czarofmischief said:
::: the sticker in and of itself does not contradict anything we know to be true;
:: Yes, it does. As Narkissos pointed out, the sticker explicitly read "a theory, not a fact". This gives the false impression that facts and theories are mutually exclusive, which is simply not so. Gravity is a good example.
: Yes. A theory regarding the "origins of life," not the development of it. Abiogenesis, which even you admit is a highly debated theory regarding the mechanisms.
Abiogenesis is indeed a highly debated idea, and with good reason: virtually nothing is known about it.
A point that you seem to be touching on, but not clearly explaining, appears to be that you think that the sticker was talking about "the 'origins of life,' not the development of it". Well, if that's what the sticker was referring to, then that's what its authors should have stated. But they did not. Instead, they lumped both abiogenesis and developmental evolution together -- something that careful scientists do not do, but that creation apologists such as the JWs do all the time. This is just wrong.
::: besides, without knowing what is IN the textbook, it is hard to know whether it is necessary to leave a "door" of critical thinking open.
:: Not really. The sticker in and of itself is misleading, and therefore ought not to be pasted on any textbook.
: How is it misleading? Who does it mislead and about what?
Did you not read the judge's opinion? I can do no better than his statement:
"While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."
: The students should be aware of the debate that exists,
Most students are aware, especially those with parents who object to the ideas of evolution and those who are in social environments where evolution is actively frowned upon.
: even within the "scientific community"
Just what do you think is being debated in the scientific community?
: which is only a minor part of the community as a whole.
Perhaps, but the scientific community's practices and judgments define science.
: Why try to silence the opposition, if education regarding the facts would do?
Here you're admitting that the sticker's message was not neutral at all, but a message from "the opposition". Euphemism, please take note that the real message of the sticker has gotten across to folks like czarofmischief.
No matter, see my comments to Euphemism regarding chemistry on page two of this thread.
: Are you trying to "protect" students from ideas, even as the fundie side did when evolution started being taught?
As I've stated repeatedly, students can get all sorts of ideas from many quarters. The point is about whether the U.S. government should sponsor or allow, in publicly funded schools, religious ideas masquerading as science (see above comments about who in our society are the keepers of scientific knowledge).
: HA! Good luck with THAT. You'd do better for your cause to let the other side have its moment and then argue it into submission.
That is already done in any number of ways. Look at the debates on the Usenet group talk.origins.
: If the textbook is a good one, then the sticker will make no difference to the student.
It will to some, as the judge stated. But once again, the main point of removing the sticker is to avoid giving political mileage to religionists with a political agenda, which would violate our Constitution.
::: Some textbooks include abiogenesis as part of the "fact" of evolution. Some even use outmoded understandings of evolutionary processes! Should these be presented as the "facts" on which a student can build a life?
:: No. Such textbooks shouldn't be used, since they don't properly present science.
: But they do and are.
There are many imperfections in our imperfect world. People who object to wrong material in textbooks should point it out to authors and school districts. Let them correct what is wrong. What's wrong with that?
The inside cover of a textbook is no place for a debate about the content of the book.
: So the sticker is appropriate for that kind of textbook.
Nope.
: I assure you, my experience of high school includes Miller's experiment being presented as current, and the "branching tree" of Darwin.
How old are you? Many older ideas were largely abandoned in the 1980s. Have you not kept up?
Also note that it often takes a very long time for popular ideas to get corrected in society as a whole, given that the majority of popular media writers are horrible at understanding and reporting science. How often do you still see the wrong notion that electrons orbit atomic nuclei like planets orbit the sun? Too often. Yet the idea was abandoned by physicists by 1930.
: More skepticism from the get-go would help students find such sites as talkorigins, etc. so that they can find the current idea.
Skepticism about what, exactly? Abiogenesis? Or evolution in the main? It's easy to find debate about the former, for anyone interested enough to look. There is virtually no debate about the latter among scientists, except scientists with religious agendas.
::: Or should they be presented as possibilities, with greater or lesser bodies of evidence which can be weighed - and leaves the decision of belief in the lap of those who should make the choice, ie. the students themselves? After all, they have to live with the consequences of their choices.
:: You're making the classic mistake of viewing biological evolution versus creation as if it were merely a philosophical difference of opinion. It is not. Evolution is science. It is the consensus among tens of thousands of scientists who study the basic material every day. Besides, there is nothing at all preventing students from getting sectarian opinions from any number of other sources, including their parents and churches.
: Ah. You remind me of Christians who differ about Jesus life, activities, and role - but insist that he is still central to eternal salvation.
Oh? I'm not aware of any Christians who don't believe that.
: Evolutionists argue about the origins, the mechanisms, and the purposes of evolutionary processes,
There are no "purposes of evolutionary processes". Purpose implies intelligence. Evolution proceeds by a combination of chance mutations and the immediate needs of survival dictated by the chance configuration of the environment.
: but they insist that "God wasn't involved."
Not really. Careful scientists simply say that God is not needed to explain the evolution of life. A definite statement that "God wasn't involved" goes beyond science. You're confusing solid practitioners of evolutionary biology with dogmatists and certain popularizers whose opinion is that the methodology of science requires that no God exists. They're wrong, because science can not and does not address the question of God's existence.
: Simply because they prefer it that way.
Some people do, yes.
:: The point here is that the people who lobbied for the sticker did so for political purposes, which means that they were trying to insert their religious misgivings about evolution into the science curriculum.
: EVERYTHING is politics,
Not so. The fact that gravity holds Saturn's moon Titan in an orbit around Saturn is not political. The fact that just today, the Huygens spacecraft landed on Titan is not political. The orbital mechanics that allowed astrophysicists to calculate the many parameters that resulted in that landing is not political. The observation that life has changed dramatically during the three and a half billion years of its existence is not political.
: including the wave of evolutionary science being taught in school.
You write as if "evolutionary science" were some newfangled idea pushed by politicos.
: It isn't being pushed for altruistic purposes.
Nor is gravitational theory taught for altruistic purposes.
: Given the ever-changing, incoherent, incomplete theories of evolution,
"Ever-changing" and "incomplete" is correct. That's because, in a historical context, the science is still young. And that's the nature of a young science. Physics is similarly ever-changing and incomplete.
Incoherent? Naww. Perhaps your understanding of it, or your view of it, is incoherent. Whatever, by comparison with "creation science", it's nearly as coherent as pure mathematics.
: I think the sticker had a point that hit closer to home than certain politically minded folks liked; hence the panic.
My, my. Such innuendo! I'm not aware of any panic. Perhaps you can clue me in.
As for hitting "closer to home", the sticker certainly had political motivation. Euphemism, again take note.
::: And the sticker doesn't reference the Bible at all, Simon.
:: Not directly. But certainly indirectly, given who promoted it.
: Nazis and Communists believe in and promote evolution. Doesn't mean I should ignore evolutionary arguments, right? Or oppose the teaching of evolution is school, since look at the bad fruitage of this theory!
Your argument is ridiculous. I didn't say that the point about the sticker is WHO is promoting it per se. I said that, in the context of the political environment in which we all exist, WHO promoted it shows that it is part of a political agenda, a political statement with potentially far-reaching consequences -- not a neutral bit of argumentation about the validity of the theory of evolution.
Let's take an example from our beloved mentor, the Watchtower Society. The September 8, 1991 Awake! contained several articles apparently promoting United Nations ideals. This was published to deceive UN authorities into granting the WTS Associated Non-Governmental Organization status. The articles gave the impression to many readers that the WTS was very much in favor of the UN and its mission. However, JWs could read between the lines and understand that what the article appeared to say to non-JWs was not at all what it actually said to JWs. Note the final paragraph of the last article:
Jehovah?s Witnesses firmly believe that the United Nations is going to play a major role in world events in the very near future. No doubt these developments will be very exciting. And the results will have a far-reaching impact on your life. We urge you to ask Jehovah?s Witnesses in your neighborhood for more details on this matter. The Bible clearly paints a picture showing that the United Nations will very shortly be given power and authority. The UN will then do some very astonishing things that may well amaze you. And you will be thrilled to learn that there is yet a better way near at hand that will surely bring eternal peace and security!
I don't think I need explain to you the ways in which this paragraph deceives non-JW readers. They will interpret the words as high praise of the UN and its goals. But JWs will interpret the words as confirmation of what the WTS had been teaching for decades about how the UN is the tool of Satan, and will shortly take over the world, and soon be destroyed by God.
The point is that a set of words that means one thing to one group of readers can mean something quite different to another.
And so it is with the Georgia textbook sticker. To naive readers, it's simply a statement that science ought to be objective. Duh! To creationists, the sticker's retention would have been a political victory in that it would have been a wedge that might allow further inroads into dismantling the Satanic institutions that teach Godless evolution. To evolutionists, the sticker's retention would have been a political defeat in that it would have been the same wedge as the creationists wanted, and would have been a step in the direction of watering down solid science.
: The argument for evolution (and creation) can either stand or fall on its own merit, regardless of the messenger.
You're absolutely right, but high school classrooms are not the place to argue the merits of solid science versus religious creationism. There are plenty of other forums for that.
: In essence, that is an ad hominem attack, and beneath your status on this board, my friend.
As I've shown, your assessment is wrong.
::: Besides, most people wind up making up their own minds about what to believe, evidence or no, stickers or none...
:: True enough. But a lot of braindeadly religious fanatics would never get the facts without a science curriculum free of sectarian religious influences.
: What? No faith in truth to prevail?
Here's a good example, I'm afraid, of your gross misunderstanding of science and how it is practiced. Science is not "truth". Science is the best consensus of those who practice "science" of what is in their judgment the closest approximation to correct explanations of how the universe works. I have little doubt that, in the long run, such explanations will get closer to the "real truth", whatever that is, and that a number of present-day theories will be even better confirmed than they are now. But in the meantime, a great many people will continue to be deceived by religious fanatics who promote things like snake-handling, young-earth creationism, and so forth. This obviously has political consequences for our country, but it also has consequences for the lives of those deceived by such nonsense. And in any case, since the Georgia textbook sticker obviously violates the establishment clause of our Constitution, as I've explained above and in other posts, it has no place in a public school textbook.
: No faith in human reason to reach correct conclusions despite obstacles?
I have a lot of faith that some humans will reach correct conclusions, but I also have a lot of faith that a lot of humans will fall under the same sort of spell that we as JWs did, and that a lot of fundamentalists do as well.
: You astound me!
Why? You were once as deceived as I and plenty of others were about religion.
: Such cynicism in such a young man !
I'm not young.
: Seriously, we escaped the dubs, right?
I certainly did!
: The Internet is out there for those who want to research. There are libraries, there are universities, etc. etc. etc. If evolution is true, then the sticker won't dissuade anybody; save those who want to be dissuaded,
True, but that's irrelevant to the issue of whether the sticker is constitutional, or whether it promotes creationism. It unarguably does the latter.
: and then no textbook would help you in your cause. (For it IS a cause, my friend, admit it or no, truth and how we see it is always the only cause. The trick is admitting that no amount of control will persuade anybody in any meaningful way. God knows this, too ).
True, but again irrelevant to the issue at hand.
AlanF
