It’s nice to see the Kansas Board of Education rethinking Evolution again. We can’t let faith guide science.
After victory at the polls in November, a moderate majority on the 10-member board in the central U.S. state plans to overturn science standards seen as critical of evolution at a board meeting on Tuesday in Topeka.
New standards would replace those put in place in 2005 by a conservative board majority that challenged the validity of evolution and cited it as incompatible with religious doctrine.
However, I don’t like this discussion over whether or not to delete unpleasant passages of history from textbooks. That isn’t teaching, that’s pedagogery and censorship.
A national group is urging the Kansas State Board of Education to reject on Tuesday a plan to delete coverage of the historical misuses of science from state curriculum standards, including a reference to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment targeting African-Americans.
“It is only by studying these past abuses that students — our scientists of the future — can learn about the critical importance of science operating within ethical standards,” wrote West to the board. “As has often been said, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'”
You can’t stifle the truth, and to deny knowledge from children only places them at a disadvantage to those who know the facts.
UPDATE:
The Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday threw out science standards deemed hostile to evolution, undoing the work of Christian conservatives in the ongoing battle over what to teach U.S. public school students about the origins of life.
WTF is this country coming to?
I’m with you on this one. However, I’ll take issue with some details.
First off, the quotation is from George Santayana, and that’s a name any American (and Spaniard) should know. Although anyone who uses “conservative” as kind of swear-word (see above) might not enjoy Santayana’s subtle, intelligent, humane political philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana
However, two points:
1. I think the saying, while it may be apropos here, is a little glib: sometimes what we remember causes problems.
2. Santayana didn’t say “remember”; he said “learn”. It’s not the same thing at all.
Secondly, I think “Smartalix” is writing on automatic pilot. He says:
“You can’t stifle the truth, and to deny knowledge from children only places them at a disadvantage to those who know the facts.”
Now, one *shouldn’t* stifle the truth, but I think the assertion that it *can’t* be stifled is questionable to say the least. To be sure it’s always likely to leak out, but it seems to me that the belief that it always and everywhere must triumph is dubious. (Probably–ironically enough, given the tenor of the post–what we have here is a remnant of Christian belief to be filed away with the belief that judgment will run down as waters and “righteousness as a mighty stream”.)
Again, the assertion that “not knowing the facts” puts people at a disadvantage is a questionable assertion. I respect truth because it is the truth; whether or not it gives me an advantage is another matter. Indeed, there are many things in life that we probably should attempt but don’t if we have a better understanding of what we’re getting into. Nietzsche went so far as to say that human life could only take place within an envelope of ignorance. And, while one hopes he was wrong, one would have to argue for the position not just thoughtlessly assert it.
I live in Kansas. It still amazes me this gets so much press. Kansas never chose to teach intelligent design, only to teach the scientific shortcomings of evolution alongside of evolution itself. It was never a faith thing, it was a fair evaluation of the scientific evidence for and against evolution. The press made it a faith issue.
#3
I also live in Kansas and it was quite obvious that “criticism” of evolution was the thinly veiled attempt to include Intelligent Design. They also changed the actual definition of science to “‘no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.’ In other words, supernatural explanations would be fair game.
Gee, I wonder what supernatural explanation for origins they might have been thinking about.
only to teach the scientific shortcomings of evolution alongside of evolution itself. —
If this is the case I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Because you can say,
This is what we think…
This is why we think that
Heres the evidence we have to back that claim up
Heres what we don’t know for sure..
With intelligent design there is no evidence, just faith. Don’t bother to question it. Why would you need to? Its Gods way..
Just faith? Have you looked at the evidence? It’s not saying “we can’t figure it out so it must be designed” rather “we see how it works and find evidence of design”. For pity’s sake stop setting up straw men arguments around here!
We should eliminate federal funding of education. The locals could just work this stuff out and I wouldn’t have to hear about it anymore.
“You can’t stifle the truth, and to deny knowledge from children only places them at a disadvantage to those who know the facts.”
In other words, this is a long term investment in pliable and easy to manipulate future voters.
#2,
Again, the assertion that “not knowing the facts” puts people at a disadvantage is a questionable assertion. I respect truth because it is the truth; whether or not it gives me an advantage is another matter.
Knowing the truth, along with knowledge in general, will always give you an advantage. Except for those dubious times when we don’t want to know what is really lurking under the bed.
Knowing how to feed a parking meter will give you advantage of not paying the fine.
Knowing that your child’s fever is a sign of an infection will you the advantage of seeking medical help instead of prayer.
Knowing which door has the princess and which has the tiger behind them will definitely give you an advantage.
In the end, truth always wins. If you don’t believe that, you’re in the great company of all the Darwin Award winners.
“we see how it works and find evidence of design”.
Site your evidence so it can be tested. That’s all scientists, and I, ask.
2,
Nick,
First, the parts of the post in BLUE are excerpts from the article linked to. I am not responsible for the statements of others.
As far as stupid being a disadvantage, I guess a case can be made that beautiful people and those with good family connections never have to learn anything, but I’ve found that in the long run knowledge is power. The Chinese have a saying (so I’ve heard, Chinese readers correct me if I’m wrong) that what you put in your head and gut nobody can take from you.
Knowledge is even more vital in an information economy. Today, the value of a product is in its IP, from toilet cleaner to microcontrollers. If you are trying to create anti-cancer treatment and we can’t even agree on if, how, and to what extent evolutionary processes occur you are at a disadvantage.
You can’t stifle the truth. It always comes out eventually.
#4. I agree with #3. Modern science already has supernatural explanations. Quantum mechanics is a deeply religious subject! Einstein taught that God does not play dice with the universe. I believe that God not only plays dice with the universe, but that He cheats. We should allow science teachers to openly acknowledge the religious implications of modern physics.
#12 One of the pitfalls of the English language is it’s limited flexibility when it comes to pronouns and gender. How do you know God isn’t a she? Though I don’t believe “it” is appropriate.
#13. I can’t imagine that Jesus Christ was a lunatic or a liar. He taught that He came from heaven and that God was His Father.
I really hate it when you bag guys bag on Kansas. I think we all know that Nebraska is the one that’s full of all the stupid people. (they’re called ‘huskers’)
#15 – completely incorrect. The real morons live in North Dakota… but ive never been to Nebraska, so you could be right… perhaps both North Dakota & Nebraska are moron states!
#’s 14, 15, & 16: Isn’t it funny how the moron’s are the ones that don’t agree with YOU.
First, Ed Roberts’ is the same evasion of admitting that he is a supporter of creationism/intelligent design that was thoroughly shot down in the Dover case. The claim to be ‘correcting’ science is really just a pretext to teach religion. When the court examined the record in that regard it lead right back to creationist texts, sometimes with more revealing language stricken and replaced.
(BTW, Ed, are you praying for Dr. Dino?
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/NEWS01/701200319/1006
)
Second, though it may be true that factual information is better that certainly does not means it prevails all or most of the time. Furthermore, it is the norm for societies to ignore or erase historical facts that reveal too much about large scale pathological behavior. Not right, but, unfortunately, normal.
First, Ed Roberts’ is the same evasion of admitting that he is a supporter of creationism/intelligent design that was thoroughly shot down in the Dover case. The claim to be ‘correcting’ science is really just a pretext to teach religion. When the court examined the record in that regard it lead right back to creationist texts, sometimes with more revealing language stricken and replaced.
(BTW, Ed, are you praying for Dr. Dino?)
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/NEWS01/701200319/1006
Second, though it may be true that factual information is better that certainly does not means it prevails all or most of the time. Furthermore, it is the norm for societies to ignore or erase historical facts that reveal too much about large scale pathological behavior. Not right, but, unfortunately, normal.
#14
No one knows how much of a psychopath Jesus was, but the fact remains that he and his boys knew how to work the gullible people in order to live a good life without hard work.
What amazes me is that most conservatives love Jesus, despite the fact that Jesus portrayed himself in the same light as the communists… but I guess they like the part of ripping people off with bogus stories etc… after all, those tactics still work… ask Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard and George W. Bush.
The ones at the center of this tempest (in a teapot?) are the kids, and they probably aren’t paying all that much attention to all the screaming grownups going on and on about things that interest them not in the least. At that age they are in an intensely social mode and abstract paradigms of faith take a far back seat to who’s wearing what and who the coolest member of the opposite sex is. Besides, the kids these days are raised on predatory, psychologically tricked out commercials geared to make them into super consumers, and most of the kids tend to tune out anything that doesn’t concern sex, cars or clothes.
#20. You rely too strongly on fantasies that you’ve dreamed up or on lies manufactured for you. Jesus was crucified for always exposing the hypocrisy of the religious authorities and he and all his disciples except John were martyred. That’s not a worldly wise recipe to live the good life.
#20. You rely too strongly on fantasies that you’ve dreamed up or on lies manufactured for you. Jesus was crucified for always exposing the hypocrisy of the religious authorities and he and all his disciples except John were martyred. That’s not a worldly wise way to live the good life.
#18 – podesta
Of course, you’re right… but it’s like Fusion said up there @ #9, in the end, the truth always prevails. It’s just that over the short term, falsehood and irrationality does run rampant, and the inevitability of the truth prevailing years or decades or centuries hence isn’t much comfort in dealing with the idiots and loonies of the present day…
#3 – Ed Roberts
It’s probably as useless as pissing into a fan to bother explaining reality to you, because, more than likely, you’ve already been told many times and it has never sunk in…
“It was never a faith thing… The press made it a faith issue.”
No. The press had nothing to do with it. It was made a “faith issue” by “people of faith.”
“…only to teach the scientific shortcomings of evolution alongside of evolution itself. …it was a fair evaluation of the scientific evidence for and against evolution.”
Also completely false and untrue-to-fact. Science IS the “evaluation of the scientific evidence.” The Theory of Evolution is the result of that evaluation, a work-in-progress, continually updated and revised in the light of ALL evidence that relates to it.
People who do not use – or for that matter, even comprehend – the scientific method have no say in what science is or isn’t, despite what they may wish.
Religionists, the people who would have superstition taught alongside fact (“teaching the controversy” – except there IS no controversy) have no more competence in declaring what is or isn’t scientific as people blind from birth are competent to tell those with normal sight what colors look like.
#12 – Eugene Shubert
“Modern science already has supernatural explanations.”
Nonsense. A ridiculous statement, demonstrating clearly that your concept of science has little to do with reality. ‘Supernatural’ means ‘existing outside of nature.’ Science is about and is only about what is real, actual and natural. Science is about one thing: proof. Nothing ‘supernatural’ can be proven or disproven – and likewise nothing that is subject to either proof or disproof is ‘supernatural.’
“We should allow science teachers to openly acknowledge the religious implications of modern physics.”
There are no such things as “religious implications” in any science. That is a matter for philosophers, not scientists. “Religious implications” are a facet of religion. Besides, what do you mean, “openly acknowledge”? All that science can possibly acknowledge are facts. There are no facts in religion, only belief, and belief has no bearing on facts.
But it’s ultimately useless to attempt to convey these concepts to people who do not know how to reason. You can try as you might, but those who are irrational can not grasp rational explanations.
“We can’t let faith guide science.”
PAH! And evolution does not require faith? Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Believing that a piece of rock will evolve in something as complex and organized as a human being in a trillion years requires so much faith that it’s easier to just believe that God created all these things. Your belief in evolution requires the fulfillment of too many accidents happening at the right moment that there is nothing to differentiate that from the series of miracles that had to happen when Jesus told Peter to fetch a coin from the mouth of a fish.
This blog purports to be a technology site, yet it discounts the possibility that the highest form of science will be voice activated, instant, and indistinguishable from a miracle to the primitive mind.
The thing that this blog does effectively is to offend those who believe in God for the sake of a few blog hits. Jesus had something to say about that too, “For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his own self?”
Have some integrity and forwarn Christians that this is an atheist blog.
#24 – If Xians could think and reason like adults, they could just handle things… like adults do… and not have to warned that thier delicate little sensibilities might be outraged.
But you aren’t really outraged at all, are you? Self righteous indignation is the Xian stock and trade. It’s the industry you’ve built.
This blog isn’t an athiest blog, though many who participate in it are athiests. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. I don”t like pompous thiest jack-asses preaching thier self agrandizing bullshit, that’s why I don’t go to church.
That, and I live in the 21st century when all this religion bullshit should already have vanished in favor of logic, reason, and science… But I guess were just haven’t evolved as far as one would have hoped by now.
#25: This isn’t an “atheist blog,” although some of us editors are. We are simply people who aren’t willing to accept something without examination. I, for one, don’t accept evolution at face value. It, like all scientific theories, ‘evolve’ as new data becomes available and must prove itself like any theory. Don’t forget, at one time, religious explanations for how we got here were once considered valid, scientific explanations as well. It was when the physical evidence began to pile up by the ton for evolution and related theories that religious ones, like all discredited theories, were pushed aside. If testable evidence can be provided now for religious theories, then they can reenter the world of scientific training.
#22
Jesus and his friends were some of the best con artists throughout history. How many of the modern scams will last for 1000s of years and will become the foundation of evil empires that oppress and kill people?
For the record, I am a Deist. I believe in God, I just don’t believe in religion. Who says a guy in a gold hat and robes knows anything more than anyone else about the nature of the mystery?
Its when myopic mouth-breathing morons try and dictate what others must think and do based on what their group thinks God means that I get pissed off. Not only that, they’re hypocrites. Anyone who claims to follow Jesus yet can direct hate at anyone or anything is full of shit.
“Anyone who claims to follow Jesus yet can direct hate at anyone or anything is full of shit.”
Har, har. It’s easy to excuse yourself for being riled up, but you are not willing to give others that same courtesy you generously lavish on yourselves. What can be more hypocritical than that?
Alix and Dave, this is an atheist blog. The definition of an “ATHEIST” is someone who does not believe in God. The definition of “GOD” is someone who created everything.
If this is not an atheist blog, who here believes that GOD is the CREATOR?