Evolution: Views Differ

August 2, 2005 10:15 AM

Bush comes out in favor of teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution in American schools. Is this the latest evidence of the White House willing to champion worthy but controversial ideas that have been sidelined by liberal bias, or strictly from Paul Krugman's theoretical headline, "Shape of Earth: Views Differ"? [Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Lone Star State, Texas educators ignite brouhaha by adding Bible study to the public-school curriculum].
posted by digaman (343 comments total)

How could they possibly test the kids at the end of the quarter? All the answers are "god did it."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:20 AM on August 2, 2005

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Sooo...increased funding for comparative religion classes, then?
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 10:21 AM on August 2, 2005

Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life.

You know that Bush thinks this is as stupid as it is. That's what is increasingbly making me disenfranchised with him. He had some of the best private schooling, went to top Ivy schools, his family is as blue-blood as it gets, his family business basically is a living fact that things once lived long ago and died -- yet he turns his back to science in favor of some cheap politics.

I've come to realize that Bush isn't the idiot we like to make him out to be, he's much worse, a whore.
posted by geoff. at 10:22 AM on August 2, 2005

Not ideas that are "different" from Judeo-Christian dogma, silly. Different from what those Buddhist fags are chattering about at their Wicca rituals-cum-Democratic-party fundraisers.
posted by digaman at 10:24 AM on August 2, 2005

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Lone Star State, Texas educators ignite brouhaha by adding Bible study to the public-school curriculum].
posted by digaman at 10:15 AM PST (3 comments total)

Obviously the very most important part of that news was left out by you because then you couldn't make your asinine point. The class is being offered as an "elective." Kind of like how people can choose to major in Religious studies in public universities. The fact that it is elective should have been mentioned by you---and would have been mentioned by you if you weren't trying to grind an axe.
posted by dios at 10:24 AM on August 2, 2005

You guys need to stop starting posts with "Bush comes out". Builds unrealistic expectations.
posted by selfnoise at 10:25 AM on August 2, 2005

But more importantly, what is his position on the Flying Spaghetti Monster???
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:25 AM on August 2, 2005

Darn, I read the first three words of the post and started laughing. And yet, its about more of the moronic same.

I wish the scientific community would come up with something other than calling it the Evolutionary Theory, theory says to people that its not quite settled when it most definitely is. That our president is advocating the instruction of a religiously based idea of how life began is really just incredibly depressing. He's better educated than this and yet he's trying to continue to appeall to his Bible-humping powerbase. Pathetic.

Of course, its probably just another smokescreen to try and divert attention from his real goals (like saving his dear sweet Turd Blossom from prosecution).
posted by fenriq at 10:27 AM on August 2, 2005

Excellent primer on why intelligent design is pseudoscience.
posted by aerify at 10:28 AM on August 2, 2005

Tedious.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:29 AM on August 2, 2005

Wow, at first I thought digaman was implying that the scientific method was the product of liberal bias. Then I remembered that English can be a subtle language and that perhaps he was being ironic. Nice.

On preview, geoff beat me to the point I wanted to make.

On further preview, I hate to admit it but I think dios has a point. Does anyone know if this is an after-school elective?
posted by oddman at 10:32 AM on August 2, 2005

Worthless.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:32 AM on August 2, 2005

Crapulous!
posted by selfnoise at 10:35 AM on August 2, 2005

From the first link:

Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman.

I can't believe it. Bush never ceases to amaze. I'm outraged by this development.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:36 AM on August 2, 2005

Does anyone know if this is an after-school elective?

I don't know, but I still don't think we should be using tax dollars to promote the Bible as a divine document instead of a literary one, if the class in question is indeed "bible study" as opposed to the Bible as literature. According to the linked story, it seems as if the class presupposes that the bible is wholly truthful, even going so far as to present urban legends as truth.

With respect to the main story, though, the idea that intelligent design is a viable alternative to real science is laughable.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:37 AM on August 2, 2005

"Intelligent design" is clearly a stupid name, because it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I should be opposed to the teaching of in schools.
posted by nthdegx at 10:37 AM on August 2, 2005

Obviously the very most important part of that news was left out by you because then you couldn't make your asinine point. The class is being offered as an "elective." Kind of like how people can choose to major in Religious studies in public universities. The fact that it is elective should have been mentioned by you---and would have been mentioned by you if you weren't trying to grind an axe.

When are they going to offer an elective in alchemy for those of us who don't subscribe to the blasphemous "theories" of modern chemistry?

C₁₂H₁₉O₈Cl₃ is far too beautiful and complex to have been created by anyone BUT God...
posted by SweetJesus at 10:37 AM on August 2, 2005

Yes, all ideas are equal.

Believe that God created the universe in 7 days? Ok then.

Believe that Santa cannibalized the other holiday hosts and shat forth the heavens? Why that's just fine.

Believe that only you really know whether any other minds even exist, so go forth and rape, pillage, and murder? Why not?

It's ALL good. Nothing like the right to teach openmindedness and tolerance.
posted by dreamsign at 10:37 AM on August 2, 2005

So first off I think it is no surprise that Bush has a very conservative christian bias. The kind that would want to have a prayer said at the start of school, the ten commandments in every courtroom, and yes creationism taught in school.

Just cause he thinks this should happen doesn't mean it's something the American public will go along with.
posted by aaronscool at 10:38 AM on August 2, 2005

Shame on you digaman for obviously leaving out the most important part of that news so you could make your asinine point and trying to grind an axe.
Now go over and apologize to dios for being so mean or I'll tell everyone you descended from monkeys.

Intelligent design - 6000 years ago God created the entire universe. OK, sure, that's roughly equivalent to the accumulation of all scientific thought and progress throughout history and deserves equal time, in a science class no less, just 'cause some idiot made it up a few years back to try and back door creationism. [cough]
posted by nofundy at 10:38 AM on August 2, 2005

I hate responding to dios, but the problem with the Texas bible class is the accusation that, elective or not, they're teaching children things that are provable bullshit. My AP biology class in high school was an elective, but if they taught me that, say, AIDS is transmitted by mosquitos, that'd be pretty fucking retarded, no?
posted by iron chef morimoto at 10:38 AM on August 2, 2005

dios, if they offer Koran studies and Talmud studies as well then I have no problem with elective Bible studies. But I'm guessing other alternate religious texts were not offered in an elective setting.

The religiousization of this nation is depressing to this agnostic.
posted by fenriq at 10:40 AM on August 2, 2005

In Utah, both Bible Study and (the far, far more popular) "seminary" (Book of Mormon study) are offered as electives, which nearly everyone at my junior high and high school took for credit.

In a monoculture like Utah it kind of sucked for the rest of us kids. All the Mormons got a free & easy credit, and got in good with the faculty, for just talking about God for an hour. It was intrinsically exclusionary. And I strongly suspected that there were more sinister things going on in that class than just reading their Book, like further indoctrination in why they were just a little better than the rest of us.

But I can't prove that, and it may just be my paranoia, and as long as it's an elective there's really nothing unconstitutional about it. In Utah the classes were taught off school grounds -- which, in practice, meant that every school had a Mormon "seminary building" right next to it, which I think was even MORE intrusive than teaching the classes in the school building would have been.

In my ideal world religious classes would have no place on public school grounds or during public school time. This isn't my ideal world, though, as evidenced by the fact that Budweiser easily outsells Duvel in the US.

On preview... fenriq, why would offering Koran and Talmud studies make it any better? First off, no one would attend them (that's what "red state" means); second, you'd still be excluding a lot of people. What if I want to study ancient Egyptian mysticism?
posted by gurple at 10:42 AM on August 2, 2005

Kansas Bush can't stop science.
posted by basicchannel at 10:44 AM on August 2, 2005

The bright yellow "Bush comes out" is duly appreciated.

No need to worry about this. The Supreme Court will stop it. Oh, wait...
posted by leapingsheep at 10:45 AM on August 2, 2005

Are they gay mosquitos?
posted by Balisong at 10:46 AM on August 2, 2005

You know exactly how conservatives (including GW) will do science when they come up with a worldview like this:

"That's not the way the world really works anymore... [W]e create our own reality"

What more needs to be said in the face of such lunacy?
posted by Rothko at 10:48 AM on August 2, 2005

Dios, you're so right. The course is an elective that will be taught in hundreds of schools, and which contains the teachings that the Constitution is based on the Bible, that NASA research supports the notion of the sun stopping in the sky at God's command (who knew?), and sidelines evolution in favor of creationism.

Since you're donning a cloak of religious tolerance to make your point, dios, I'll point out that, while I consider myself a Buddhist Jew, if I heard that an elective course on Buddhist Judaism was being planned for hundreds of highschools, in which it was taught that hundreds of baboons flying out of Buddha's ass were the true source of the universe rather than the Big Bang, I'd object to it on the basis of it being substandard education for young people.

There's no reason why real Christians need to embrace these idiots -- there's much more beauty and insight in their religion than this politically expedient trashing of science by the right suggests -- and many don't.
posted by digaman at 10:48 AM on August 2, 2005

Just cause he thinks this should happen doesn't mean it's something the American public will go along with.

I mean, it's not like 51% of 'em are morans who'll fall for any slapped together photoshopped powerpoint presentation by that dreamy and confident Colin Powell.
posted by petebest at 10:48 AM on August 2, 2005

sidelined by liberal bias

wtf?
posted by 3.2.3 at 10:50 AM on August 2, 2005

I wish the scientific community would come up with something other than calling it the Evolutionary Theory, theory says to people that its not quite settled when it most definitely is.

That's because science is, and needs to be, completely honest and transparent, or else it isn't science. All science is a "theory." Only Sith speak in absolutes.
posted by digaman at 10:51 AM on August 2, 2005

I think folks should actually read the article about the Bible classes in Texas (you too, Dios). The opposition and concern that these classes have engendered is not about the fact that the Bible will be taught as an elective class, but the content of that class. In particular, accusations that the class is skewed in favour of a evangelical, Protestant reading of the text, inclusion of spurious nonsense like intelligent design and the canard that NASA has data that proved that the Sun stood still, in accord with passages in Genesis.

I think its crucial that the western eduction includes the study of the Bible. It is the book that informs the religion of the majority of your co-citizens, is the expression of a set of morals and values that we take so completely for granted that we think they are universal and innate, is crucial for the understanding of western history and literature.

No, I haven't read it either.
posted by bumpkin at 10:52 AM on August 2, 2005

That is such hyperbolic bullshit digaman.

You want to know what other electives I had at my high school? Fashion Design. Interior Design. Auto Paint and Body. Cross Cultural Studies. Astronomy. Oceanograhpy. Webmastering. Landscape Design. Outdoor Activies (Read: hunting). And many, many more.

Some didn't last long because no one took them. But they are electives. What about that basic, simple fucking point are you too dense to understand? This isn't required teaching. You are so goddamned focused on grinding your axe and making it seem like Texas just required all students to be Christians that you are avoiding the most important point that this a class that is chosed by the student who wants to take it to study a book.

If you could take a step off your soapbox, you could realize that you are off-base on this outrage.
posted by dios at 10:54 AM on August 2, 2005

I think it's crucial that the western education includes the study of the Bible.

I happen to agree -- and I have read it. But passing off bad science as religious education educates no one.
posted by digaman at 10:56 AM on August 2, 2005

I would also point out that there were three other literature electives when I was in high school: Shakespeare, African-American Literature, and some Asian literature class.
posted by dios at 10:57 AM on August 2, 2005

gurple, Mormon seminary in Utah is not taken for school credit, and is reflected upon one's official school transcript as "Released Time", if I recall correctly. Students don't receive school credit for it, and it's not taught on school property.

However, technicalities notwithstanding, it is very intimidating and frustrating to non-Mormon students to have a huge, very popular religious building right beside or across the street from the public school. It's a large part of why growing up non-Mormon in the public Utah school system is such a taxing situation. Everyone else gets official time off of school, time during which they're not learning anything of official value to the public school system, but if you want similar time for non-Mormon seminary reasons, you'll run into serious opposition.

So, yes, Mormon seminary is coercive and is an officially-unofficially endorsed public school institution, but the Mormons are politically expedient enough to realize that officially teaching their religion on public school property would bring national attention of the undesirable variety.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:58 AM on August 2, 2005

The irony is that Bush himself is quite a strong argument against “intelligent design”.
posted by signal at 10:58 AM on August 2, 2005

Actually, dios, you're still not listening. I'm all in favor of learning about the Bible. I'm against the teaching of bad science. Making bullshit an elective doesn't magically transform it into truth. Read both my primary link and my posts more carefully and you'll get it.
posted by digaman at 10:59 AM on August 2, 2005

Here comes the pseudoscience, indeed. And yet for all of its obvious defects, I don't have a problem with including intelligent design in school curricula. Being exposed to different ideas and developing the tools to weigh the facts critically--these are skills that don't happen just by teaching a single point of view about the nature of things. It's the same logic behind why Hegel and Marx should be taught alongside Smith and Riccardo. Sure, some impressionable students might buy into the whole ball of hokum, but on balance, the kids will see through it and will be better educated by the experience.

Good god...somebody pinch me, I just agreed with something that Bush said.
posted by runningdogofcapitalism at 11:00 AM on August 2, 2005

Some things are worth getting worked up over. Some just aren't. I think Intelligent Design is bunk. God sneezed, and he's been laughing at the funny shapes and patterns and movements it made ever since. I don't like seeing Bush mention it, since it's a hypothesis that's impossible to prove - but it's not worth getting pissed over.


JB
posted by JB71 at 11:02 AM on August 2, 2005

You want to know what other electives I had at my high school?. . . Webmastering.

Dios, how old are you?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:02 AM on August 2, 2005

I'm all in favor of learning about the Bible.

I call bullshit.

Because you intentionally cast your last link as if the state is requiring Bible Study. It is offering it as an elective. You would have no problem with this if you were "in favor of learning about the Bibile."

It isn't a science class that is being offered as an elective. It is a bible study class for those who want to read that book; just like the Shakespeare class is for those students who want to read his works.

I have no interest in arguing the ID portion of your post. My beef is with your intentionally misleading characterization of the Texas law, which since it is actually.. you know... a LAW, it at least has some merit worth discussing instead of an off-hand comment by the President.
posted by dios at 11:06 AM on August 2, 2005

(That first sentence should be italiczied to indicate it was a comment from digaman).
posted by dios at 11:06 AM on August 2, 2005

dios: You are so goddamned focused on grinding your axe and making it seem like Texas just required all students to be Christians that you are avoiding the most important point that this a class that is chosed by the student who wants to take it to study a book.
Thanks for helping to make my point -- this is just the tip of the wedge, my friend. So it's an elective NOW. In two years it becomes a series of electives, then in three more it is a required course with several electives. In 10 years everyone will be wondering what's so bad about making everyone attend these new christian madrassas.

It is the tip of wedge -- just like "intelligent design" -- the American Taliban don't really have new ideas, just tried and true ones that they'll use over and over.
posted by mooncrow at 11:07 AM on August 2, 2005

Dios, how old are you?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:02 AM PST on August 2 [!]


Come on Optimus, you know Dios doesn't answer direct questions. You need to frame it so that he blurts out his age as a defense for something.
posted by Balisong at 11:07 AM on August 2, 2005

You want to know what other electives I had at my high school? Fashion Design. Interior Design. Auto Paint and Body. Cross Cultural Studies. Astronomy. Oceanograhpy. Webmastering. Landscape Design. Outdoor Activies (Read: hunting). And many, many more.

You obviously didn't go to high school in California in the last thirty-five years. Electives? No money!
posted by Slothrup at 11:10 AM on August 2, 2005

Dios, how old are you?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:02 AM PST on August 2

If you are curious about my age based on that comment, let me tell you that I found out that class is offered when I went to the website of my school and looked at the electives it has to offer. It, of course, wasn't offered when I went to school there (the only computer class I think was offered then was computer science which I believe taught basic and some other program---I didn't take it). But it supports my point that these classes come and go. There were classes that were there when I went to it in the early 90's that aren't currently offered... maybe interest waned. And there are new ones offered too.
posted by dios at 11:10 AM on August 2, 2005

I think it's crucial that the western education includes the study of the Bible.

Isn't that what World Religions class is for, don't you have that in American junior and high schools?
posted by zarah at 11:13 AM on August 2, 2005

Runningdog, I'll pinch you. Remember what the best science is -- a peer-reviewed, careful, painstakingly conservative team effort by the best and brightest to determine, slowly and cautiously, how the universe is made. That's a different sort of process than writing a book of Marxist economic theory, and should be accorded a different sort of respect, even if the worst "science" falls well short of that ideal.

Dios, the Texas Bible study link was a secondary, parenthetical link. Had it been my primary link, I might have included the word "elective" in the post. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. You might also consider the judicious use of a spell-checker before posting, sir.

And science is a perfect example of the kind of curriculum that doesn't just "come and go" -- that's why religion electives shouldn't pose as classes offering scientific truth about the nature of the universe.
posted by digaman at 11:16 AM on August 2, 2005

dios, I can understand why you feel the outrage is misplaced. I think, all things being equal, any elective that promotes study and provides a learning experience should be available for high school kids. If there's enough of a demand for a woodworking program, buy the equipment. Latin studies? Have at it. But the thing is, not all things are equal.

My school didn't have an "outdoor activities" elective, but I can imagine there being some protest if there was. Teaching kids how to kill animals? Oh, the humanity! I wouldn't mind it myself, and I imagine there are communities where that would go over just fine. But as soon as a kid who's in PETA moves to town, you have problems.

Communities are not homogenous. There's a part of me that believes it'd be great if we could move into areas where people hold similar beliefs and share interests and maybe even have some different rules in different states. That's just not practical at this point because we've become highly inter-dependent and rely on so many things at a federal level that dividing it out makes little sense. If one small area adds a bible study class, suddenly every community feels that they deserve one, regardless of local interest. This is what divides a normal education interest from a special interest. It's almost universally regarded that mathematics and a strong understanding of language are part of a good education. Some other topics, less so.
posted by mikeh at 11:19 AM on August 2, 2005

Teaching religion in "public" schools is fine. At the college level.
I took both an Old Testament and a Comparative Religons class at the University of Colorado 15 years ago. Electives. They were awesome classes, because of a good teacher, that discussed the issues of editing and collaboration of the books used in the bible we see today.
I don't see the class being bad, but keep an eye of the content and how it's being presented.
posted by Balisong at 11:23 AM on August 2, 2005

The East Bay Express recently had an interesting article about Phillip Johnson, "the father of the intelligent design movement."

'Intelligent design' is clearly a stupid name, because it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I should be opposed to the teaching of in schools.

It's an excellent name, which was chosen for this exact reason:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools," Johnson was quoted in the National Post, a Canadian newspaper. As he said in the Coral Ridge Ministries address, "You have to start someplace, and you have to prepare minds to hear the truth. You can't give it to them all at once."
...
Johnson has a name for his strategy of cleaving talk of evolution's scientific merits from any discussion about God. He calls it "the wedge," and despite its emphasis upon questioning the materialistic basis of science, he said in the Coral Ridge Ministries talk that it is "inherently an ecumenical movement."

More on the Wedge Strategy (and a followup).

You guys need to stop starting posts with "Bush comes out". Builds unrealistic expectations.

You were probably expecting something like this.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:27 AM on August 2, 2005

bumpkin: I think it's crucial that the western education includes the study of the Bible.

zarah: Isn't that what World Religions class is for, don't you have that in American junior and high schools?

We do have World Religions classes available if the school has a teacher willing to teach it, and (to my knowledge) always as an elective. That said, I don't believe my World Religions class ever studied the bible, except possibly through secondary sources.

Were the secondary sources enough? I think so. Others, apparently, do not.
posted by voltairemodern at 11:28 AM on August 2, 2005

You want to know what other electives I had at my high school? Fashion Design. Interior Design. Auto Paint and Body. Cross Cultural Studies. Astronomy. Oceanograhpy. Webmastering. Landscape Design. Outdoor Activies (Read: hunting). And many, many more.

I wasn't aware that the constitution said anything about separation of Webmastering and State.

Elective or no, teaching a study-of-the-bible class (read: not comparative religious study as literature evaluation) kind of treads into church activities supported by state funds.

You want real bible study? Go to the pre- or post-schoolday classes taught at most churches. It's free, I don't have to pay into it, and a teacher of it is free to say whatever they feel within the confines of the church without offending others.
posted by mathowie at 11:30 AM on August 2, 2005

My only problem is casting this out there as "science".
If it were a comparative mythology class I'd have no problem with it.
The only true scientific answer to what created the universe and life in it is "we don't know".
posted by Dillenger69 at 11:30 AM on August 2, 2005

Hey nofundy: "Intelligent design - 6000 years ago God created the entire universe."

You do realize that Intelligent Design does not equal fundamentalist Christian dogma, right? You realize that ID is perfectly compatible with evolution and the big bang, don't you? Or do you just feel the need to tar all ID proponents with the same extremist viewpoint?

Why bother giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt?
posted by oddman at 11:31 AM on August 2, 2005

So what's the "worthy but controversial idea" in this example? "Intelligent design" is not a particularly worthy idea -- it's a poorly founded hypothesis.

For something to qualify as a "theory" in the scientific sense, it starts out as an educated guess (hypothesis) and is then tested, challenged, and tweaked endlessly. If it continues to stand, it's a theory. In other words, a scientific theory is the closest thing to a "fact" that we can possibly attain.
posted by bshock at 11:38 AM on August 2, 2005

The flat Earth is another alternative viewpoint.
posted by caddis at 11:38 AM on August 2, 2005

dios, I went to a small high school. Very small. There was 245 of us, and 45 were the graduating class. By the time I graduated, I had taken every class offered, mandatory or elective, because there wasn't enough subject matter offered to fill four years worth of schedule.

So yes, bible study may be offered as an elective. But for tiny schools like the one I went to, elective eventually means mandatory, and that's where the problem lies.
posted by FunkyHelix at 11:44 AM on August 2, 2005

First off, evolution is NOT A THEORY, it's a FACT. Open any intro bio book and you'll see that. It's how evolution happens that involves theories (and the weaker hypotheses). ID is NOT SCIENCE because it can't be tested. The only reason why anyone is giving ID any attention is because it's pseudoscience, which I think has been covered enough in this thread, so I won't let my blood boil any more over this.
posted by Moral Animal at 11:47 AM on August 2, 2005

First off, evolution is NOT A THEORY, it's a FACT

Micro evolution has been demonstrated reliably enough to be considered a "fact". Macro evolution? No chance in hell. Any decent scientist will qualify it as a theory.

ID is NOT SCIENCE because it can't be tested.

There are plenty of things that aren't science but also aren't wrong.

It's how evolution happens that involves theories

Intelligent deisgn is one of those theories.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:50 AM on August 2, 2005

Actually, I'd say ID fails as a theory because it presupposes a higher being that can't be proven to exist one way or the other.
posted by fenriq at 11:54 AM on August 2, 2005

I think some of you are not understanding how this works.

The local School Board decides who to hire and what classes to offer. But they make that decision within the state-approved curriculum.

Take a hypothetical. If a local school board wants to start offering a class in underwater basketweaving, it can't just offer it. It has to petition the state to get an approval of the class. The state than approves it as part of the curriculum. The individual school boards then decide if they have enough money, interest, teachers, etc. to provide the class. It doesn't require every school to have the class. It just permits the schools who want to offer the elective.

So take this "approval" for what it is. The state allowed disticts to offer this class as an elective if they so choose. This isn't a state ordered class that a school has to offer and students have to take.

And keep in mind that this is a Bible Study class. It's the study of the most published book in history. This isn't a proselytizing class. And it isn't required. This doesn't even begin to touch about the Establishment clause.
posted by dios at 11:55 AM on August 2, 2005

First off, evolution is NOT A THEORY, it's a FACT

To be more clear, "evolution" is a well-tested theory, but it is not infalliable and no scientist would ever claim it to be a "fact". To claim that macro evolution (ie, man descending from bacteria over millions of years) is a "fact" belies a fundamental ignorance about the working of science. The very nature of the claim makes it impossible to prove definitively, therefore it is and always will be a theory. It can be disproven by finding facts that counter the theory, but it cannot be definitely proven by science.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:56 AM on August 2, 2005

Micro evolution has been demonstrated reliably enough to be considered a "fact". Macro evolution? No chance in hell. Any decent scientist will qualify it as a theory.

Evolution: species change over time

That's all I was talking about. Everything else is still up for debate.


There are plenty of things that aren't science but also aren't wrong.

I never said it wasn't wrong. I just said it's not science.


Intelligent deisgn is one of those theories.

It most certainly is. But it's not a scientific one. Not science = shouldn't be talked about in science class.
posted by Moral Animal at 11:56 AM on August 2, 2005

Gravity is a theory as well.

Problem is people confuse "Theory" with "Hypothesis" far too often.
posted by aaronscool at 11:59 AM on August 2, 2005

Optimus Chyme How could they possibly test the kids at the end of the quarter? All the answers are "god did it."

The test will be on how to argue that Intelligent Design is real science, or should be taught. That way the little fundies can carry the talking points to the playground.
posted by modernerd at 11:59 AM on August 2, 2005

I'm still waiting until we can teach about Galactus in public schools....
posted by JHarris at 12:01 PM on August 2, 2005

To be more clear, "evolution" is a well-tested theory, but it is not infalliable [sic] and no scientist would ever claim it to be a "fact".

This kind of mentality is exactly what is causing all the problems in our schools today. Evolution, that species change over time, is most definitely a fact. Every biologist believes this. It is not up for debate. People going around and saying that it is "just a theory" is what gives these pseudoscientists and, especially, creationists, the courage to start imposing their beliefs on science.
posted by Moral Animal at 12:03 PM on August 2, 2005

dios: This doesn't even begin to touch about the Establishment clause.

It might not. It might. If it is, in fact, "a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class", and it's presented in a way that doesn't promote Christianity, then it might not run into Establishment problems. But if, as its detractors say, it "attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles", and the state pays for it to be taught in public schools, I'd like to understand how it would avoid conflict with the Establishment clause. According to the article, the Journal of Law in Education (about which I know nothing) seemed to think that this course in particular would run afoul of Establishment.

The devil is in the details of the curriculum, how it is taught, and how it is promoted by the school. Given that wasp's nest, I'm surprised any state would want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.
posted by gurple at 12:04 PM on August 2, 2005

And keep in mind that this is a Bible Study class. It's the study of the most published book in history. This isn't a proselytizing class. And it isn't required. This doesn't even begin to touch about the Establishment clause.

So, everyone would be OK if the Bible was taught in the historical context that it 'inpired' a large percentage of all bloodshed in the history of humanity? I mean, we are just talking about the Bible in a historical document, right?
posted by underdog at 12:05 PM on August 2, 2005

You know, if the only thing that Bush and the like is pushing for is alternative teachings to evolution, then why the hell aren't they suggesting schools also teach spontaneous generation? Or what about Lamarckian inheritance? Oh, that's right, because like Intelligent Design, those ideas were proven to be stupid.

Though, I would fully support intelligent design being taught in schools if they gave equal air time to Unintelligent Design. (posted many times before, I know, but its soo good.)
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:07 PM on August 2, 2005

crap...

inpired=inspired

...hangs head in shame...
posted by underdog at 12:08 PM on August 2, 2005

oddman: You realize that ID is perfectly compatible with evolution

<boggle> No, no, I guess I don't.

I'm going to propose an elective for my local school district:
"God of the Gaps, a Historical Retrospective: How religion has tried and universally failed to explain physical phenomena"
posted by bjrubble at 12:09 PM on August 2, 2005

I see we all need a refresher course in intro biology.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption for purposes of testing ideas

Theory: an idea that accounts for many facts and attempts to explain a variety of phenomena - eg: "Theory of Gravitation" or "Theory of Natural Selection" ...

Fact: actual existence or occurrence - eg: evolution, the sky is blue ...
posted by Moral Animal at 12:11 PM on August 2, 2005

oddman - yeah, the previous poster did get the ID platform wrong, but it's stretching it a little to say that ID is "perfectly compatible with evolution." After all, the whole point of the thing is that evolution isn't enough - God [or "some other being"] had to intervene to make many things possible. Unfortunately, divine intervention isn't really something you can study with science, and so in debates ID people focus on "irreduceably complex" things, like the eye, or the blood clotting mechanism. Fine, sure, those things sure are complicated... but the problem comes in when actual biologists, biochemists, etc. come in with examples of eyes in various evolutionary steps, or clotting proteins that have similar earlier forms which served a different purpose, the ID people pretty much ignore this. Evolution is science, and our understanding of how it happens has changed as new data [i.e., DNA structure, non-Mendalian genetics, etc] have come in. ID [or at least the ID speakers and representatives I've heard] doesn't adapt to fit new data - it ignores any science that can't be interpreted as supporting it. That's not science, and combined with the need for an "intelligent being" [read "God of the gaps"], it's not really evolution either. So no, I don't think ID is "compatible with evolution."

thedevildancelightly - if ID isn't science, it shouldn't be taught as an alternative in a science class. Religion, philosophy, sure, but we're talking about teaching ID as an alternative to a scientific theory. If people want to discuss divine involvement in creation, evolution, whatever, there's a place for that, but it isn't in the science classroom. Additionally, most scientists would also classify micro evolution as a theory - in science, theories explain how things happen, and they're fleshed out and supported by facts and numbers. Intelligent design may be a theory, but every specific argument I've heard an ID supporter give [eyes, blood clotting, etc are irreduceably complex] can be refuted by scientific studies. So sure, ID is a theory, but it's a bad one, a theory that is not supported by the vast majority of research out there. And really, I don't think there's much place for discredited theories in the science classroom, any more than there's place for religion. At most, ID should be mentioned along with Lamarck's theories, as a historical footnote.
posted by ubersturm at 12:15 PM on August 2, 2005

"C12H19O8Cl3 is far too beautiful and complex to have been created by anyone BUT God..."

I'm a fan of C2H5OH
posted by lathrop at 12:18 PM on August 2, 2005

Any decent scientist will qualify it as a theory.

A "theory" is really a bit stronger than a "hypothesis" by virtue of having observations which conform to it. The word "fact" can be a bit loaded in a charged context, but I think that most scientists would agree with the statement that evolution is scientifically true.

There are plenty of things that aren't science but also aren't wrong.

Indeed, and none of them belong in a science class.

Intelligent deisgn is one of those theories.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. Therefore, it does not belong in a science class.
posted by Slothrup at 12:20 PM on August 2, 2005

dios' list of electives offered by his school is totally disengenous and a red herring, as mathowie pointed out. A Shakespeare elective is fundamentally different from a Bible Study elective (that is, a course in which the Bible is read as reality, rather than read as literature, cultural document, etc) because no one studies King Lear as actual history. No one taking a Fashion Design course learns that Calvin Klein created the universe and an alternate button-fly universe. A class that promotes reading of the Bible as actual history or fact is a course promoting a certain religion and has no place in public education. Hell, I went to a Catholic High School and I was required to take theology for four years and we were never taught that the Bible is literally true.
posted by papakwanz at 12:24 PM on August 2, 2005

Moral Animal: Fact: actual existence or occurrence - eg: evolution, the sky is blue ...


As much as I HATE Intelligent Design, evolution is not a fact. It is a theory much like your earlier theory examples. It could, in time, be disproven by an better theory. However, Intelligent Design has not attempted to do so (because it can't be tested) so it can't be an alternative theory of evolution.

For example, regarding Spontaneous Generation. I could make the hypothesis that rags and grain left out in a shed for a week would result in the spontanous generation of mice. And, I'd be right, so my hypothesis would become a theory. It would not, however, be a fact. Someone else would come along with a better set up experiment and prove my theory wrong It could happen with evolution. I can't see how, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:25 PM on August 2, 2005

Is this the latest evidence of the White House willing to champion worthy but controversial ideas that have been sidelined by liberal bias

I think it is the latest attempt to smokescreen the American public away from actual concerns.

It's pretty good politics, throw a 100 year old fizzled firebomb and let that mother fucker gum up the public machine while real issues are drawn out on large maps in dark rooms.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:27 PM on August 2, 2005

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory much like your earlier theory examples.

Also, it's not a theory so much as it is an entire class of theories. When the fossil record didn't support gradual evolution, for instance, the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" was formed.

Interestingly, in computer simulations of evolution, "punctuated equilibrium" is almost always observed.
posted by Slothrup at 12:28 PM on August 2, 2005

dios: You are so goddamned focused on grinding your axe and making it seem like Texas just required all students to be Christians...

I didn't get the impression that Bible study was a requirement from the post as phrased, and it was only a footnote to the post as a whole anyhow. What language in the post specifically implies "requirement" to you?

And why are you so unhinged about it, anyway? It is possible to object to an elective class, isn't it? Or is that no longer allowed?
posted by Western Infidels at 12:36 PM on August 2, 2005

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. Therefore, it does not belong in a science class.

Thank you, Slothrup.

I think what a lot of ID supports fail to realize/except is that science is, at its core, the scientific method. What is the scientific method?
Observe the world around you.
Make a hypothesis to explain what you've observed.
Use that hypothesis to make predictions.
Test the hypothesis to see if it will match your predictions.
(its been a long time since I took a science course so bare with me if my definition is slightly off.)

If you can't do that, then its not science. This is fundimentally why Intelligent Design is not science. If IDers don't like evolution, fine. Set up an experiment to disprove it. It still won't, of course, prove intelligent design, but it will do more good to their cause than this bullshit pseudoscience they keep touting.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:37 PM on August 2, 2005

Bush publicly supports the teaching of creationism? Incredible.

Up here in Canada, back in the 2000 election campaign, the Reform Party's campaign was destroyed after Liberal Warren Kinsella pulled the following stunt on a TV talk show, mocking Reform leader Stockwell Day for being a creationist:

In the past day or so, we have learned that Stockwell Day apparently believes that the world is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were real people and - my personal favourite - humans walked the earth with dinosaurs. I just want to remind Mr. Day that The Flintstones was not a documentary. And this is the only dinosaur that recently co-existed with humans. [Holds up stuffed Barney dinosaur]
posted by russilwvong at 12:39 PM on August 2, 2005

thedevildancedlightly: To be more clear, "evolution" is a well-tested theory, but it is not infalliable and no scientist would ever claim it to be a "fact".

Nope, evolution is a directly and indirectly observed fact. It's been seen in ancient and modern animal husbandry, modern-day laboratories, and in the fossil record. Species change over time; we can see that they do, no theorizing needed. That's all evolution is.

There are many ways to explain evolution, and one of them - the one that gets people so worked up - is Darwin's theory of natural selection.

The very nature of the claim makes it impossible to prove definitively, therefore it is and always will be a theory.

You may want to reconsider giving lectures on the way science works. Theories are the highest form of scientific knowledge - there is no "graduation" or "proving" of a theory to morph it into something beyond theory. Natural selection isn't stuck at some low level of acceptance or plausibility, it's reached the very highest level of acceptance and plausibility.

Even if you insist on the nonsensical "only a theory" objection, natural selection isn't "only a theory" because of some special nature of the claims it makes; its "only a theory" because that's what the scientific process does - it builds theories.
posted by Western Infidels at 12:43 PM on August 2, 2005

If you are curious about my age based on that comment, let me tell you that I found out that class is offered when I went to the website of my school and looked at the electives it has to offer.

And what's the URL then?

I think you just outed yourself as a non-lawyer. Heh.

Micro evolution has been demonstrated reliably enough to be considered a "fact". Macro evolution? No chance in hell. Any decent scientist will qualify it as a theory.

Science does not make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. They use the term 'speciation' to describe the process of one species turning into another, and that has been observed dozens of times

Anyway, biologist does not call it the "Theory of Evolution" or "Evolutionary Theory" It's referred to simply as "Evolution". I doubt you'll find many people using the term "Theory of Evolution" in any recent scientific papers.
posted by delmoi at 12:47 PM on August 2, 2005

My Jr. High science teacher refused to teach evolution or the big bang because "We all know what REALLY happened." I did very poorly in his class, partially because all his extra credit questions were bible trivia. I also didn't do very well in algebra because my teacher didn't have time to answer my questions because he was busy writing out the daily bible verse on the blackboard.

This was a public school.

Religious ideas and beliefs do not belong in school because education suffers. I'm not talking about discussing biblical references in Milton or comparative religions or any other academic view of religion. I'm talking about the presentation of religious beliefs as fact, such as "intelligent design" or "bible study." Besides being unfair and unconstitutional, it's a waste of precious time and resources.
posted by jrossi4r at 12:48 PM on August 2, 2005

uberstorm and bjrubble, let me save us a lot of cross-purposes discussion. I don't subscribe to a so-called, god of the gaps version of ID. I do not think that ID should be taught in a science class as an alternative to evolution. I don't think ID is science.

I think ID is the best answer to the bigger questions. Why did life like ours evolve at all? Why is the universe hospitable to life in general? etc. . That is, I'm interested in metaphysical questions to which ID is an attractive answer. The version of ID I endorse is compatible with science simple because any reasonable metaphysical picture must be compatible with every day experience and the use of reason.

Better?
posted by oddman at 12:50 PM on August 2, 2005

Dios, how can using public funds to teach a religious text not fall under the Establishment clause?

Elective or not, the school is still using tax dollars to teach a book that is the basis for a particular brand of faith. This is not comparative studies with the Koran, Talmud and Hindu scriptures being given equal time. How can any rational person claim that the government funding Bible study does not run afoul of the 1st Amendment? It seems to me that when government schools use public funds to teach something that they are doing exactly what they are forbidden to do and are, in fact, "respecting an establishment of religion".

Why any school district would want to open this can of worms is beyond me. It isn't as though children who want to learn about the Bible cannot find other environments to do so in, this is what churches and private schools are for -- but I'll be damned if it's going to be on my dime.
posted by cedar at 12:51 PM on August 2, 2005

oddman: Why is the universe hospitable to life in general?

It is? Please find me some credible evidence of life anywhere in the universe besides this big blue rock. I'm not saying there isn't life elsewhere and fervently hope that there is, but it's a bit of a stretch, given our current state of knowledge, to describe the universe as 'hospitable to life'.
posted by cedar at 12:54 PM on August 2, 2005

I'm fine with them teaching Intelligent Design, as long as they say that it could just as easily have been day-glo alien fruitbats from Alpha Centauri Prime who did the designing.

Of course, if they fail to do that, then they are teaching religion in the schools.
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:55 PM on August 2, 2005

After GW gets his boy Roberts into the Supremes we will be teaching creationism.
posted by caddis at 1:00 PM on August 2, 2005

And yes, Western Infidels. "Evolution" is a fact. "Natural Selection" is a theory, which also happens to be true in every way that something can be true.
posted by delmoi at 1:00 PM on August 2, 2005

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory much like your earlier theory examples

Evolution is an observed fact. Over time species will change and eventually lead other other separate and distinct species. This particular point is the part that is a fact.

The "Theory" is trying to explain the how and why of this fact: See Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.

To frame this better I reintroduce you to my friend Gravity. We really don't know why or how Gravity works but our best efforts have led us to develop the Theory of Gravity. This is all well and good but the important thing is that gravity does exist in a measurable quantifiable way which you can test yourself some night after a few drinks when gravity makes you its bitch.
posted by aaronscool at 1:03 PM on August 2, 2005

Why is the universe hospitable to life in general?

There's an easy and obvious answer to your question that you're not going to like. If the universe were *not* hospitible to life then there wouldn't be any. The kind of life we have on Earth is simply a "good" statistical probability based on physical laws and conditions.

We're just not special in that way, and that's what I think most people object to about evolution. Their world view requires a special place for humans -- and for themselves as individuals not least of all.
posted by Slothrup at 1:09 PM on August 2, 2005

Reasonable enough, oddman, although unfortunately those aren't the kinds of things that the ID folk seem to be very interested in exploring. They focus on pushing ID as an "alternative" to evolution, and that's pretty much it. What you're talking about is more along the lines of figuring out how science and religion can fit together, and to me that's way more interesting than ID, which is bad science and not very good religion, either. It's more along the lines of what I learned in my [Catholic] high school: science explains the how of the world, let's think about why God caused things to work that way. Unlike ID, that kind of religious viewpoint doesn't make the mistake of trying to compete with science.
posted by ubersturm at 1:11 PM on August 2, 2005

To frame this better I reintroduce you to my friend Gravity. We really don't know why or how Gravity works but our best efforts have led us to develop the Theory of Gravity. This is all well and good but the important thing is that gravity does exist in a measurable quantifiable way which you can test yourself some night after a few drinks when gravity makes you its bitch.

Your falling on your ass when your drunk is a fact. "The apply took 2.3 seconds to hit the ground" is a fact. Gravity is a theory. That doesn't make it any less true or supported by scientific evidence than a fact.

Evolution, similarly is a theory. Now where on earth did anyone get the idea that this means that we're not sure if it's true or that scientists are still debating whether or not it's true? Let's stop using the word "theory" in the scientific context as though it implies doubt (it doesn't), and maybe eventually they will, too.
posted by duck at 1:13 PM on August 2, 2005

Spaghetti-monsterism Now!
posted by bshort at 1:14 PM on August 2, 2005

Evolution is an observed fact. Over time species will change and eventually lead other other separate and distinct species. This particular point is the part that is a fact.

You are right, my mistake. Apologies all around. I was falling into the headspace of confusing evolution with natural selection. ID isn't a alternative theory to evolution, its an alternative theory to natural selection for explaining evolution. Well, it claims to be a theory, but we've already covered that.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:17 PM on August 2, 2005

ddl, what the hell are you smoking? Evolution is a fact. Facts can be proven wrong, of course, and paradigms can shift eventually. That doesn't turn a fact into a theory, it just means that science is fallible and, ahem, evolving over time.

ID is just a wolf in nerd's clothing, an attempt to do an end-around things like the scientific method, empirical observation, and all those nice things that give us cures for diseases and rockets and computers.

Do you actually know any qualified biologists or doctors?
posted by bardic at 1:19 PM on August 2, 2005

Facts can be proven wrong

Umm...then it was never a fact.
posted by duck at 1:21 PM on August 2, 2005

Canada's elected leader, Prime Minister Paul Martin, is in many citizen's opinions, an asshole, just as many (most, say the recent polls) US Americans feel the same about their leader.

One of the bigger differences is that Paul Martin has separated his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs from his political decisions, choosing to do the right things for our society and risking his hold on the government to pass our recent legalisation of gay marriage.

The man distinctly believes that homosexuality is against all that his church holds true, yet has the ability to separate his personal faith from the fundamental principals we hold true as Canadians: that greater equality upholds the greater good.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:22 PM on August 2, 2005

Cedar, Dios: I took a kicking from the leftists on MeFi when I defended Bible Lit the last time around. So, lemme first address your objections, Cedar. You can teach the Bible in a critical way, as literature and as a flawed historical document. You can even do this in high school, as an elective. It's a good thing to learn, from getting to look at different translations in a search for intended meaning, to dealing with authorship questions and social anthropology through the text, to the simple joys of reading the Song of Solomon.
However, Dios, you're being deliberately disingenuous with your criticism. The central point isn't whether or not this is an elective, but whether or not public money is being used for proslytizing. In this case, it certainly appears to be. That's wrong, and if YOU didn't have an axe to grind, you'd realize that.
posted by klangklangston at 1:25 PM on August 2, 2005

Intelligent Design is not a scientific anything. It's part of philosophy. ID was a subject we covered in an Intro to Philosophy class in college in the "Does God or Does God Not Exist?" portion. I have no objection to ID in that context. Interestingly enough, at my Presbyterian college, we weren't taught ID in biology . . . since it's not science.

This is so easy; apparently, too easy.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:26 PM on August 2, 2005

There's nothing wrong, indeed, it would be a positive to teach intelligent design, as long as its not in a science course.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:27 PM on August 2, 2005

To be more clear, "evolution" is a well-tested theory, but it is not infalliable and no scientist would ever claim it to be a "fact".

I've really come to expect more from you, tddl.

Also, guys, dios' ever-present chip on his shoulder does not make him automatically wrong.

IF the decision is left up to the local school boards AND it is truly elective AND the class is a study of the creation of the earth as related in a culturally relevant book, then it's pretty hard to see how this could be a legal problem, as distasteful (or not) as any of us may find it.

I guess that's really expecting a lot from the people who assign "Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul" as English class material, though.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:28 PM on August 2, 2005

The Dryyyyy Cracker writes "'You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.'"

(if by "different ideas" one doesn't mean 'alternative lifestyles', atheism, sex education, the concept that some illegal narcotics are less harmful to you than the ones you can buy at the liquor store, open government, opposition to the death penalty, the insistence on open and fair trials for everyone, etc.)

What a sad, sad joke.
posted by clevershark at 1:29 PM on August 2, 2005

er, actually that's a Bush quote, which was unfortunately appropriated to TDC.
posted by clevershark at 1:30 PM on August 2, 2005

Duck, and assorted pedants: I always understood gravity to be a Law, not a theory. Let me clarify: That there exists an attraction between mass that is roughly inversely proportional to the square of the distance between mass is a Law. That this attraction occurs because of a warp in space/time or because of an interceding force or any of a slew of other proposed explanations, that's a Theory of gravity. The facts are things that have happened. I dropped my glass, it fell to the floor. That happened because of gravity. Gravity happens because (garden gnomes?)
That evolution occurs is a law. It simply states that change occurs in organisms through successive generations. That cells in the eye were once part of the liver is a theory that explains an aspect of the evolutionary theory.
posted by klangklangston at 1:32 PM on August 2, 2005

IF the decision is left up to the local school boards AND it is truly elective AND the class is a study of the creation of the earth as related in a culturally relevant book, then it's pretty hard to see how this could be a legal problem, as distasteful (or not) as any of us may find it.

You forgot a clause. The idea is not just to teach ID, it's to teach ID in science classes. This is where the terrain becomes more difficult to navigate.
posted by voltairemodern at 1:33 PM on August 2, 2005

Facts can be proven wrong

If it's possible for it to be proven wrong then it is by its very definition a theory in the realm of science. It can be a well-accepted theory, and a well-supported theory, but it is nonetheless a theory unless there exists a way to positively prove it.

Gravity is a theory. We have not proven why I fall on my ass when I get drunk. It's quite likely that gravity is the cause, and almost certain that it will happen every time, but until such date that there is a logical certainty that gravity is the cause then it is not a fact and it remains a theory.

These are important concepts to understand. You can disagree with intelligent design all you want (and I agree with the majority of the criticisms of it), but that's no reason to make false claims about competing scientific theories. By claiming that evolution is a "fact" you are making the same twists of reality and logic that you disdain in your ideological opponents. In other words, claiming that evolution through natural selection is a "fact" is sinking to their level.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:33 PM on August 2, 2005

More specifically: What Maven said.
posted by voltairemodern at 1:34 PM on August 2, 2005

Fact: Species change and adapt over time.
Fact: There is a force, which we choose to call gravity, that makes things fall down and hit the ground.

Theory: The changes that occur in species over time are due to natural selection, that is that individuals in a species select mates based on superior survival.

Theory: Gravity is caused by garden gnomes.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:38 PM on August 2, 2005

Fact: Species change and adapt over time.
Fact: There is a force, which we choose to call gravity, that makes things fall down and hit the ground.

Theory: The changes that occur in species over time are due to natural selection, that is that individuals in a species select mates based on superior survival.

I'll agree with your characterization of the issue in general. The problem is that "evolution" when used in a lay context is used to refer to what you have correctly identified as "theory". That part (sexual selection on the basis of fitness) is a theory and will be for the foreseable future.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:41 PM on August 2, 2005

This doesn't even begin to touch... the Establishment clause.


I can understand that you have a position on this point. But it is at least a close question, given the Lemon test*, which still is in play after McCreary. Dios, there is no need to froth at the mouth, cursing and behaving poorly, in order to get your point of view across. Most people here are reasonable and respond to good arguments.

*For a refresher, the Lemon test held that you submit a government action to this three-pronged inquiry to determine whether it was constitutional under the Establishment clause.

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

I personally think this elective fails on all three prongs of Lemon; I suppose it's up to the courts to decide at this point.
posted by norm at 1:41 PM on August 2, 2005

sonofsamiam, how can you possibly draw the conclusion that this elective is purely the study of the Bible as literature? The course uses NASA findings to support the possibility of the flood... now, you're not dios, so be honest: does that sound like a course studying the Bible in the comparitive religion sense or an indoctrination study designed to get students to take the Bible as literal truth? This is clearly a case of government money being used for religious indoctrination purposes and, of course, it wouldn't fly anywhere else but a place like Texas.
posted by nixerman at 1:42 PM on August 2, 2005

tddl writes: Macro evolution [is a fact]? No chance in hell. Any decent scientist will qualify it as a theory.

fwiw, I found Gould's definition useful:

Fact: A proposition that would be perverse to withhold one's conditional assent to.

So however the creationist pinheads define "macro-evolution", from present DNA sequencing and phenotype comparisons in the fossil record it has clearly existed for billions of years, exists now, and is basically the keystone of our understanding of life on Earth.

Now, ID can made compatible with pure "scientific materialism" for people too weak to put their faith in the power of parallel trials of chance events.

The very usage of the term 'macro' here makes tddl a creationist idiot. As if being a Bush admin apologist wasn't enough. I just love seeing the creationists get their hooks into the Republican party. It's going to be their downfall eventually, like Lysenkoism was for the Soviets.

Regnery Press, fine publishers of such crap as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Ann Coulter, and dozens of other hack writings, also publishes several creationist/ID screeds. If I were still in PoliSci I think I'd do my thesis on the nexus between the Straussians and Creationists, and how Rove tied this political force together for the Bushites. Strauss wrote that religion was good for the little people.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:43 PM on August 2, 2005

I think thedevildancedlightly has a point (shock!).

In fact I think he should be encouraged to further explore how gravity is merely a theory by, for instance, taking long walks on short piers.
posted by clevershark at 1:44 PM on August 2, 2005

In fact I think he should be encouraged to further explore how gravity is merely a theory by, for instance, taking long walks on short piers.

Ha ha. All I'm objecting to is the incorrect use of scientific language to (ironically enough) claim that other people are using psuedo-science. Proper science does predict that one who takes a long walk off a short pier will soon be swimming, and blames gravity for the result, but doesn't call it a fact until it is a logical necessity that gravity is the cause. It's subtle, but very important.

Heywood, drop the ad hominem arguments and your bitterness from other threads and people might take you more seriously. As it stands your comment comes across as immature and defensive.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:48 PM on August 2, 2005

The calculation of gravity is a law, to wit:

F= (G*m₁*m₂)/r²

That is a law, confirmed by observation and measurement. It may even be universally correct.

The theory of gravity is concerned with WHY that law, IS a law. It's concerned with how gravity works, not just with how to calculate the effects. Further research into the theory may invalidate that law under certain conditions (just as relativity theory invalidated the laws of planetary motion under certain conditions, but managed to explain why Mercury's orbit was 'wrong').

The law of evolution is that the gene pool will undergo changes over time. The theory is the attempt to explain how and why those changes will occur.

In scientific nomenclature, laws are generally mathematical expressions of physical phenomena (think Newton, Maxwell). Theories are not, and are significantly more complex and involved.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 1:50 PM on August 2, 2005

Gravity is a theory. ... but until such date that there is a logical certainty that gravity is the cause then it is not a fact and it remains a theory.

These are important concepts to understand. You can disagree with intelligent design all you want (and I agree with the majority of the criticisms of it), but that's no reason to make false claims about competing scientific theories.

I don't know what you you mean when you say "fact" and "theory" but these "important concepts" are not the same concepts that "fact" and "theory" have in scientific reasoning.

Evolution is a fact, in the normal sense of the word "fact" (i.e. something that is true). You can get all epistemological about it, but in the normal, every day sense of the word truth and fact, it's a true fact. As true as "George bush is president" as true as "mathowie runs metafilter" as much as "my car is bright green".

The only reason why someone would claim that evolution was not a fact, would be due to scientific ignorance. (coincidentally, this would also be the only reason some would discuss 'micro' and 'macro' evolution other then to dismiss it)
posted by delmoi at 1:50 PM on August 2, 2005

The problem is that "evolution" when used in a lay context is used to refer to what you have correctly identified as "theory"

Actually I don't think this is true at all. The term "Theory" and "Evolution" are quite often used together by fundies to try and cast doubt on the "Fact" that evolution has happened. These are usually the same whack jobs that claim the earth is 4000 years old, carbon dating is a hoax and god put all this stuff there just to test our faith...

In fact I'd say the "Theory of Evolution" phrase has been so corrupted that many people believe that the "Facts" about evolution are still "Theory" and that by "Theory" the mean "Hypothesis"...

Now on to Intelligent Design as a theory. Which peer review scientific journals have papers been published supporting this theory?
posted by aaronscool at 1:53 PM on August 2, 2005

I think you just outed yourself as a non-lawyer.
posted by delmoi at 12:47 PM PST on August 2

Yeah, who over the age of 18 goes to his or her old high school's website?

Also, he wrote: "You want to know what other electives I had at my high school?"

I had. As in "these were available when I was in high school." Which I think makes good old dios not so old after all.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:54 PM on August 2, 2005

re: oddman, Medieval Maven, and most of this thread:

I'm starting to think the best solution would be to have a comparative philosophy curriculum.

* Science, the scientific method, observation vs hypothesis vs theory

* Religion, faith, the import (or lack thereof) of physical validation

* Morality and ethics: religious perspectives, physiological/evolutionary hypotheses, game theory

* The difference between "how things work" and "why things are"

I suppose it would end up being completely orthogonal to the ID vs evolution debate, but I would have loved to take a class like this when I was a kid.
posted by bjrubble at 1:55 PM on August 2, 2005

Here's my take on it...

Sorry... it's not colored yet... it's still a few weeks from publication.
posted by jpburns at 1:56 PM on August 2, 2005

The only reason why someone would claim that evolution was not a fact, would be due to scientific ignorance. (coincidentally, this would also be the only reason some would discuss 'micro' and 'macro' evolution other then to dismiss it)

What definition of "evolution" are you using? Very few people would disagree that if you put 100 members of a species in a new environment that some will survive and others will not.

If by "evolution" you mean "species are different today than they were yesterday" that is an an observation, not a theory. It would probably be fair to call that a "fact". Species today are indeed not the same as they were yesterday. That's a widely accepted observation and very few people would hesitatate to call that a fact. People who disagree with that have a lot of explaining to do and aren't represented in today's discussion.

However, if by "evolution" you mean "species have undergone this change because of natural sexual selection" that is a theory as it is an attempt to explain how the universe works that has not been proven. It is a very important theory, and it frankly has a lot of support. Great big gobs of support. But that doesn't mean that in 100 years somebody won't come along and explain it in a better way. Or that in 10 years there won't be a better explanation. Evolution by sexual selection is, in fact, a theory unless somebody comes up with an infalliable way to prove it. Note that the key word is "prove", not "show lots of evidence for". To be a scientifically accepted fact of nature it must be an inevitable conclusion from other accepted facts.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:57 PM on August 2, 2005

thedevildancedlightly: You're the one using terms incorrectly. "Fact" is not a scientific term. Science has theories. Some theories are correct, which makes them also facts, and some theories are wrong. Natural Selection is a theory, and evolution isn't really. But evolution does happen, and there is no principled argument that can be made these days that it doesn't happen.

You seem to belive that things must be proven logicaly before they become "true". This can only happen within formal systems. The world is not a formal system, nothing about the world or universe can every be exhaustively logicaly proven. That is why we don't requre logical proof before we say that a statement about the world is "true" or "false".
posted by delmoi at 2:01 PM on August 2, 2005

In fact I'd say the "Theory of Evolution" phrase has been so corrupted that many people believe that the "Facts" about evolution are still "Theory" and that by "Theory" the mean "Hypothesis"...

Again, you are conflating two different concepts.

FACTS: There are facts about evolution. One fact is that we have a fossil record that has a variety of properties. Another fact is that the color of moths in England changed with the industrial revolution. Another fact is that we've observed that DNA correlates to gene expression which correlates to properties about an organism. Another fact is that Darwin observed a whole boatload of interesting species in the Galapagos Islands that were very specialized to their unique niches. etc etc etc.

THEORY: All of these observations can be united through a model of sexual selection based on reproductive fitness.

Note the key differences between those statements. The facts are all observations that can be confirmed without a doubt through independent observation or experimentation. The theory is the part that attempts to unite the observations, but is not the only possible explanation. Science has been wrong before (that whole flat-earth thing didn't work out so well, despite plenty of observations and models supporting it) and will be wrong again (the ongoing problems with a unified field theory suggest an underlying issue with physics). Therefore, the scientific method requires that anything that is not an inevitable conclusion from other accepted facts be labelled a theory. Theories can have tons of support. Theories are often right. But, it's still a theory.

The fact that the lay population often gets the difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" wrong doesn't make evolution any less of a theory when we're discussing it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:03 PM on August 2, 2005

You want to know what other electives I had at my high school? Fashion Design. Interior Design. Auto Paint and Body. Cross Cultural Studies. Astronomy. Oceanograhpy. Webmastering. Landscape Design. Outdoor Activies (Read: hunting). And many, many more. - Dios


I would also point out that there were three other literature electives when I was in high school: Shakespeare, African-American Literature, and some Asian literature class. - Dios

If you are curious about my age based on that comment, let me tell you that I found out that class is offered when I went to the website of my school and looked at the electives it has to offer. It, of course, wasn't offered when I went to school there (the only computer class I think was offered then was computer science which I believe taught basic and some other program---I didn't take it). - Dios
posted by glenwood at 2:03 PM on August 2, 2005

But ID is not scientific. It sets itself apart from being testable, therefore it falls full tilt into the realm of speculation. There is nothing in ID that doesn't say that life might have been designed by extra terrestrials. ID is not a competing scientific theory, it has not met basic criteria to be labeled as such.

ID really bugs the shit out of me. I have greater respect for outright creationism then ID, and I am pretty areligious.

I find creationist arguments about micro evolution pretty funny. The whole scheme reminds me of how astronomers kept devising more and more intricate designs of the solar system to prove the earth was at the center until it just fell apart.

The way Theory is used in this context is closely akin to fact. It has been observed and continues to be valid. I think you may be getting tied up somewhere TDDD
posted by edgeways at 2:05 PM on August 2, 2005

actualy I posted that last comment before seeing yours, but it still applies. Nothing about the real universe can every be exhaustively proven logicaly. All we will ever have is "lots of evidence for".

I mean seriously? Can you even name one statement about the world that even comes close to your standard for truth? There are none, yet people make true or false judgements about the world all the time.
posted by delmoi at 2:06 PM on August 2, 2005

You seem to belive that things must be proven logicaly before they become "true". This can only happen within formal systems. The world is not a formal system, nothing about the world or universe can every be exhaustively logicaly proven. That is why we don't requre logical proof before we say that a statement about the world is "true" or "false".

Right, but the irony of claiming that something is a "scientific fact" and that "the other side is using psuedoscience" (not direct quotes) is killing me.

I recognize that the world is not a closed system of formal logic. However, if one is to claim that "evolution by natural selection is a fact" (not a direct quote) then one is attempting to mis-use science to make a political point. Science and the scientific method does not support the claim that "evolution by natural selection is a fact." To then take that claim and say "the other side is using psuedo-science by undermining a fact" is, in itself, a horrible example of psuedo-science used to make a political point. The irony of using psuedo-science (ie, making a scientific claim that cannot be supported by the scientific method) to claim that somebody else's science sucks is huge.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:07 PM on August 2, 2005

Doesn't the confusion among the above (apparently intelligent and educated) posters in re: understanding of the theories of Darwin (or for that matter, of theories in general), indicate that admitting any taint of reason like ID ideas AT ANY LEVEL of the educational system is perilous to the welfare of humanity (given that its ability to survive is predicated on its grasp of scientific interpretations of real phenomena)?
posted by gorgor_balabala at 2:10 PM on August 2, 2005

I mean seriously? Can you even name one statement about the world that even comes close to your standard for truth? There are none, yet people make true or false judgements about the world all the time.

Sorry, we seem to be interposing comments here. This new live preview thing is distracting. I wish I'd seen this before posting my last comment.

Anyway, yes, in a lay context there are plenty of things that meet my lay definition for fact. The sky is blue, it hurts to get drunk and fall over, MetaFilter is a nice site, etc etc etc.

My only problem is that the whole point of this exercise is that peopel are attempting to prove that ID is psuedo-science (and it may well be) but in the process are also using psuedo-science to back up their claims.

That said, I'm not sure there is ever a context where it's appropriate to take a scientific theory and call it a fact for the sake of politics. That's the whole point of being a theory. Yes, there are reams and reams of evidence to support natural selection, and very little evidence to support ID. But, no principled scientist would ever say "evolution by sexual selection is a fact" so it seems counter-scientific for a lay person to make the same assertion.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:12 PM on August 2, 2005

Bush's people are discrediting science for the same reason they discredit the press -- because in a world of verifiable facts, you can get busted spreading disinformation to advance your political career, whether it's disinformation about WMDs, global warming, the effect of having a single parent on children, or who outed Valerie Plame.

Iraq war going badly? Blame the press for "negative" coverage. Need to mobilize a few million evangelicals to get out the red-state vote? Cook up a Gay Marriage Scare justified by the bullshit pseudoscience of some pathetic closet case.

It's ironic, particularly because the right is always bashing the '60s, the left, intellectuals, and Bill Clinton for promoting a culture of "moral relativism." In the house-of-mirrors at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it's all relative -- news, science, and history. Whatever works to advance the talking-points du jour, and if your political needs change in a couple of months, change the story.
posted by digaman at 2:12 PM on August 2, 2005