Michigan's Impending ID Lawsuit

Sen. Mark Pryor lashed out Wednesday at the Christian evangelicals who have joined the attack on Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. Their tactics threaten "to make the followers of Jesus Christ just another special-interest group," Pryor said in a conference call with Arkansas reporters. "It is presumptuous of them to think that they represent all Christians in America, even to say they represent all evangelical Christians," added Pryor, 42, a first-term Democrat who has considered himself an evangelical Christian for 25 years.

"I do think that what has happened here is there has been a hijacking of the U.S. Senate by what I call the religious right wing of the country," Salazar said at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday. He singled out Focus on the Family by name, objecting to full-page newspaper ads that the ministry's political arm recently placed, targeting 20 senators in 15 states. "I think what has happened is Focus on the Family has been hijacking Christianity and become an appendage of the Republican Party," Salazar said in an interview. "I think it's using Christianity and religion in a very unprincipled way."

Michigan Citizens for Science, an organization whose board I sit on, has been involved with this case for several months behind the scenes, since being notified of what was being taught there by a parent whose child was in the class.

The "creation" controversy has splashed down in Gull Lake, Mich. Last spring, according to the Kalamazoo Gazette, a parent complained that two middle school biology teachers were giving the concept of "intelligent design" equal treatment in the classroom with the theory of evolution. The district has told them to stop, and both are now crying foul, appealing to the community for help.

Steve-

A parent wasn't teaching the class. It wasn't taught by a parent, we were notified of it by a parent.

You know what the local school board should do? They should mandate teaching "the problems with scientific creationism". That'd be fun.

P

Interesting piece of political hackery you found there, Pim. Private schools? By far the majority of private schools in America avoid ID. They have much higher standards -- their local dioceses and their ultimate supervisor in Rome demands that crap not be put into the heads of kids in biology class.

Why should we relax high academic standards in biology? What biology expertise has the Mackinac Center? What does Mr. Coulson think he gains by lowering the standards in any school?

69. "Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science" In-service workshop for Gull Lake district school K-12 biology teachers. (8/30/04)

You know what the local school board should do? They should mandate teaching "the problems with scientific creationism". That'd be fun.

— Pierre Stromberg

Pim-

Yes, that was the in-service day I referred to in my post. We even had a geologist on our board go through the Grand Canyon stuff they were using and show why it's nonsense. We hoped this could be resolved behind the scenes, but the teachers obviously can't be reasoned with.

Pierre Stromberg wrote: You know what the local school board should do? They should mandate teaching "the problems with scientific creationism". That'd be fun.

Some school boards have very modestly suggested that students should know that evolution is not the only theory about the origin and development of life. What they want students to know is an indisputable fact. There are other theories supported by very reputable scientists, including theories of evolution other than the established version to which students are now bullied into giving their assent.

Neuhaus reminds me of the spokesman in this comic: http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050418.gif

Also ironic is that the TMLC makes a point of arguing that ID is not creationism, yet the teachers in this case used a mixture of ID and traditional young earth creationist material. This will be fun to watch the ID crowd deal with, as they are loathe to have their ideas associated in any way with "creation science", despite the fact that all of their arguments originated in creationist material.

@pvM

the article you linked to ends with:

"Wouldn't we all be better off giving school choice a chance instead?"

the answer is unequivocally, NO!

while perhaps an extreme example, I could easily envision the formation of a "redneck U" as a private university. The 45% of americans who then believed that redneck U would be the best place for their kids would send them there, and the resulting misinformation taught there would become more ingrained than ever. Just because that is not typically the case with private schools at present does not mean that it wouldn't be if we decide that public vouchers for school choice is the way to go.

there are reasons for national science standards that have nothing to do with politics. shall we just abandon them just to alleviate discomfort at public debate surrounding the issues?

How on earth could that possibly end up being a good thing for the progression of science as a discipline?

cheers

If they were including traditional "Creation Science" material, then they have qualified themselves for ample legal precedents. In the immortal words of Geogre Tenet, "It's a slam dunk."

We hoped this could be resolved behind the scenes, but the teachers obviously can't be reasoned with.

Isn't Peloza v Capistrano School District (sadly, my own school district) directly on point here?

Let me know if I can provide any legal assistance.

I'm still trying to figure out why the teachers in question were on the committee to investigate the matter. Why on earth would you put the people suspected of misconduct on the panel to review it and pass judgement?

sounds like the 9/11 commission.

I think it's only the leaders of the ID movement who try to maintain this distinction. The rank-and-file creationists don't seem to have gotten the message that the two are supposed to be separate.

The Thomas More Law Center, the same legal group defending the school board in Dover, PA, is threatening to file a lawsuit against the Gull Lake Public Schools for telling two junior high science teachers that they could no longer teach creationism in their classrooms.

Isn't Peloza v Capistrano School District (sadly, my own school district) directly on point here?

Peloza and Webster are really the cases on point here, since both involved claims by teachers that their rights were violated when they weren't allowed to teach creationism. It's a loser of an argument. State actors have limited personal rights when they're acting on the state's behalf, and necessarily so, because their actions are ascribed to the state. If the state can't do something, then neither can its representatives while acting in that capacity.

Perhaps the teachers can argue along the lines of those pathetic so-called Christian pharmacists: "Now that you've hired me, you have to pay me except I need to tell you now that you can't force me to do some aspects of this job (like teach evolution without teaching creationism, too) because Ayatollah Johnson said it interferes with the practice of my religion. Oh, and you can't make me say anything nice about homos either."

There are other theories supported by very reputable scientists, including theories of evolution other than the established version to which students are now bullied into giving their assent.

Sigh. It's sad that such a suit is finally coming to West Mighigan. Though, frankly, creationists are so plentiful here I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.

Air Bear: that was hilarious.

Unfortunately, these lawsuits can cost school districts a lot of money, win or lose. It seems to me that's where this tactic has its bite. The Religious Right have the resources to sustain such legal attacks and school districts may just capitulate for financial reasons. There's nothing good about this.

In your first paragraph, "We worked to resolve the situation without the bounds of the law . . ." should probably be "within the bounds of the law . . . ."

Buridan, I'm not a lawyer (see nom de plume) but even I know that frivolous filers can see judgements for expenses levied against them.  If the district has the fortitude to countersue, the fundies could find themselves bankrupt....

... and with the new bankruptcy law that is a lot less attractive than it is now.

yeah, but on appeal it could easily be overturned. it's not that easy to prove. check the court case cited earlier in the thread.

I seriously think you guys are pipe-dreaming if you think this will end up being an issue of concern for the fundies.

this is the case cited earlier where the frivolity (?) of the case was overturned on appeal:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html

just an example.

The Thomas More Ctr is adopting a legal tactic that facially seems idiotic, but is quite clever and has been used to great effect by Fundamentalists before them.

Realize that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to win. They know there's no legal argument here, but winning is not the point. The idea is simply to grab headlines and mobilize the base. The court is merely a pawn in a complex game with long-range goals - a game that cannot be won in one dispute. The judiciary, sans slick media representation, makes a handy vilifying target when the case is over and lost. Indeed, losses are an integral part of the strategy. Only with a string of losses can you best appeal to the Fundamentalist Christian id - persecution.

Persecuted? How can an 85% majority be persecuted? Well, reason isn't a player in this game but 'faith' (alongside paranoid delusion) sure is. Nothing riles up the base more than persecuted Christians, and reasonable or not, it keeps the money coming in. And there's nothing more Christ-like than being persecuted.

Notice how the phrase 'hostility to Christianity/religion' has seen an upsurge in Establishment Clause cases of late, often mentioned by Scalia himself. The only time we hear about 'hostility to Christianity', however, is when some plaintiff finally gets fed up with having it crammed down his throat by the state. Christians can't see that because for them, their imposition is simply the truth. If we started littering various state capitals with 3 ton statues of buddha, however, you can bet your ass they'd wake up and recognize the imposition in a hurry.

To get back to the point, which is that losses are an integral part of this new litigatory architecture, you might ask - well, they surely don't mean to lose forever, so what is the point of losing all the time? Besides headlines and support derived from those headlines, these losses eventually morph into plenary political power. And the real wins can then take place at the legislative level.

You can see a perhaps microcosmic example of this in action right now with regard to the current filibuster putsch on capital hill, which wouldn't have been possible without the 11th Circuit's rejection of the ill-advised Save-Terri-Schiavo bill.

Those judges, who were nearly all Republican and who colored well inside the judicial lines in that case, are being vilified as 'activist' when nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, what DeLay & Co. *needed* in that case *was* an activist judge. This argument may be too subtle for the majority of America, and indeed the cable news networks. But it may work.

And then, it may not. Republicans in Congress supporting the social conservative agenda may not have fully digested and internalized the polls on Schiavo, but it suggested that the Fundamentalists may have overplayed their hand, in which case much of the support for these projects which spring from the same lobby-induced pressures (like the attacks on evolution in school), may sink along with.

Perhaps their wave crested and rolled back for good (for now) with Schiavo and support for related projects and agenda will similarly drift back out to sea. (mind you, I'm not suggesting that they'll stop plugging up the courts with bullshit - only that the waning political support will force politicians to abandon their support)

~ s

scott:

I think you nailed the creationist's court strategy 'right' on the head. However, I'm not so sure their wave has crested, based on the statements against the judiciary still being made on the right.

It's one reason i have continued to mention that regardless of how many wins in court we get against ID, that isn't going to make them go away.

you still have to deal with that 45% unchanging figure who believe in creationism. losses in court only encourage most of them. Hell, the more you encourage battles in court, the more you risk the right actually changing the judiciary system as well as the educational system.

The problem remains: what to do about that 45% figure?

-it isn't being fixed by education at the university level

-it isn't being fixed by court rulings

-it isn't being fixed by rigged public debates

what does that leave?

Scott,

one important aspect to consider in the context of the fundies' "prosecuted Christians" shtick: To the constituency the far right and the TMLC are appealing to, moderate evangelicals, mainstream churches, liberal or humanist Christians and free-thinkers inspired by JC's life and teachings are misguided heretics at best and probably pawns of the devil. As this rather large group makes up the majority of those considering themselves to be followers of the Christ, fundamentalists not only feel Christianity to be suppressed, they also redefine Christianity in a way actually making it a minority position.
The only hope is them losing the tacit approval of more moderate groups in the bible belt and their resulting unproportional hold over the political process in the U.S..

In South Africa, evolution wasn't taught in biology class when I was at school, and it's still not being taught now. I think the plan is to introduce it into the high school curriculum from next year. Strangely, though, we never had any creationist or ID material or anything else taught to us either (though one of my science teachers repeatedly included questions in our exams about how science had led us to a better understanding of God). Biology was just a stream of facts about how living organisms operate - it was mostly functional physiology, really.

Most of the people I've encountered over the course of my life definitely do not believe in evolution. And the proportion of people who believe in a rather literal interpretation of the Bible or the Koran (i.e. creationists)in this country is probably around America's levels, if not higher. I'd easily say that probably 80% of the population is going to have a serious problem with evolution being part of the curriculum.

And I doubt that we have enough biology teachers around who have an adequate grasp of the subject, or even believe it. When evolution enters schols, I predict an endless series of events like the one described in this thread, where teachers just don't want to teach it and replace it with their own religious views. We'll have endless debates about whether or not ID qualifies as science, and why we can teach learners that "people evolved from apes" but we can't teach them that God formed the universe in six days and created Eve from Adam's rib (after all, nobody was around back then to see it).

It's not going to be pretty.

Our only hope is that the massive plurality of SA's political system will prevent those who oppose evolution from banding together into a unified political force, so that a few legal victories over creationists (as has happened in the US) will be enough to ensure that the opposition dies down before it really gets into the swing of things. But I suspect it'll be a long drawn-out affair, as seems to be happening in America.

A note on the political aspect of the issue:

Probably the majority of the 45% or so who support creationism in polls aren't particularly ideological about it, and don't consider it particularly important, but simply have some vague idea that it's the "Christian" position. When Creationism becomes a high profile political issue, the Creationists tend to lose.

Incidentally, the move to end filibusters on judicial nominations was planned long before the Terri Schiavo case hit the headlines. Frist may be unappreciative of the timing of the case, as the public reaction seems to be hurting the plan to end filibusters.

In case anyone is wondering, the "Frist" referred to in my post just above is the Republican majority leader in the U.S. Senate.

For feck's sake, why is it necessary to teach evolution and the nature of science to public school SCIENCE teachers? Should they not already know this stuff? What kind of clowns are the school district hiring? This is one consequence of underpaying teachers: schools have to scrape the dregs to find "qualified" teachers.

The filibusters about judges are entirely predictable and understandable. These judges are appointed for life, and impeaching them is a practical impossibility. And judges decide cases on ideological grounds whenever ideology is important in a case. They can't help it: There are only two possible decisions, and in ideological cases either one is an ideological decision.

One of the most critical characteristics of a democratic type government is the ability to make constant incremental adjustments. Don't like these politicians? Elect new ones (or make the threat of doing so strong enough to change what the incumbents are doing). Don't like a law? Pass a different one. Major national policies change with each change of administration.

The grave danger is making irreversible decisions. This is why adding constitutional amendments is so very difficult -- and why democracy fails everywhere it didn't take root naturally. We enforce an election, the winner declares himself president-for-life and exterminates his opponents, and there are no further elections. Most of the world looks at Western politics in baffled confusion. The President has real power. He controls the military. WHY would he even HOLD another election, that he might lose? Having held it, WHY would he abide by any result that went against him? Is he nuts?

The fundamentalist religious strategy is to gradually reduce our scope of incremental adjustments. Get born-again judges appointed for life. Get pro-church-over-state precedents set. Get religious doctrine into public classrooms as young as possible, and where they have the maximum effect, which is science class because science is so well respected. The graduates of these programs will (according to the long term strategy) be Believers who will vote in ever more conservative (read: fundamentalist) politicians, school boards, and judges, who will in turn make ever "righter" decisions in a feedback loop. Eventually, we'll have a President who will declare himself Lord High Minister For Life, put to death those of incompatible beliefs, the majority will worship him, and God will have nonstop orgasms of satisfaction. And oh yes, crime will stop, homosexuality will vanish, the Ten Commandments will be posted everywhere and followed (or else, and everyone will be Saved. The millennia of persecution will finally come to an end.

For feck's sake, why is it necessary to teach evolution and the nature of science to public school SCIENCE teachers?  Should they not already know this stuff?  What kind of clowns are the school district hiring?  This is one consequence of underpaying teachers: schools have to scrape the dregs to find "qualified" teachers.

Great White Wonder:

You ask about what other theories (besides Darwinism) that reputable scientists support. Simply put, as best as I can judge, there are none. This is all a red herring by the ID folks and frankly, I have to regard it as conscious dishonesty (though sheer incompetence is possible as well).

Of course, there is their own pet theory of ID and I suppose one could claim that there are some "reputable" scientists who support it-though one could dispute their interpretation of "reputable".

From what I have seen their reference seems to be either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of some of the questioning of more rigid Darwinian models. I personally don't claim to remotely have a good grasp on this.

But I think they refer to the evo-devo controversy, and also to Lynn Margulis. As best as I can judge, neither of these are really "anti-Darwinian" in a broad sense. But I suppose they do add mechanisms (at least potentially) that go beyond genetic variation/mutation and natural selection. Of course, when Dobzhansky, Fisher, Haldane and Mayr started writing, one could very well have argue that their writing was "anti-Darwinian" and it did lead to a major overhaul of evolutionary theory.

My sense is that evo-devo and some of Margulis' stuff could lead to a further overhaul of modern evolutionary theory.

However, I still think this theory would be consistent with the modern synthesis, it would still be anti-teleological, and it certainly would still preclude "intelligent design", it would still be naturalistic.

It's just a repetition of the same old tactic: pick at a few differences of opinion, try to present Darwinism as "in crisis" and "disarray". Harp on the "alternatives". Argue for "pluralism" and pretty soon you have a case for teaching ID.

That's my sense anyway.

I'm new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I'm from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

This also poses the issue of is it damaging to science in America, and will it cause long-term harm to the US economy?

Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin was not privy to in the 1850's, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells -- the fundamental unit of life- possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information so as to regulate biological systems. This suggests that the theory of intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin was not privy to in the 1850's, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells -- the fundamental unit of life- possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information so as to regulate biological systems. This suggests that the theory of intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

Posted by Matt on April 22, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s) I'm new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I'm from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

Posted by Matt on April 22, 2005 10:43 AM I'm new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I'm from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

Thanks RBH!

What that sounds like to me is this: Cells act like little computers. And since computers do not appear in the wild, but had to be created by an intelligence, cells likewise had to be created by an intelligence. I am a computer guy so when I read "... possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information ..." I think of little computers. Is this what they are attempting to get me to believe (cells are little computers => computers are "designed" => therefore, cells are "designed")? Jeez! They must think me slow!

Whoa!! What do y'all make of this:

— Quentin Crain

"Buridan, I'm not a lawyer (see nom de plume) but even I know that frivolous filers can see judgements for expenses levied against them."

— Engineer-Poet

What that sounds like to me is this: Cells act like little computers. And since computers do not appear in the wild, but had to be created by an intelligence, cells likewise had to be created by an intelligence. I am a computer guy so when I read " . . . possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information . . . " I think of little computers. Is this what they are attempting to get me to believe (cells are little computers => computers are "designed" => therefore, cells are "designed")? Jeez! They must think me slow!

— Quentin Crain

And all this time I thought cells were like Mount Rushmore. Or are they like mousetraps?

Oh, now I remember! Cells are like WalMarts. And don't talk to me about Evolution. When's the last time you saw a WalMart give birth to a Dillards?

Whoa!! What do y'all make of this:

Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin was not privy to in the 1850's, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells -- the fundamental unit of life- possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information so as to regulate biological systems. This suggests that the theory of intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

— Quentin Crain

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=307 What the hell does that mean?!? That is a summary of ID (or whatever) I have not heard before, or read a critique of here.

Continued Thompson, "This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science."

MISSION: Defending the Religious Freedom of Christians Restoring the Time HOnored Family Values Protecting hte Sanctity of Human Life

Joe McFaul is a lawyer, and I hope he has time to comment further.

anon wrote:

"Seems like MORE of these activities are needed, not less, to show support for these science teachers who are, after all, the ones out there on the front lines of this battle."

Many of us agree with this reasoning. I guess I'm going to start sounding like a broken record, but i see comments like this every day here on PT. Hence, it's why I thought it time to actually do something about it.

even if you can't contribute time to something like this, I certainly would appreciate comments on the rough-draft idea i posted here:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/evolution-ngo

even if the comment is to move it somewhere else. If you don't feel like posting a comment there, feel free to email me at the address I use here for PT.

as far as underestimating what that 45% means... regardless of whether that 45% of americans translates directly into a political grassroots powerbase or not, the point remains: ALL of that 45% represents people who do not believe in the fundamental concepts of evolution.

if you don't think that has to do with education, what do you think it has to do with?

I've often wondered why school districts don't have the guts to query prospective hirees on a few relevant points. Are boards and administrators too intimidated to ask applicant geography teachers if they think the Earth is flat. Would an outraged parents' committee demand to be heard if they declined to hire a flat-Earther?

How about checking to see if a history teacher denies the Holocaust?

Could we deny employment to a physics teacher who refuses to teach relativity?

If all those seem reasonable, then why on earth can't we check to see if a prospective biology teacher accepts the unifying principle of modern biology?

I know damn well that doesn't happen, even in my magnet school district, with a science-centered magnet school! We have had--and still do--a series of creationist teachers. Pandas and People even made an appearance!

Notice how the phrase 'hostility to Christianity/religion' has seen an upsurge in Establishment Clause cases of late, often mentioned by Scalia himself. The only time we hear about 'hostility to Christianity', however, is when some plaintiff finally gets fed up with having it crammed down his throat by the state. Christians can't see that because for them, their imposition is simply the truth. If we started littering various state capitals with 3 ton statues of buddha, however, you can bet your ass they'd wake up and recognize the imposition in a hurry.

I've often wondered why school districts don't have the guts to query prospective hirees on a few relevant points. Are boards and administrators too intimidated to ask applicant geography teachers if they think the Earth is flat. Would an outraged parents' committee demand to be heard if they declined to hire a flat-Earther?

How about checking to see if a history teacher denies the Holocaust?

Could we deny employment to a physics teacher who refuses to teach relativity?

If all those seem reasonable, then why on earth can't we check to see if a prospective biology teacher accepts the unifying principle of modern biology?

I know damn well that doesn't happen, even in my magnet school district, with a science-centered magnet school! We have had--and still do--a series of creationist teachers. Pandas and People even made an appearance!

clear that the Thomas More Center is hostile to a lot more Christians and a lot more Christian doctrine than any fact of science is.

clear that the Thomas More Center is hostile to a lot more Christians and a lot more Christian doctrine than any fact of science is.

What the hell does that mean?!?

— In Comment 26227 Quentin Crain

Uber, creationism is theologically suspect to more Christians than those to whom it is a near-article of faith. Yes, the Thomas More bunch, by suggesting that most Christians are apostate, is hostile to most Christians.

To most Christians, a lot of these issues come down to simple honesty. It's impossible to maintain an argument for creationism including ID for more than about ten minutes without telling an enormous, whopping falsehood. Creationism pulls otherwise good Christians away from truth telling, or "the path of righteousness," as evangelicals often call it.

Such evil is not "just another face in the crowd" of Christian doctrine. It subverts Christian doctrine at the root. I resent that subversion, and I have no difficulty pointing out that the views of the Thomas More center are, to Christians, evil. I would qualify that by saying "most Christians," but I can't find any Christian sect which endorses the telling falsehoods, or the other creationist crime of denying the good of God's creation.

I teach Math at a Catholic school, and I think it's embarassing that any public school teacher would even dream or teaching ID in a Science class. Not even our Science teachers have to teach ID. Science teaches evolution, and Theology teaches ID, and the students are allowed to make up their own minds. That's how it should be. If you want to teach ID/creationism, leave it in Church with that other nonsense. Evolution is fact, period. If you want to dispute that, you might as well dispute the roundness of the globe. Evolution isn't questioned anymore, just its mechanisms. Is it natural selection or something else? But anyone with any respect for the Sciences knows this. I would be extremely embarassed to work for that school's Science department. You should lose your job for doing something like that. I mean, you have to question the qualifications of someone who would teach something so ridiculous in this day and age.

"For feck's sake, why is it necessary to teach evolution and the nature of science to public school SCIENCE teachers?  Should they not already know this stuff?  What kind of clowns are the school district hiring?"

That's my question. Are they actually certified and all?

I really don't understand where creationist biology teachers come from. Maybe they *were* intelligently designed.

And yes, this is what you get when you underpay teachers.

I think we should explain to the public that this is like math teachers teaching their kids that 3+3 might actually be 9, or that " You is" is appropriate in Standard English - something that can affect their career chances.

I'm new here on this site, so this question has probably been posted before. Originally I'm from Europe (the UK) where the majority of the population accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US? You hardly ever hear this debate in Europe, in fact most Europeans laugh at America when this sort of thing comes up in the news.

This also poses the issue of is it damaging to science in America, and will it cause long-term harm to the US economy?

Well, then let's be clear in every statement: The Thomas More Center is hostile to most American Christians and our beliefs. They're hostile to the official position of the Catholic Church on evolution, they're hostile to the Mormons. They're hostile to the Episcopalians, Methodists, Disciples of Christ and Presbyterians.

I wonder if there are any theology buffs* out there who know anything about this splinter group of the episcopal church.

"What I would like to know is why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US?"

Don't be so sure - it may be spreading.
Sometimes I think a lot of it is just that the cards happened to fall a certain way in terms of early 20th C. political and religious arrangements, and we're all still dealing with the (evolving, ha.) repercussions.

Lots of Americans don't know the earth revolves around the sun? Are you sure, Lenny?

Whoa! Thanks Rev. That is something of an eye-opener. So I guess when Francis Beckwith takes Sunday off from defending liberal democracy to hobnob with Howard and Roberta at the episcopal church, it's not the episcopal church the rest of us think of when we hear that term. It's Howard's special episcopal church.

Lots of Americans don't know the earth revolves around the sun? Are you sure, Lenny?

...only 84 percent of men and 68 percent of women knew that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.

from that article:

"here is one bright note. As dumb as American adults are when it comes to science, their peers in Western Europe and Japan are dumber."

and they call that a BRIGHT note.

Interesting piece of political hackery you found there, Pim. Private schools? By far the majority of private schools in America avoid ID. They have much higher standards --- their local dioceses and their ultimate supervisor in Rome demands that crap not be put into the heads of kids in biology class. Why should we relax high academic standards in biology? What biology expertise has the Mackinac Center? What does Mr. Coulson think he gains by lowering the standards in any school?

Lots of Americans don't know the earth revolves around the sun? Are you sure, Lenny?

To Matt:

Concerning your question about "why on Earth does it appear that the evolution/ID/creationism debate is only an issue in the US?"

Here in America it is a God-given right to be ignorant. The Declaration of Independence states clearly that all Americans are entitled to the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right endowed by their creator. The flip side is that for many Americans, ignorance is bliss, as the old saying goes, so the pursuit of happiness is best achieved by being ignorant. It sort of fits the old Irish saying that the only truly happy person is the villiage idiot. Denying facts and knowledge, especially scientific, can be seen as a prerequisite to achieving our God-given right and apparently pleasing God at the same time.

I trust this answers a lot of things about Americans.

Americans are, in general, a pitifully uneducated lot. Poll after poll reveals just how utterly idiotic most of us really are. Many of us cannot say how long it takes the earth to revolve once around the sun (many don't even know THAT the earth revolves around the sun). Many can't even find the US on a world map.

—

Science teaches evolution, and Theology teaches ID, and the students are allowed to make up their own minds.

— Math Teacher Extraordinaire

Here is a good page that breaks down America's beliefs in evolution:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Note that 5% of scientists are creationist, but this is not limited to biologists, but all scientists, so many who believe in creationism had no more education in biology than any other college student, just the basic university requirement.

also note that 40% of scientist believe in some sort of "theistic evolution" which means they believe in evolution, with the help of god "guiding the way". This would seem to indicate that they believe in ID, wouldn't it? Though in reality I would think this 40% doesn't believe in a literal scientific process of god "guiding" things but just some sort of obscure "god made it happen like he wanted it" theological position that's unrelated to literal ID, no? Which brings me to my question:

Is there even a official position of what ID among its advocates? Because, as a very casual observer, I remember seeing an ID lecture on CSPAN a few months ago (who it was, I can not remember), and when questioned he admitted that the fossil record suggests progression. Now, call me crazy, but that seems to be an admission of evolution, doesn't it? I'm not sure who exactly the guy was, but I'm pretty sure he was one of the main ID guys because his name sounded familiar. Now it seems with this one person, ID wouldn't even contradict evolution; both could be true. So it would be a seperate field not dependent on evolution being falsified. So are ID advocates even in agreement on what it is their are proposing? The person in question kept talking about this bacterial flagellum, if that helps.

Is there even a official position of what ID among its advocates?

I remember seeing an ID lecture on CSPAN a few months ago (who it was, I can not remember), and when questioned he admitted that the fossil record suggests progression. Now, call me crazy, but that seems to be an admission of evolution, doesn't it? I'm not sure who exactly the guy was, but I'm pretty sure he was one of the main ID guys because his name sounded familiar. Now it seems with this one person, ID wouldn't even contradict evolution; both could be true. So it would be a seperate field not dependent on evolution being falsified. So are ID advocates even in agreement on what it is their are proposing? The person in question kept talking about this bacterial flagellum, if that helps.

There seems sometimes to be an almost willful effort among ID'ers to conflate ID with "generic creationism". Personally, I would prefer a distinction between "weak ID" and "strong ID".

"Weak ID" means that you believe it is at least possible, perhaps even likely that some divine being had a guiding hand in evolution. This divine being could work entirely through natural selection and genetic variation. Clearly, people like Dobzhansky and Miller would fit in this camp. Since the term "ID" has so much baggage, "weak ID" is probably a bad term and will lead only confusion. Perhaps "theistic Darwinists" is better? For them, any teleology is beyond the arguments of science, though teleology might be inferred as metaphysical speculation or philosophical inference. But Teleology plays no role in scientific theory.

Advocates of "Strong ID" insist that there must be some **other** mechanisms, besides genetic variation and natural selection. Generally, we are led to presume (despite protestations to the contrary) that this **other** mechanism must be a personal God. ID as such, explicitly rules out God working exclusively through natural selection and genetic variation or any other natural mechanism.

That is why you can get such a "big tent".

There are still many in the ID movement who deny common descent and will deny even basic propositions of genetics.

... But, consistent with the Frist Amendment, the government ought not to pay for someone's religious education.

Speaking solely for myself, of course, I have to say, as a blue meanie surrounded by a sea of red, I am freaking amazed:

"At one point, an agreement was reached within the school district. They appointed a 7-member committee internally to review the situation and reach a decision. That committee included the two teachers who were using the material, the principals of both the junior high and high school, the superintendent and two other science teachers. They all agreed that the committee would review the situation, hold a vote, and then all 7 of them would back the decision of the committee regardless of how it went. That vote was 5-2 against using the creationist materials in the science classes"

I am amazed that the decision went 5-2 in favor of science. The rest of it is to be expected.

Goodness. You folks are certainly a bunch of evolutionary bigots. Do you lynch? More comedy in black face routines?

"the sound of religious extremists frying in the morning"

"Focus on the Family has been hijacking Christianity"

"their ultimate supervisor in Rome demands that crap not be put into the heads of kids in biology class"

"All sorts of nut-cases welcome"

"next time you hear some IDiot yammering"

"Tricky Dick Neuhaus simply reciting more of the lies"

With all this name calling and hysteria, you sound like you're losing! Get a grip.

Goodness. You folks are certainly a bunch of evolutionary bigots.

With all this name calling and hysteria, you sound like you're losing!

black face routines

. . . only 84 percent of men and 68 percent of women knew that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.

Occasionally they're white and female.

Has anyone on this site ever noted the striking parallels between ID Creationism and good ol' conspiracy theory? I mean, both make their case by first:

1.) portraying a vast / powerful array of opponents against them
2.) vindicating the credibility of their arguments on the grounds that their opposition (villified in #1) refuses to entertain them

and then the glitter, smoke and mirrors come into play. The primary methods are again the same:

3.) obfuscation
a.) constant and rapid arguments that some circumstance is too complicated to be explained by the commonly accepted mechanism
b.) introduction of any competing theory, no matter how bogus, to dilute plainly established truth
4.) introduction of additional parameters, ostensibly necessitated by #3, but without real justification
5.) writing off the lack of positive evidence for their case as the work of the opposition from #1

Whether its AIDS skepticism, creationism, holocaust denial, or "X-Files"-style conspiracies, it's all the same. Would there be room for a PT post on this subject if I flesh this out with examples?

Since the term "ID" has so much baggage, "weak ID" is probably a bad term and will lead only confusion. Perhaps "theistic Darwinists" is better?

I can't think of a single female IDer of any prominence. Not a one... Can anyone else?

—

I can't think of a single female IDer of any prominence. Not a one . . . Can anyone else? Closest is evangelical philosopher Nancy (The Soul of Science: Christianity) Pearcey. Prominent enough to have a sole, unopposed lengthy lecture televised on CSPAN.

Has anyone on this site ever noted the striking parallels between ID Creationism and good ol' conspiracy theory?

For feck's sake, why is it necessary to teach evolution and the nature of science to public school SCIENCE teachers? Should they not already know this stuff? What kind of clowns are the school district hiring? This is one consequence of underpaying teachers: schools have to scrape the dregs to find "qualified" teachers.

Has anyone on this site ever noted the striking parallels between ID Creationism and good ol' conspiracy theory?

I hadn't, but now that you mention it, the one IDist I know in real life is also a staunch believer in black helicopters and one-world currency movements . . .

Has anyone on this site ever noted the striking parallels between ID Creationism and good ol' conspiracy theory?

— spencer

Since Google-Groups are getting name-dropped I might as well do the same:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Mind-Over-Skepticism (I haven't done a single thing with it since its inception.)

--------------------
"Oh no! is this something Christian, or even...*gasp*... anti-materialist?!!!"

Let's see some ad hominem's, just for ol' times sake! :)

I could start with (in specific, PT blog tone)...ahem...

"The Panda's Dumb: The better, and more appropriate title for the anti-design, athiest, fundamentalist, pseudo-science blog."

I <3 Panda's Thumb... even when I'm bored!

I wonder...

will you guys (and gals) ever learn to spell "atheist"? More importantly, will you ever learn that "fundamentalist" and "pseudo-science" apply the other way around, to people who refuse evidence and critical analysis in favour of their pet ideological pre-commitment?

AHH! The funny thing is:

I thought, while I was writing that, " You better spell atheist right." I've spelled that wrong more than once. My bad.

AHH! The funny thing is:

I thought, while I was writing that, "I better spell atheist right." I've spelled that wrong more than once. My bad.

I did not mean to post more than once. Internet dropped, thought it didn't post, it did.

PT regulars have attempted to explain why ID/Creationists reject evolutionary theory, in part if not in whole. That explanation essentially boils down to lack of education. I believe that such explanation fails, for a number of reasons.

The obvious remedy is education. This should theoretically work one-on-one, on boards such as this one, for example. But we've seen that this doesn't work, even after patient explanations with supporting references and so forth.

Thus, we might think that basic intelligence is required. Alas, that doesn't seem to fit either. There are some (apparently) smart people who still reject evolutionary theory to various degrees, even though they should know better.

My (current and tentative) explanation is fear. People, who reject evolutionary theory to various degrees, fear that their lifestyle is in jeopardy. For these people, (basically) accepting Darwin's explanation for the observed diversity of life is a threat to their religious beliefs; they believe that it forces them to turn away from God. Because fear, not merely ignorance, is the motivation here, the higher intelligence within these people is effectively shunted; there simply is no connection with reason, because fear doesn't allow the connection.

Comments?

About the appeal of ID: for a certain kind of person, defending an indefensible position is both challenging and pleasurable. Mere fact is a stupid thing, after all. Error, especially error that reflects wishful thinking, is vastly more fun.

That explanation essentially boils down to lack of education. I believe that such explanation fails, for a number of reasons... My (current and tentative) explanation is fear... fear that their lifestyle is in jeopardy Comments?

— Rubble

PT regulars have attempted to explain why ID/Creationists reject evolutionary theory, in part if not in whole. That explanation essentially boils down to lack of education. I believe that such explanation fails, for a number of reasons.

— rubble

PT regulars have attempted to explain why ID/Creationists reject evolutionary theory, in part if not in whole. That explanation essentially boils down to lack of education. I believe that such explanation fails, for a number of reasons.

— rubble

These teachers aren't the "dregs" that had to be scraped to fill positions. They do well, but after all our instruction, still refuse to accept evolution. What is the answer?

I hadn't, but now that you mention it, the one IDist I know in real life is also a staunch believer in black helicopters and one-world currency movements . . .

Creationists aren't simultaneously ignorant about biology, but smart or average about all other subjects. Their nuttiness is often multifaceted. Philip Johnson is an HIV denier. Jay Richards thinks Einstein's wrong too. Marshall Hall (the guy at http://www.fixedearth.com/) is a geocentrist. Dr. Dino, I seem to remember from a NYT story, believes his taxes are illegal. Charlie Wagner thinks the medical community is lying about cholesterol and heart disease.

Why do creationists think the way they do? I am not sure about the lack of education thing. Sure, that is going to explain many, but there are a lot of creationists who you would think should know better.

I think it more a severe case of wishful thinking. It is really a profound discomfort with humanity's relationship with nature. "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put into this world to rise above." as Katherine Hepburn notes in the African Queen. It seems denial of evolution is just one in a long list of ways to dissociate our connection to the world.

The refusal to confront HIV, the desire to prevent birth control, the disregard for global warming and the environment all are manifestations of separation of humankind from nature. Sexuality becomes a choice rather than a result of biology since biology does not apply to people.

The natural world is inconvenient and unpleasant. This gives the creation writers incentives to play fast and loose with the facts they feel uncomfortable with. This lets them make up fantasies about the speed of light and the decay of isotopes. Anything in science is a target. However, biology is what they really have trouble with due to its "yuck factor". But on the other hand, taxes are unpleasant too. If you really like steaks and eggs, warning about cholesterol are unwelcome. Denial is sweet!

"Denial is sweet!"

be careful, the creationists might end up using your argument to solicit new followers. kind of like the red pill/blue pill argument from the "Matrix".

"My (current and tentative) explanation is fear."

but fear arises from ignorance, so you end up back at education again.

you must educate someone to not be afraid of things that don't exist.

Re "PT regulars have attempted to explain why ID/Creationists reject evolutionary theory, in part if not in whole. That explanation essentially boils down to lack of education. I believe that such explanation fails, for a number of reasons."

I suspect there's a variety of reasons. Lack of education most likely applies to many such. But obviously it doesn't apply to those who keep reciting the same arguments (or claims w/o arguments) over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and (slap) Sorry about that.

Henry

Nidaros, if you're talking about my use of the word ignorant, I should explain. Among other places, I've lived in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. People in The South use the word ignorant in a rich way. When someone like Jay Richards writes that not only is Darwin wrong, but Einstein too, he is, in the southern parlance, ignorant. Used like this, the word is pronounced "ig'-nurnt", and indicates not just lack of knowledge, but a chronic and slightly remarkable ability to be on the wrong side of a given issue.

Rev.

I agree with you in principle, although I would not allow the word "belief" to be used when referencing evolution (hence the word acceptance). My concern is actually that these people are not likely to teach evolution in their science classes and are likely to inject creationism/ID into their classes wherever they can get away with it.

Yes belief systems are personal and everyone has a right to their own. I too would fight to preserve that and I too do not want it forced on me, however this unacceptance of evolution from individuals that are going to be high school teachers is going to affect the teaching of evolution in the schools where the front lines of this culture war really reside.

My concern is actually that these people are not likely to teach evolution in their science classes and are likely to inject creationism/ID into their classes wherever they can get away with it.

I think Rubble has some good sense there: Fear is a key problem.

My experience is that simple education doesn't eradicate fear, especially on the first take. We can teach people fearful of snakes which ones are dangerous and which ones are not -- but they still don't like to be surprised by snakes of any kind.

Dembski said, here in Dallas a few weeks ago, that his fear is that kids lose their moral compass when they get nothing but materialism thrust at them. D. James Kennedy is quite explicit: He thinks evolution leads to atheism, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity and voting. He fears those things, and he urges others to fear them, too.

Yes, we know there is no connection between understanding evolution and abusing drugs (other than drug abuse makes it more difficult to understand anything) -- but it's the fear that's driving them, not the logical connections.

We have to deal with that. They fear immorality, and they see evolution as the root cause of much immorality. That there really ARE geologic columns, and that radioactive isotope dating really does work, does not reduce the fear that immorality results from the application of those ideas -- in fact, that they are correct may make things worse.

I don't have a much better example than education. I think we need to be more selective in what we educate about. Science isn't the thing to sway school boards: Morality is. Few graduates in biology courses abuse drugs . . .

Dembski said, here in Dallas a few weeks ago, that his fear is that kids lose their moral compass when they get nothing but materialism thrust at them.

He thinks evolution leads to atheism

, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity

and voting.

Dembski said, here in Dallas a few weeks ago, that his fear is that kids lose their moral compass when they get nothing but materialism thrust at them.

GWW,

I think you have excavated the exact reason why so many science educators at America's universities, like me, are so passionate about science and science education.

Did you see the cover story of the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer about the young Russian lady who has hoodwinked the vast majority of the Russian press into thinking that she has X-ray vision? The two articles on her showed how a simple scientific test showed that her purported powers are completely bogus. I passed parts of the issue to some future elementary school teachers and asked them to devise a test to determine if her claims were genuine. Within 30 minutes the whole class, which consists of people who had formerly dodged science for most of their academic careers, had designed a test that was similar to the one reported in the article.

This is what can help us become more discerning - science - learning science and how to do science. We need our teachers to be more discerning by teaching them how to do science. Only then will we get the discussion away from the ideological graveyard into the realm of evidence and results and interpretation, where the discussion belongs.

@michael:

"We need our teachers to be more discerning by teaching them how to do science. Only then will we get the discussion away from the ideological graveyard into the realm of evidence and results and interpretation, where the discussion belongs"

this is exactly why i am trying to get opinions and feedback on the outreach program i designed to assist secondary school teachers with content and issues surround the teaching of evolutionary theory.

If you would like to take a look, I located it in a free public forum over on google:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/evolution-ngo

(ingore the "adult warning" message)

cheers