Comments on: The triumph of secularism

By: peggy

peggy — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:40:12 +0000

I’m not sure why biology couldn’t be taught without studying evolution – sure the subject would be shorter but evolution just explains how things got here, not how they work now. Giles is incorrect in this statement. It is a fact due to evolution that bananas and humans share 50% of their genes. The modern day subjects of biology- from the immune system to the skeleton to the purpose of flowers are all informed by the theory of evolution. This year’s Nobel Prize for explaining the sense of smell and that of 1987 for immunology were both based on the insight that the body uses the principle of Natural Selection to fight germs and to recognize odors. As a high school student in the 1960’s, I was excited by learning about both genes and DNA, both new at the time, and propelled into a scientific career. Censoring evolution means denying all kinds of potential scientists, not just biologists, a chance. (Also- it means denying the economy their contribution.)

By: raj

raj — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:31:46 +0000

Dan Simon · November 14, 2004 08:09 AM >But I don’t think the outcome you described is absurd at all. The public education system is based on the premise that society has, by consensus, agreed on a body of educational content that should be taught to all children. It should be obvious that there are more than a few pockets of society that have not agreed to the “body of educational content that should be taught to all children” that others might want their children to be taught. Or, to put it differently, that want their educational content to be taught to all children, whether or not parents in other parts of the country want their children to be so indoctrinated. Moreover, they want their educational content to be taught at taxpayers’ expense, whether or not more than a few of the taxpayers want to their tax monies to subsidize the indoctrination. >The alternative is to have some other criterion—say, simple majority rule, or rule by the educational bureaucracy, or the judiciary, or the academy, or some other authority—determine the content of the curriculum. The alternative is to have parents pay for the education of their children.

By: David Tiley

David Tiley — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:17:39 +0000

Raj is right about the role of the internet in this. I can imagine a future where we pay for advertising which says: Hey! Kids of Texas! click here for the truth about evolution and contraception – and open your mind so you will get a decent job! (or some such..) What happens when teacher asks: How did the world start? And the bright kid with lib’ral parents says: Evolution, teacher. And the teacher passes on and says: Some of us believe this idea is contrary to God’s science. Who agrees with this? And then says: hey, lib’ral brat, your theory is not quite proven. When you whack a central tenet of an entire discipline necessary to participate in the modern world, you can’t just slot it in and out. The whole thing is corrupted and you can no longer teach biology. And there are serious social tensions in the school community.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:09:42 +0000

negotiating the content of school curricula has the potential to lead to absurd outcomes. But I don’t think the outcome you described is absurd at all. The public education system is based on the premise that society has, by consensus, agreed on a body of educational content that should be taught to all children. If that consensus simply doesn’t exist (say, with respect to most of what we consider to be science, if “time cube” adherents become a large fraction of the population), then it is not at all absurd to recognize that fact, and therefore to omit the controversial topic from the curriculum. The alternative is to have some other criterion—say, simple majority rule, or rule by the educational bureaucracy, or the judiciary, or the academy, or some other authority—determine the content of the curriculum. And if you can’t imagine a situation where each of these hypothetical authorities decides to use the curriculum to propagate ideas that you and I know to be complete nonsense, then I submit that you have a very poor imagination indeed.

By: Davon

Davon — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 06:07:57 +0000

I should have made it clear that my post was meant to be light-hearted, by the way. I expressed myself rather awkwardly, however. And I did miss the point of your post somewhat. Further, I apologize for the mistake regarding your name. Let me arrange the situation differently, however. Imagine if I were to accumulate a large constituancy for the time cube, and insisted that, because there was a large number of people objecting to the teaching of many aspects of science which the time cube spiel denies, that concepts such as Greenwich Standard Time, etc, not be taught. My point, in so far as I was serious, was along the lines of what you and raj were discussing: that negotiating the content of school curricula has the potential to lead to absurd outcomes.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:55:18 +0000

So, Mr. Simmons, if I can get a sizable constituancy for the teaching of Nature’s Simultaneous 4-Day Time Cube as science to your child, you’ll gladly negotaite with my people so long as we’re willing to back you on the exclusion of the point of view of your choice from your local educational system? Negotiate to have your drivel included in the curriculum? I should say not. My whole point is that the real danger to the education system is not what various groups manage to get excluded, but rather what complete nonsense they might get included, and thus force-fed to millions of impressionable children. (Indeed, many people believe that that's already happening. And I'm inclined to agree--although I don't consider the teaching of the theory of evolution to be evidence for that claim.) Now, if you want me to back the exclusion of the crackpot theory of your choice--or even of a reasonable idea that's nevertheless controversial enough to be highly objectionable to some significant segment of the population--then I'd be willing to consider it. By the way, the name's Simon, not Simmons.

By: Giles

Giles — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:07:05 +0000

I’m not sure why biology couldn’t be taught without studying evolution – sure the subject would be shorter but evolution just explains how things got here, not how they work now. And evolution is not perfectly understood either!

By: Davon

Davon — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:31:42 +0000

By: william

william — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:29:28 +0000

I work for the Texas Freedom Network, the key organization in fighting this sort of textbook censorship in Texas. If you’re interested in helping us fight, give us a ring at 512/322-0545. Or at http://www.tfn.org.

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:10:45 +0000

Conservatives are so postmodern, they apparently believe that evolution will not have occurred if they can keep it quiet enough. Whatever democracy means, if it comes to mean that the public can decide to teach kids that pi is 3, it is just stupid. How about a little reality testing now and then?

By: raj

raj — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:27:39 +0000

Dan Simon · November 13, 2004 07:06 PM >That’s why I haven’t (yet) jumped on the “vouchers” bandwagon. Perhaps you should consider doing so? Vouchers? No, most certainly not. I have a lot of issues regarding school vouchers, but, let’s get something straight. School vouchers are nothing more than special purpose welfare. Like food stamps—which got through in large part because they were supported by the agri-business industry—for obvious reasons. School vouchers enable certain individuals (parents) to redeem vouchers to provide indoctrination for others (their children) at taxpayers’ expense. It is interesting to note that more than a few people who are in favor of the “welfare” of school vouchers oppose welfare in other contexts. If I am supposed to pay for the education of other peoples’ children, it strikes me that I should have a say in what is being taught with my money. And in where the money is going. With school vouchers, I have no say in any of that. You should realize that most proponents of school vouchers are nothing more than hypocrites. Be prepared to pay for your own childrens’ education. Bush II’s proposed privatization of social security—if any of it gets through—will also tend towards a demise of public education, although for a different reason.

By: raj

raj — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:11:46 +0000

carib · November 13, 2004 06:41 PM >You still to fight them [creationists], unfortunately, but hey, that’s the price of dliving in a democracy. And that fight will ultimately lead to the demise of public education. Get prepared for it. I’m amused at the issue relating to dead-tree textbooks. The internet provides a myriad of sources for information. Dead-tree textbooks may be useful, but, despite the fact that they were necessary in decades past, they are certainly not necessary now.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:06:29 +0000

Raj: You may be right that there will ultimately be nothing left once contentious materials are removed from the classroom. If so—that is, if the public simply can’t come to an agreement as to what children should collectively be taught—then the public education system shouldn’t exist. I’m not quite so pessimistic as you, though. I think there’s still enough that just about everyone can agree on, to make public education worthwhile. That’s why I haven’t (yet) jumped on the “vouchers” bandwagon. Perhaps you should consider doing so?

By: raj

raj — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:55:28 +0000

Dan Simon · November 13, 2004 06:37 PM Um, Dan, if, as you say, the theory of evolution plays a central role in modern biology, how can one teach modern biology without including the theory of evolution? Doing so would be similar to teaching (Euclidean) geometry without starting from Euclid’s axioms. This culture war by the fundamentalist Christians against modernity (note the analogy with the Taliban, and it isn’t limited to evolution—it also extends to modern physics and the Big Bang theory) will result in the demise of public education in the US. Get yourself prepared for it.

By: carib

carib — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:41:53 +0000

Hey , these folks are participating the political process. They have a right to petition the government, vote, run for election, and organize. That’s all good for democracy. Now this irritates pz myers & others who think ( and I agree) that evolution is scientific fact and shouldn’t be challenged, but, hey, its a marketplace of ideas out there, and even stupid ideas have their backers. Look, folks, creationists aren’t going to disappear, because you don’t like them. They’re here to stay, and its no use getting your knickers in a twist because sometime, somewhere, in the USA , some creationists are pushing their views at a school board. You still to fight them, unfortunately, but hey, that’s the price of dliving in a democracy.