Missouri Anti-Evolution Bill

jazzlover_PR writes:

quote:

---

Its all about showing all the students the different sides to the story of life.

---

But there is no other side. We don't "show all the students the different sides to the story of celestial mechanics," do we? Of course not. The earth goes around the sun, we know it does, we can show that it does, and there is no argument on the subject no matter how much the Flat Earthers may whine.You seem to have this bizarre notion that simply because you don't agree with something, that automatically means you have a valid objection.You have a right to your opinion, but you do not have a right to the facts and the facts are that the "story of life" on this planet is one of evolution. There is no other story. There is no question about it. No matter how much the creationists may whine about it, they have no evidence.Tell you what: Why don't we divide the classroom's time up according to the percentage of journal articles published. If we find that 90% of the articles are based on evolution, 7% are based upon god, and 3% claim some other method, then we will spend 90% of our time on evolution, 7% of our time on god, and 3% of the time mentioning those other methods.But wait...there aren't any creationist articles published in any of the journals. Surely you aren't going to whine that it's a conspiracy against Christians and creationists, are you?

quote:

---

What Joralex is trying to say is that we don't want evolution to be taken out of the classroom but instead just add the other side or sides of the story and have them all be taught neutrally by the teacher or instructor.

---

But when there is no "other side," why do you insist that we must look for one?We don't teach that 2 + 2 = 5, do we?
We don't teach that there really is a Superman who can defy gravity and fly through force of will, do we?Of course not. There is no "other side." The only information we have is evolution. Every single experiment, every single datum, every single observation, all have come down in favor of evolution once all the analysis was carried out.Are you seriously saying that we should make science a popularity contest?Science is all about discrimination. You discard the stuff that doesn't work and keep the stuff that does. Creationism was found not to work a long time ago and was discarded. Why haven't you figured this out yet? Why are we still fighting a battle that was resolved hundreds of years ago?It really is as simple as that. Are you seriously saying that if enough people complain that two and two really equal five, we ought to adjust our curriculum to accomodate them?

quote:

---

Why do you evos have such a big problem with this when you appear to be so confident about your "science".

---

Because when somebody insults you, it is a problem.The claim that there is "another side" to the field of biology is an insult.

quote:

---

If our views are so stupid why not expose the people at an early age to them so that you guys can fight "ignorance"

---

Because we don't have time to go through every single wrong example. Science history is a wonderful thing, but the main point of a science classroom is to teach you actual science as we understand it to work right here and now.Why do you want us to waste time debunking creationism when we could spend that time more productively showing the students just how far-reaching evolution is?The more time we spend arguing over something for which there is no argument, the less time we have to spend on actually learning science.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry writes:

quote:

---

schools should teach things like ID and creationism alongside ToE provided that students are informed of the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence exists to support ToE while virtually no scientific evidence supports ID or creationism.

---

We don't do this with any other field of science. Why are we picking on evolution?We teach students that Aristotle was wrong in his idea that objects in motion tend to come to rest.We teach students that the 19th century people were wrong in their ideas of "spontaneous generation."We teach students that Ptolemy was wrong in his claim that the earth was the center of the universe.Why on earth would we suddenly treat creationists with kid gloves? It would only lead people to believe that we don't really think they're wrong, that we can't actually prove them wrong, that they actually just might have something.The only neutral approach to creationists is to put them through the same ringer of peer review that we demand of everyone else. And if they can't live up to that standard, then they are ignored until such time that they can.Science is not fair. There is no such thing as "equal time." There is no justice. It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can prove.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

I should think that some time could be set aside in science class to help kids learn to debunk shady science notions themselves.

---

We already do. It's called teaching them the scientific method. But again, that isn't really the point of a science class. That's the point of a logic class. You should already have these skills before you make it to a full-fledged, bunsen burners and test tubes, air rail and wave machine laboratory class.And given the consumer culture we live in, I'd say that teaching them how to debunk shoddy science should start with those stupid commercials trying to get you to take herbal this and herbal that as if any of those things actually do anything. Creationism may be an insult to the intelligence, but unless you get hoodwinked into sending the ICR a donation, it isn't going to raid your pocketbook. Spending hundreds of dollars on crap that doesn't do anything is an actual drain on people's finances.

quote:

---

Prevailing contemporary "theories" like ID could be used as examples.

---

But then you'd have to eventually say that somebody's vision of god is wrong and you'd never get past the lawsuit. Personally, I should think the various religious nuts who are so upset over the lack of any other theory being taught should be on their knees, kissing our feet, and praising us to high heaven for treating them so nicely. We had the good sense to simply ignore their claims rather than actually turning out attentions on them and dismantling them piece, by agonizing piece.The reason why we can get away with it when it comes to Ptolemy and Aristotle and "spontaneous generation" and the "luminiferous aether" is because there are very few people in this day and age who could raise a stink about being told that they're wrong and no, they don't really get to have any more say about it, please go away. But with evolution, we understand that there are enough people who can scam enough other people to howl like they were being a colonoscopy without anesthesia by pointing out the same thing. They have the right to their opinion but not to their facts. Therefore, we'll just concentrate on the facts, see where they lead, and just make no mention of any other foolish mewlings out of respect.We are trying to be polite by not discussing the matter. They haven't taken the hint.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

We don't do this with any other field of science. Why are we picking on evolution?

---

​

Because kids aren't as likely to encounter wacky ideas about other fields of science outside the classroom. What's more, they aren't as likely to encounter wacky ideas that are taken seriously by large numbers of people.

---

Oh, really?It's a common enough opinion that the oil companies have suppressed automobile engines that get 100 miles to the gallon in order to maintain their oil profits. It's a common enough opinion that aliens have come and visited earth. That they helped the Egyptians build the pyramids. That the government is suppressing anti-gravity technology (again, to keep the oil companies happy). And so on and so forth. All of these are quickly discarded with a thorough understanding of kinematics, thermodynamics, and astronomy (and not very difficult bits of physics, at that), but we have utterly failed our children in this manner.How many of you were required to take a high-school level, college-prep course in Physics? I certainly wasn't and I was on the college track for a degree in Mathematics. You only needed two semesters of a science course in order to graduate and most people took the "easy A" Earth Science course. People simply aren't taught this stuff. It's "hard" and you have to "think."You really think people would be buying "Cortaslim" if they actually knew what cortisol was? After hearing the sales pitch that it "just sucks it all up"?I know someone who went to a "holistic healer" who did the ridiculous claim of making him hold vials with nothing in them but the "essence" of various things and found out he was allergic to serotonin. Serotonin! One of the primary neurotransmitters which is apparently involved in regulating mood. Low levels of serotonin are connected to depression which is why the SRIs ("serotonin reuptake inhibitors") like Paxil and Zoloft actually work when treating depression. And here's someone telling him he's allergic to his own brain! And he's not a stupid person, but how do you get past that?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The only neutral approach to creationists is to put them through the same ringer of peer review that we demand of everyone else.

---

​

That's more or less what I'm saying. Let's do it as a group, in the classroom.

---

But we don't do that with any other field of science. Why are we picking on evolution? A high school science class is not the place to analyze journal articles. They are typically so advanced and specific that there would be no hope in trying to get through them. And since there is no mention of ID or any other variation on creationism anywhere to be found in the journals, what sort of "discussion" were you planning on having?Instead, you do the same thing with biology that you do with physics and chemistry: You get in the lab and run experiments. You teach them the equations and make them do their homework. There are simple experiments that can be done in the bio lab that show evolution happening right in front of your eyes. Forget the dissection experiments. There's very little point to them since very few of the students are ever going to need to dissect anything in their lives and anatomy can be taught with pictures. Why not show them something more useful that shows them the big picture of the history of life?Time for the field trip to the museum of natural science in order to see the actual bones that have been found. Make them take careful study of the bones and see if they can figure out how they ought to be ordered. Make them tell you why they come in that order and not some other order.Why waste time on crap that doesn't even have a shred of evidence to justify itself? At least with the geocentric universe, you can understand why someone might think it to be true. But when you show people how massive the force of gravity is, make them run the pendulum experiment which proves the earth really is rotating, show them the impossibily complex calculations that become frighteningly easy when you switch from the earth to the sun, and they come around.What possible observation is there that the diversification of life was "designed"?Which immediately raises the question: And who is this designer, anyway?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Joralex writes:

quote:

---

people believing in God. To name just two, Isaac Newton

---

You're not really claiming Newton as a wonderful Christian, are you?Hie thee to a library and start reading up on your hero, Newton. Brilliant man. Complete whackjob. If he hadn't been so emminent and had his physics not been so bloody accurate and useful, he would have been locked up and excommunicated for heresy.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

But what is a right-minded science teacher to do if he or she is required by law to teach ID as a competing theory to evolution?

---

Simply don't. Point out that ID is connected to religious doctrine, not science, and thus will not be discussed in this classroom. This is not discrimination against ID as you don't discuss the conjugation of Spanish verbs in biology class, either. Linguistics isn't science and thus will not be discussed in this classroom.Would you rather a teacher tell a student directly that his religious view of the world is wrong? We already have the stupid rap from the Chick tracts and the ACLJ that teachers are doing this. We don't need to prove them right. And it's amazingly rude and inappropriate to do so.Instead, we simply teach them the facts as we understand them and that means evolution.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's a common enough opinion that the oil companies have suppressed automobile engines that get 100 miles to the gallon in order to maintain their oil profits.

---

​

True, but that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't seriously threaten the teaching of science.

---

Oh, really? The physics of efficiency don't have anything to say as to whether or not such an idea is even rational to begin with let alone ridiculous from a "conspiracy" point of view? Do you really think that someone who understands the nature of scientific inquiry would be likely to consider a "conspiracy" regarding any amazing breakthrough? The problem is not that it is being kept quiet. The problem would be how could you possibly keep something like that quiet? We're talking practically free energy! We're talking Nobel Prize!

quote:

---

You're making an excellent case for having logic classes at the high school level, btw, something I certainly wouldn't oppose.

---

No, no! BEFORE high school. You need to learn this in junior high and sixth grade. You need to start learning this in elementary school. Heck, even Sesame Street caught onto this. I will never forget how amazed and impressed I was at the Children's Television Workshop when they had a segment where Ernie had a "little game" he was going to play with Cookie Monster. He had a box. Sticking out of a slot in the box was a plank. There was a cookie on the end of the plank in the box. If you pushed down on the plank, it would rise up and put the cookie right near a hole in the top of the box. But, the hole in the roof was too far away from where the plank stuck out for you to hold it down with one hand and get the cookie. There was, however, a brick near the box.You can see where this is going. The game was that Cookie could have the cookie if he could get it out of the box. And sure enough, Cookie first tried by simply reaching through the hole in the top of the box, but he couldn't reach. Then he figured out that pushing the plank down put the cookie near the hole and he tried getting there as fast as he could, but he couldn't get there fast enough to reach it.And then, that wonderful Sesame Street word appeared: Cooperation. Oh, Ernie! Could you hold the plank down? No, Cookie. You have to do this on your own. Hmmm...Cookie then sees the brick, figures out that he needs to put the brick on the plank to keep it down, and then he gets the cookie.That's the sort of thing we need to teach our children from a very early age. As they get older, the "games" we make them play become more and more complex until by the time they start dealing with junior and senior high, they're ready for the deep analysis of biology and chemistry and physics. The first chem lab I had in both high school and college was the five solutions lab (first lab has all the bottles labeled and you create a table of how each one reacts with each other one...precipitate, smell of sulfur or ammonia, etc. Second lab has the bottles unlabeled and you use the data you acquired before to determine what each bottle contains.) That's a lab on procedure, not chemistry. It should have been done long before you got to such a level. You should be expected to know that stuff already by the time you are 17. It isn't that hard.But does the fact that we have failed our students miserably mean we have to compound the problem by giving credence to things that have no reason to even be considered? It isn't like we make students come up with physical models of the Ptolemaic solar system in order to knock them down. That would be a waste of time.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

I doubt there are many Scopes around these days who would be willing to go to jail standing up for what's right. I think the vast majority of teachers are probably going to obey these laws.

---

Not at all. There are plenty who would. In the many discussions in school boards regarding this, teacher after teacher has stood up to say that they could not, in good conscience, teach creationism in any form as actual science and would have to disobey the law.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

[breaking my rule about Syamsu...]Syamsu responds to berberry:

quote:

---

Scopes, the would be hero who in effect fought to teach eugenics to children, and lost.

---

That was the goal. The point was not to have the law overturned at the local level since that would only set a local precedent. It was to get it overturned at a federal level so that it would have a national significance.And that's exactly what happened. It was overturned on appeal.

quote:

---

What about teaching people selfish gene theory

---

What makes you think it's a bona fide scientific theory? You are confusing colloquial and scientific definitions. It's an interesting hypothesis that needs a lot more work before it rises to the level of a true theory.And you are confusing colloquial and scientific definitions of "decision," too.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!