Nicely said. I think what he's missing entirely is that democracy doesn't mean the public should get to vote on everything. It's not appropriate to take away civil rights just because a majority think you should, and it is destructive to democracy to make education about what most people believe rather than about what the facts say.
Would he have us teach geology by saying "some people think the world is only 6,000 years old, so we can't discuss the overwhelming evidence as to its actual age?"
It. Doesn’t. Work. Proponents of mandating the teaching of evolution as the sole explanation of human origins assume that doing so ensures that view is learned. That belief is also contradicted by the facts.
Haven't read the whole article (grading tests here), but is he actually suggesting that students will get a better understanding of science when it's not taught, or if time is spent mixing nonsense in with the science? Where's the evidence of that?
I was hoping you didn't stop by until I had things fixed, Chimpy, but you beat me.
Please see this comment.
You are of course on the Wall of Honor, I'm having textarea code problems.
Sorry.
I'm working on it.
Hehe. Thanks Janie I was pokin' fun.
Rick his whole argument is one of conciliation to the creationists and their supporters. If the vast amjority believe that creation is the correct explanation then of course it should be taught....
BOOOOO
I'm not sure what he was trying to say on the point you highlight. Because people don;t understand a topic we should not teach it? Or because people refuse to understand the correct science, we should just give in and teach their version?
Who knows.
Well, he's from the AynRandian Cato institute. He knows which way the ReichWing winds are blowing, and he knows that to keep getting his wingnut welfare dole he's gotta float some pigshit out there for Unkie Jebus and his Flying Theocrats. It's all about the money for him, now, and not the Invisible HandJobs from the ghost of Ayn Rand.
I know, Chimpy. I just wanted to be sure.
Along those lines though, MusicGuy is having issues with the image displaying.
I'm thinking that WordPress may not allow hotlinking from non-WP sites.
I know Blogger doesn't.
Bummer.
Anyway, I did manage to get your name up there, and Infophile's and Max's.
It's still acting all weird when I try to edit it, though.
I think the issue has something to do with the textarea tag, but I'm not sure.
Back on topic.
Evil Bender is right. One of the principal underlying principles of the Constitution is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and he totally misses that concept (among others).
Gravity doesn't give a flying crap if everyone on earth believes in it or not, and my civil rights are not subject to revocation (or they shouldn't be anyway) by the majority of America.
Umm.. I think I failed to express that well.
Different concepts, same principle.
stogoe,
You can get a hand job from a ghost?
Oh do tell.
A good example that science is not a majority is the history of the belief that the sun revolved around the earth.
I never get an answer from Fundies when I ask:
If evolution were false, there would be piles of scientific evidence and studies that give contrary findings. Can you show me one scientific study or finding that runs contrary to evolution theory? Just one.
If I stated as a hypothesis that the sun does not revolve around the earth, I could prove it with loads of evidence.
If you state that evolution doesn't happen, you should be able to prove it with loads of evidence.
It bothers me when people decide "truth by numbers." That is, if the majority of people believe that the belly button is a salt receptacle then it must be that.
I don't trust the majority of people to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
The belly button isn't a salt receptacle?
It is if you're drinking Margaritas off of Kate.
Um... not that I would know anything about drinking or bodyshots or nuthin'.
(Image issues fixed for Blogger, btw.)
Kisses,
Big, long, salty, tongue kisses with a little Jimmy Buffet in the background.
I glanced at this article again and had this thought. Ever notice how people of a certain political persuasion that begins with "L" but does not end in "L" will take a reasonable-sounding statement like
In practice, public schools have marginalized and/or watered down the teaching of evolution to mitigate opposition to its teaching
and then spin off into loony land with ideas like "fixing" the problem of poor evolution teaching by suggesting that it just shouldn't be taught at all - or by funneling taxpayer money into private schools?
Of course, I realize that this is Cato and the "problem" they're actually trying to solve is the fact that public schools exist at all, but ... 
Well, not really from a ghost. It's more commonly known as 'The Stranger', wherein you make your own arm fall asleep and then, well..
I like this essay. However, just between us (because creationists don't need to hear it), evolution is actually considered a closed subject in science. It's fact, not theory, but it's labeled theory because the issue is framed from the right and most scientists are simply too busy to waste time mud-wrestling in the political arena. Plus there are funding and career issues involved too, in publicly railing against politicians, since they often tend to control your budget.
But the against-the-grain truth is that evolution is fact. It happens every day and you can see it yourself, if you look for it. Evolution is simply physical adaptation to external stimuli. Darwin and others realized the stimulus was nature—hence Natural Selection. But the stimulus doesn't have to be natural. Take the example of dogs. Every dog you see on the planet right now was bred via human intervention from wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals and hyenas (perhaps a few other types I'm forgetting). The chihuahua, the giant Irish wolfhound, and the dauchshund you pass on the street are all human made and represent evolution via gene selection by humans (it seems to me, incidentally, that any divine presence in animal genes—i.e. within God's perfect creations—would make such customizing impossible, or at least liable to bring down an old Testament-style bloodrain). Anyway, we see similar examples of evolution all around us, in everything from seedless grapes to Longhorn cattle. Humans learned to accelerate the process for their own benefit, but it is absolutely the same process.
The funny part of this kind of debate is that accepting evolution as fact has no more bearing on the Bible than accepting that the world is round. The Bible has been wrong about everything factual, pretty much, but nothing seems to disturb people's religious beliefs. "Oh, you mean the sun actually DOESN'T revolve around the earth? Oh well, I guess we'll give you that one, but the Earth IS flat, I assure you, and if you disagree I'll kill you."
Anyway, just chiming in. Thanks.
Actually, I'm all for it. No, not because I'm a fundie or brain dead. I'm for it because I believe that a free market is the best way to sort out good ideas from bad ones and Intelligent Design will be the first casualty of a dual system. Why teach ID when the bible and creationism is what they wanted in the first place.
Head to head the secular schools will, in my opinion, beat creationism eventually. Parents will do whatever insures a future economic advantage for their child. When major universities reject any science credits from the non-secular schools, people will begin to notice.
Parents will do whatever insures a future economic advantage for their child.
Assuming that the statement above is true, why do Bible-thumpin' fundamentalist private schools even exist?
It should always be the goal of education to provide the best answers to questions. Creationism and ID are deception filled obscurers of truth. Teaching a "theory" that blatantly lies and ignores fact next to Evolution is dishonest. They are not equal theories (I'm not sure ID is has a stated testable theory).
Commenting by HaloScan
