent of Muslim physicians have learned nothing. [1]

 

From now on, every time you simply repeat a previous arguement without adressing the counter, you'll get a strawman warning.

 

I can assume that 18 percent of them are.

 

On what basis? Because 18% of those denominations are creationist? What about the possibility of bias, that creationist students might be less willing or able to go to med school.

 

Which is why I pointed out that the crux of the debate is over the theory of evolution's consequences in terms of the evolution of life in the distant past. Like I said, there's not much uproar against the idea that genes change.

 

False dichotomy. The arguement that macroevolution is distinct and separate has been dead for a long time.

 

If you're done snowing the audience, why don't you explain how this has anything to do with whether or not humans came as they were 6000 years ago de novo?

 

Oh, look, strawman warning #2 for the same post. Read what's written. The portion you quoted answers the question.

 

You didn't answer my question. How is a physician hampered by holding the additional, unscientific belief that life began 6000 years ago as the product of some divine power?

 

I did. I noted that for the average pill pusher, not much, but possibly greatly for someone actually doing research medicine. After all, how can they do medical work without lab rats? If they use lab rats, they admit to common ancestry and homology.

 

You're logic chopping. Severian has a hypothesis with no empirical support. You have nothing additional to provide. So next question, what besides contempt drives you to that belief?

 

The same reasoning that a chemist could not do their job without understanding atoms.

 

You really need to read more carefully. I pointed out that CS majors do not require an extensive background in EE.

 

Coming from you? That's like Hilter giving a talk on the value of tolerance and peace.

 

So how is plate tectonics as fundamental as the laws of motion?

 

To geology, it is, as it explains the present distribution of geological features and the processes which produce them.

 

Mokele

[phcatlantis]

Aw hell, its not worth it. This is your area of expertise.

[silkworm]

Mine. I have a stronger math, public policy and education science background than you do. Please hold your applause until the end of the post.

 

First of all, math is a language (even though it is the most important one). Public policy and education are poor substitutes to studying actual science because if you would have just studied the science you could make public policy and education stances based on the truth and nature instead of socially contrived blah blah blah that's trapped in the human fantasy of self importance.

 

I can assume that 18 percent of them are.

 

18 and falling.

 

So how is plate tectonics as fundamental as the laws of motion?

 

Plate tectonics explains everything about the Earth's crust, continental drift, earthquakes, volcanoes, everything. Most of Geology is this and superposition. The plate tectonics theory also had trouble by being accepted by the Christian community because it showed (by rates) that the Earth is a lot older than previously thought (or said in the bible), but because the thing that the Christian refuses to accept is that he is an animal, plate tectonics, which does not suffer from this, was ignored by the ignorant and is free to be openly embraced by scientists and students. Plate tectonics is the fundamental theory of Geology. Evolution is to Biology. Laws of Motion to Physics. And none of them are difficult to understand.

 

Possibly, although that view apparantly hasn't occurred to 55 percent of Protestant and 73 percent of Muslim physicians. [3]. I imagine they believe they're employing biology to some purpose and with some effect.

 

Most medical doctors have degraded into little more than customer service for drug companies. I'm in school with a lot of people on their way to med school and it's frightening, with the exception of a few they know nothing, and only appear to be in it for the money and the sex and not for the actual science. Also, I wonder how many of the overall physicians feel this way and I'd like to point out that there is a difference between a doctor and someone doing medical research, who would have the understand evolution.

 

Seriously, don't you think its more important that a student finds something genuinely exciting and personally lucrative to excel at instead of worrying about whether or not he or she believes man evolved from apes? If so, who cares if biology doesn't gets their blood flowing?

 

This makes you sound incredibly dense. Biological evolution is not exclusive to human evolution, and evolution is not exclusive to biological evolution. I understand you have low standards and it seems that to you the goal of education is to get a job, but a kid graduating high school who understands evolution, plate tectonics, and the laws of motion is a much stronger kid than one that didn't pay attention to them.

 

So what's so great about being a nerd?

 

You feel empowered by the fact that you actually know things that other people equivocate, and that tomorrow you'll understand nature a little bit better. Intellect is actually what makes the human species special, and pursuing an understanding of nature has made me more happy than anything else could.

 

I don't care if Joe Schmo the Electrician knows where the continents were hundreds of millions of years ago or that we can a phylogenetic tree detailing human and ape evolution from common ancestors. I doubt he cares either.

 

That's incredibly bleak and it's funny you say you're so far into education that you condone embracing ignorance. And I've experienced many time where Joe Schmo and I would get into a conversation and we'd get to talking about evolution and I'd explain the process to him and he'd understand. Generally what follows is a profound interest in evolution, which has been my experience many times. What's unfortunate is Joe Schmo didn't know until then a concept that probably would have helped him in life. He probably should have gotten it in high school.

 

phcatlantis, you can debate policy and you can debate the best pop star of the 1980s but you can't debate the truth. I know that in debate you're supposed to hold your ground no matter what (which I've always felt made debate useless) but no matter what you say or how you say it it isn't going to change the fact of evolution.

[phcatlantis]

First of all, math is a language (even though it is the most important one).

 

This is a non sequitur, and a woefully inaccurate one at that.

 

Public policy and education are poor substitutes to studying actual science...

 

Public policy and education science are actual sciences. That's why schools like MIT and NYU have such degree programs that culminate in Bachelors and Masters of Science

 

...because if you would have just studied the science you could make public policy and education stances based on the truth and nature ...

 

Truth is a philosophical question. The scientific merits of particular model in biology is, unsurprisingly, a question for biological sciences. The question raised by Severian, whether students exposed to religious views of the life sciences versus those exposed to secular views are at a disadvantage academically (and presumably professionally) is a question for the managerial and education sciences.

 

...instead of socially contrived blah blah blah that's trapped in the human fantasy of self importance.

 

These folks have as studied and nuanced as you. Tell me why I should take your contempt for the social sciences as theirs for biology?

 

18 and falling.

 

Really? Maybe its leveling out. Maybe its turning a corner. Maybe you have the trend line handy and would like to share it with us.

 

Plate tectonics explains everything about the Earth's crust, continental drift, earthquakes, volcanoes, everything. Most of Geology is this and superposition.

 

Is it your argument that geology is the study of geologically active systems?

 

Plate tectonics is the fundamental theory of Geology.

 

If it were fundamental, we would apply it to any geological system. We don't.

 

Most medical doctors have degraded into little more than customer service for drug companies.

 

And do you have a data set to back that up?

 

I'm in school with a lot of people on their way to med school and it's frightening, with the exception of a few they know nothing, and only appear to be in it for the money and the sex and not for the actual science.

 

I think you think too highly of yourself and probably a bit too resentfully of your peers. Beyond the your contemtptuous article of faith, what else do we have to uphold this claim that physicians are incompetent biologists?

 

This makes you sound incredibly dense.

 

Based on your comments, I'd figure you for a socially stunted and prone to focus your anger in misdirected rants about your perceived superior intelligence to those in respectable professions. I'm sure that's not the case, but since we're all apparantly in the business of measuring one another's character by their mostly anonymous comments, then that's the way you come across.

 

Biological evolution is not exclusive to human evolution, and evolution is not exclusive to biological evolution.

 

I assume you mean to say that consistency demands we apply the model to life ancestry. But who really cares if somebody asserts that supernatural events 6,000 years ago gave rise to life, rather than the story we can extrapolate from the theory and consistent evidence in the fossil record, between clades, and whatnot?

 

I understand you have low standards...

 

I understand you hold your own intelligence vis a vis that of others in extreme high regard. I'm not so sure that's a healthy way to approach this conversation.

 

...and it seems that to you the goal of education is to get a job...

 

As I see it, the education provides me with the skills and tools necessary to make my best possible shot at what I consider to be a good life. If that's different for you, then so be it. Unless you can show the motive for study has empirically testable consequences for competence and characterize the trend, you're just taking it on faith. How do you answer that?

 

...but a kid graduating high school who understands evolution, plate tectonics, and the laws of motion is a much stronger kid than one that didn't pay attention to them.

 

You can help us all out by defining "strength" and showing us the data that bears out your hypothesis. This brings us right back to Severian's very hard, testable claim; students exposed to secular life sciences are more likely to go to college than students who miss out.

 

You feel empowered by the fact that you actually know things that other people equivocate...

 

My God. You mean that for you it all boils down to a "I know something you don't know" game?

 

...and that tomorrow you'll understand nature a little bit better. Intellect is actually what makes the human species special, and pursuing an understanding of nature has made me more happy than anything else could.

 

Really? A healthy sex life? Financial security? Family? Good friends? Booze? A religious calling is a noble enterprise. But I'm a victim of a popular American mem--academic obsession to the detriment of other pursuits of happiness is just plain sad.

 

That's incredibly bleak and it's funny you say you're so far into education that you condone embracing ignorance.

 

I condone not caring what people believe insofar as concerns matters of the distant past and there is no tangible consequence in their everyday lives. The end result of your reasoning is the moral condemnation of ignorance regardless of its cause; whether due to lack of exposure, priority or the decision to believe something else. Perhaps this has something to do with your contempt for people who think its beneath them or that its inconsistent with their religious beliefs for man to have evolved from the same ancestor as a chimp. It's pretty unhealthy when a loose cannon traditionalist starts railing against the evils of evolution. I don't see the difference between that and your own disdain for religious people who've never harmed you.

 

And I've experienced many time where Joe Schmo and I would get into a conversation and we'd get to talking about evolution and I'd explain the process to him and he'd understand. Generally what follows is a profound interest in evolution, which has been my experience many times.

 

I'm quite sure you're making this up, but I'll bite. Who, when, where? And do you have the tapes? Or if we're just going to delve into personal experience, I've met plenty of Joe Schmos who wouldn't give two cents if man evolved from ape or if ape evolved from Charlton Heston; and would probably grow quickly bored with a random, unsolicited conversation on the subject.

 

What's unfortunate is Joe Schmo didn't know until then a concept that probably would have helped him in life. He probably should have gotten it in high school.

 

And how would it have helped him in life?

 

phcatlantis, you can debate policy and you can debate the best pop star of the 1980s but you can't debate the truth.

 

Sure I can. I pointed this out before, truth is an epistemological question.

 

I know that in debate you're supposed to hold your ground no matter what (which I've always felt made debate useless) but no matter what you say or how you say it it isn't going to change the fact of evolution.

 

Maybe you can point to a single post where I denied "the fact of evolution."

[swansont]

Roughly half of students enrolled in private schools are in Catholic ones. Another third affiliate with other religions and Christian denominations. [1]

 

You can also play with the NAEP data explorer to get the science scores for 12th graders in 2000 in public and non-public schools. Short story: Catholics' date=' 161 -- secular public schools, 145. [2].

 

Either way, it doesn't answer my question. My guess is we should find some pretty hard evidence that students at religious schools fare worse academically and attend college at a lower rate than public school students. At least that's the kernel of Severian's hypothesis.

 

I don't think it is Severian's hypothesis that students at religious schools fare worse academically. To equate that with his statement would require, at a minimum, assuming that all religious schools teach creationism or ID, and I don't think that's a valid assumption.

[phcatlantis]

I don't think it is Severian's hypothesis that students at religious schools fare worse academically.

 

I didn't say it was. I specifically and consistently characterized his hypothesis as 'students exposed to a religious view of the life sciences would underperform students exposed to the secular view.' I've pointed out that we should find some evidence of this in datasets breaking down student academic performance, graduation rates and college attendance by their affiliate schools. At first glance Christian schools should be more likely to instruct against evolution's consequences for life ancestry; therefore, students enrolled there underperform their public school peers. This is clearly not the case; in a country where three quarters of private school students are enrolled in some religious program. Next step would be either to break out Catholic and Jewish schools--which may or may not corrupt our sample--or focus as closely as possible on sectarian schools with known programs that instruct against evolution. I have not found that dataset. Neither has Severian, or Moleke, or silkworm. Until somebody does, all this is logic chopping mixed with a whole lot of faith.

[Mokele]

Bye bye, revprez. I find it amusing you went so far as to change your name, yet didn't change any of the attitude that got you banned in the first place.

[silkworm]

Neither has Severian, or Moleke, or silkworm.

 

I'm sorry, I felt I used myself as an example in an earlier post and that being exposed to science through this point of view made me ignorant to its very meaning and it was only later when I rediscovered it after I had completely lost my christian faith did I finally understand how ignorant this had made me. I was cheated, and so is society for condoning this in education.

[AL]

Bye bye, revprez. I find it amusing you went so far as to change your name, yet didn't change any of the attitude that got you banned in the first place.

I noticed the similarities too. Revprez was banned on another forum I used to frequent long before he was ever banned here. A quick google reveals he was banned from quite a few places. There are whole threads dedicated to people venting their frustrations about him on other forums. He's quite the celebrity.

[bascule]

Bye bye, revprez. I find it amusing you went so far as to change your name, yet didn't change any of the attitude that got you banned in the first place.

 

Now it makes so much sense...

[bombus]

I'm completely against introducing ID into the classroom, but this last line, especially was interesting, I think it provides the strongest argument for Prof. Behe, despite the fact that it's still flawed.

 

No, its not a strong argument really. Its just that we are all actually just brains and everything we perceive is subjective through our various organs. We could all be just brains in jars or even just algorithms in a big computer game.

 

The point is, science is based on accepted truths because we have to start somewhere and the basic truth is that what we perceive is real, and what we can't perceive is irrelevent. From that base, science is built upon experimental proof and is able to predict. ID is not based upon any experimentation and cannot predict (unlike natural selection as a theory of evolution which can be proven via genetic experimentation and predictions which can be checked).

[brad89]

No' date=' its not a strong argument really. Its just that we are all actually just brains and everything we perceive is subjective through our various organs. We could all be just brains in jars or even just algorithms in a big computer game.

 

The point is, science is based on accepted truths because we have to start somewhere and the basic truth is that what we perceive is real, and what we can't perceive is irrelevent. From that base, science is built upon experimental proof and is able to predict. ID is not based upon any experimentation and cannot predict (unlike natural selection as a theory of evolution which can be proven via genetic experimentation and predictions which can be checked).[/quote']

 

I believe everything you just said. However, I recently heard something I have never heard before. I heard that evolution was suposedly 'refuted' by the second law of thermodynamics. I don't understand this phrase, because if it were refuted, we wouldn't study it anymore. But I just wonder what can be said about it evolution versus 2nd law of TD.