A recent US Supreme Court decision more clearly delineated the place of
science above other systems of belief. A Louisiana school district had been
teaching evolution, but with a disclaimer that said that evolution was one
theory, and that its teaching was not meant to compromise individual students'
beliefs about the creation of the universe as laid out in the Bible or other
sources (yes, the "other sources" was in there), and suggested that students
think critically and take account of all the information presented to them
before making their own decision.

The US SC declined to review the case, which lower courts had ruled violated
First Amendment guarantees. Lower courts insisted that such a disclaimer
belittled evolution and gave preferential treatment to religion.

This together with the scientific community's recent furor over KAnsas's
decision to drop macroevolution from state education requirements (leaving
it up to local districts to decide whether or not to teach Darwinian
evolution, but not contradicting the Superme Court's ban on teaching biblical
creationism as a viable scientific theory) reflects the dogmatism that has
become American science.

How could a disclaimer that says, "Hey, this is only a theory, think for
yourselves?" possibly countradict evolutionary theory? How can a state
decision NOT to require something be taught be religious infringement on the
student's innate right to Truth and Knowledge, as the tenor of many of the
KAnsas critics put it (misinformation about the specifics of the KAnsas
decision was quite appalling, coming as it did from sources that claimed to
be "intelligent" and "critical thinking" themselves... many sources claimed
that Kansas banned evolutionary theory, added creationism, and banned all
teaching of evolution [microevolution is still required])?

The two reactions are shameful to the scientific community. While claiming
to foster the quest for truth and critical thinking, the community has instead
urged the teaching of evolution and only evolution, effectively giving
students blinders to anything else. The Kansas decision was of dubious value
-- it is true that, by dropping macroevolution specifically, they're strongly
deemphasizing that aspect of modern scientific theory. But the Louisiana
decision is over the top: the courts are now dictating that teachers are not
ALLOWED to tell students that scientific theory isn't the only theory, thus
closing, not opening, minds to critical thought.

The disclaimer that Louisiana's school district provided, if anything,
championed the cause of evolution, by saying, "There are other theories. USe
your critical judgment to decide which is best." By contrasting creationism
(a matter of faith in any religion) with evolutionism (a matter of reason),
and using "critical judgment" as the scale, the school district is really
(albeit unintentionally) encouraging a broader, not a narrower, acceptance
of evolutionism -- the critical arguments FOR evolutionism are much, much
stronger than the critical arguments AGAINST it.

Are scientists really so insecure in the strength of their arguments and
knowledge that they truly fear what will happen if evolution and creation,
as theories, are placed side-by-side? 

(NB: Throughout, "creationism" generally refers to ALL religious theories of
divine creation, not just Judeochristian ones, although it's clear from the
LA disclaimer that the latter is what THEY mean, and there's only a grudging
nod to "other sources," probably inserted in an attempt to make the disclaimer
legal. "Mac roevolution" is the belief that species evolved from each other;
"microevolution" is the belief that species evolve over time. The Big Bang
and related theories about the early universe are often put under the heading
"macroevolution," and this was done in Kansas, as well.)

25 responses total.

I don't think that scientists who don't want to debate evolution and
creationism on equal terms feel insecure about their beliefs. Those scientists
do not feel it is worth their effort to counter creationist arguments because
the bulk of JudeoChristian creationist beliefs start with the assumption that
the Bible is literally true, and try to find ways to make the data fit this
base assumption. This goes against my understanding of the Scientific Method,
which requires testing a hypothesis based on observation and making
conclusions based on the data obtained from these observations. Creationists
begin with a conclusion and look for data that fits that conclusion,
dismissing the data that doesn't fit.

The battle of evolution vs. creationism isn't just a religious struggle
(although it's a fair share of the struggle). It's a struggle over the
validity of the scientific method, and the way scientists interpret reality.
It's a struggle over the way all of us perceive the universe.

Although I think it's laudable to expose people to differing viewpoints and
allowing those people to make informed decisions, those who try to introduce
creationism into the schools usually have the agenda of promoting their world
view and declaring it to be true over all others. That's hardly a way to
promote critical thought in students.

Hm. So scientists are so arrogant that wasting their time with mythology is
below them?

That sounds to me like the scientists of which you speak are also working with
foregone conclusions taken a priori.

Some scientists do accept foregone conclusions. I won't try to deny that.
Einstein rejected quantum mechanics by saying, "God does not play with dice."
Thermodynamics met resistance for a while because it went against Newtonian
physics. Heck, for the longest time, Aristotle was considered the leading
scientific authority in Europe, although most of his reasoning was flawed,
if not outright wrong.

The point is that even the best scientists accept a worldview and resist
changes to that view. The difference here is that previous scientific models
are replaced by new scientific models based on the accumulation of observable
data.

Mythology is not something that can be tested. It's something that has to be
accepted as faith. This is why many scientists feel that studying mythology
is beneath them.

If there was a way to examine mythology using the scientific method, I'm sure
there would be some scientists would study it. Unfortunately, most of them
work from the assumption that the mythology is correct and try to fit the data
into the assumption.

Promulgating any religion in public schools does indeed
violate the First Amendment.  The creationists' excuse in
this case -- looking all hurt and innocent and saying,
"Promulgating?  Why, we were just presenting it as a
theory, like evolution" -- is laughable.  They are going
to keep trying, and they might win temporary victories in
this backwater or that, but they'll never prevail.

Actually, MD, the creationists were presenting nothing but a footnote that
said, "Evolution is a theory. There are other theories, including the
creationist model. Explore all theories before making your own mind up."

How is that promulgating anything other than open-mindedness?

If I could believe that the creationists were sincere about open-mindedness,
I would support their willingness to explore other possibilities.
Unfortunately, they tend to use that position as a tactic to win people over
to their paradigm.

*nods* To what extent, though, should the law act on intent? The disclaimer
itself carries none of that baggage, and effectively banning all disclaimers
that say "Evolutionis not theonly theory." because one group had negative
intentions seems heavy-handed of the courts.

When the courts see such a "disclaimer" inserted into 
a public school textbook, they have a responsibility 
to ask "Why?"  That is no doubt how it was presented to
them, and that's no doubt how they reacted.  The 
answer to the "why" couldn't be clearer in this case.

From a perspective other than the legal one, btw, 
"creation science" is harmful to faith, not to science.
The "creationists" hold Christianity and religious faith
in general up to more ridicule than any skeptic possibly
could.  I am opposed to the teaching of creationism
even in churches and private schools, and where it has 
been possible for me to express this opinion so as to 
influence any such teaching, I have done so.  

Frankly I agree with your second paragraph. So why did the courts (and
American scientists) object to the opportunity to allow creationists to
further ridicule themselves?

(I should say I agree with the first two sentences of your second paragraph.)

"Allowing them to ridicule themselves" can't be an issue
for the courts, and evidently isn't one for the scientists.

*shrug* You've failed to convince me that the court's actions were justified
by anything other than scientific dogmatism.

Any other opinions?

*taps finger thinking*
This is a tough one.  It does sound like the scientific community made 
a mistake.  They're acting like the mainstream religious community.  I 
like brighn's comment, "scientific dogma".

On a similar note, Texas recently had a case involving a town where a 
student was allowed to do a prayer at a football game.  The case went 
to the US SC and the school was told to stop allowing the prayers.  
That was a little more cut and dry to me.  As it turned out, the local 
catholic and mormen orgs were behind the case.  It seems they weren't 
going to be allowed to do similar public prayers.  Only the rollers:)  
hehe.

To be fair, it was the courts, not scientists, who made the decision in the
"disclaimer" case. And again, it was non-Protestant JudeoChristian parents
who raised the suit.

the role of American science in the suit was in shaping the judges' minds
towards a certain dogmatic bias.

The dogmatism of American science was much clearer in the Kansas case, which
has not actually gone to court, but which gained media attention precisely
because of scientific outrage.

The relevant issue in the Texas case was that public school equipment (i.e.,
the PA system) was being used, and could only be used by one selected student
*per year*... that's a violation of the Equal Access codes, which basically
say that if one student has a right to do something, all students should be
given equal opportunity; if one student has a right to use the PA to deliver
a prayer, all students have to have that right.

(Then how is a valedictorian giving a speech at graduation legal, if no other
students speak?  Am I missing something?)

OH, sorry, you're not missing something, I missed saying something... in
general, Equal Access is relevant to religiously motivated actions. Although
your examples brings up a point, in that it would technically now be illegal
for a valedictorian to thank <insert Deity here> for their academic success.

I can't tell you how funny I think it would be to have a pagan kid go 
up to the mic and say a prayer to Athena or something!  hehe.  Come to 
that it'd be funnier to have someone go up and pray to an Oricha, LOL!!
U know that would never happen though, but it sure would drive the 
point home.

        Even if evolutionary theory (hopefully modern evolutionary theory) and
creationist theory should be taught in the same schools, they shouldn't be
taught in the same classes.  Creationism and comparative religion or
philosophy belong together as do evolution and biology or physics.  

#17> Did someone make a comment that disputed this, John?

#16> In the football game case, it wouldn't happen because the student with
the mike was voted in by the student body.

#18  RE:  I know, but it *would* be fun.

        No, it was a statement, not a refute. :)

And, amazing as it is, this topic is not dead in the schools and courts yet...

It'll go on and on. Who knows? The public schools in this country do 
such an abysmal job of teaching natural science (and everything else) 
that we might eventually have to resign ourselves to being The Country 
That Thinks The Universe Was Created 5,000 Years Ago, and leave new 
discoveries and research to China and Japan and other countries. 
Wouldn't bother me, just as long as somebody was doing it.

Urgh!!!
Thing is, I understand why the government is resisting admitting the reality
of global warming- they might have to *do* something about it- which would
be expensive- and also, they might have to give away some of our vaunted
autonomy. But what's the advantage in denying evolution? Or other acts of
physics?

Nah, it'll never happen, I was just being grouchy. The present state 
of things does seem likely to continue, though. It's just so tedious 
to have to keep battling these fundies. It's a temptation to say, Oh, 
fine, let them have their little warning stickers in the science books 
about how natural selection is only one of many theories. Only you 
know that wouldn't be the end.

Beam me up Scottie...
Oh, rats- that's not gonna come around again.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss