Freshwater: Ohio Supreme Court accepts F'water's appeal on two Propositions of Law

"...where the school board has not provided any clear indication as to the kinds of materials or teaching methods which are unacceptable cannot be legally justified..."

It would seem that the matter is unclear to him and/or his lawyer.

So what does it matter if it's not unclear to anybody else? :p

In 2003, John Freshwater [the teacher] petitioned the Board asking for the implementation of a new Board policy. His proposed policy was titled "Objective Origins Science Policy". He advised the Board (through the proposal)... "much of the evidence that supports the Darwinian Evolution Theory which is taught in our public schools is controversial". His proposed solution was the addition of a Board policy "that allows teachers/students to critically examine the evidence both for and against evolution". John Freshwater's proposal was rejected and his suggested policy not adopted. Nonetheless, he undertook the instruction of these eighth graders as if the suggested policy had been implemented.

We here at PT all know Freshwater was teaching lies and then lying about it. But what will the Ohio Supreme Court be looking at / listening to when they hear the case? Will they only be reviewing past Freshwater court case(s) material? Or can the NCSE or somebody come in with new material showing what Freshwater was lying about doing? They aren't even supposed to know about the not actually a Tesla coil, are they?

It seems pretty clear that whoever is backing Freshwater wants this to go all the way to the US Supreme Court. The political winds appear to be in the right direction for him at the moment.

Just hypothetically, if the motivation of the Ohio Supreme Court was to attempt to weed creationist crap out of public schools altogether, would this case serve as a suitable vehicle? My understanding is that there are pretty clear precedents that First Amendment freedoms are not being abridged by requiring public school teachers to follow an accepted curriculum. Maybe the second part could be used to discourage excessive religious displays as an implicit endorsement of a specific religion by an agent of the government?

I don't know enough about the Ohio Court to know whether they'd wish to encourage or discourage creationism in science class. I'd wonder why they even accepted this case if they didn't want to do one or the other.

Flint said: Just hypothetically, if the motivation of the Ohio Supreme Court was to attempt to weed creationist crap out of public schools altogether, would this case serve as a suitable vehicle? My understanding is that there are pretty clear precedents that First Amendment freedoms are not being abridged by requiring public school teachers to follow an accepted curriculum. Maybe the second part could be used to discourage excessive religious displays as an implicit endorsement of a specific religion by an agent of the government? I don't know enough about the Ohio Court to know whether they'd wish to encourage or discourage creationism in science class. I'd wonder why they even accepted this case if they didn't want to do one or the other.

Freshwater: I teach what I … actually, I call it a robust evolution. I showed what was the evidence for evolution, I showed evidence that was opposed to evolution. I showed all sides.

This being a state Supreme Court, is it supposed to confine itself to procedural and constitutional issues, and avoid drawing any new conclusions of its own about the facts?

If so, how does that constrain the case once the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it?

When I saw this I looked up the Ohio Supreme Court. These judges are elected.
Have served as Ohio legislators and Lt. Governor. A very politically connected bunch.
Reason I mention that is their decision will likely be mentioned when next they
stand for election. That's what I think. They could of already felt the pressure to
hear this case. After all, they had very good reason not to. Looks to me they are
really reaching to find cause.

Mike Elzinga said: It seems pretty clear that whoever is backing Freshwater wants this to go all the way to the US Supreme Court. The political winds appear to be in the right direction for him at the moment.

Perhaps this really shouldn't come as a surprise as creationists have been browbeating legislatures and school districts in Ohio to include creationism in their curriculums. A simple search of the PT archives shows a number of instances where the legislature, proded by the dishonesty institute among others, has encouraged a drop in science standards to teach creationism. And very likely too this SCOTSOO membership is probably pretty right-wing leanind, particularly since they've accepted this case.

The Mount Vernon school board requested that the SCOTSOO refuse to accept the case.
"The board’s attorneys assert in the memorandum that the case does “not involve matters of public or great general interest, and this case does not present a substantial constitutional question. Therefore, the Board respectfully requests this Court decline jurisdiction of the appeal.”

Here's an "unbiased" article from a MV creationist writer.
http://www.accountabilityinthemedia.com/2012/05/mv-school-board-firing-of-freshwater.html

Charley Horse said: When I saw this I looked up the Ohio Supreme Court. These judges are elected. Have served as Ohio legislators and Lt. Governor. A very politically connected bunch. Reason I mention that is their decision will likely be mentioned when next they stand for election. That's what I think. They could of already felt the pressure to hear this case. After all, they had very good reason not to. Looks to me they are really reaching to find cause.

If this happens sooner rather than later, it would be well before the retirement of conservative SCOTUS justices like Scalia, Kennedy and especially Thomas. As we know, Scalia was one of only two SCOTUS justices to dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard.

— Tenncrain

Flint said: Just hypothetically, if the motivation of the Ohio Supreme Court was to attempt to weed creationist crap out of public schools altogether, would this case serve as a suitable vehicle? ...I don't know enough about the Ohio Court to know whether they'd wish to encourage or discourage creationism in science class. I'd wonder why they even accepted this case if they didn't want to do one or the other.

Errr...2016.

(2) I have a hard time imagining a conservative court siding with a teacher over an administration by ruling that the 2-year, multi-million firing process was not comprehensive enough. If anything, I would think they’d be naturally inclined to rule the other way, and use this case to give Ohio administrations greater leeway to fire teachers.

— eric

The impression that I have about Scalia's decision in the Edwards case is that he was using the case as an occasion to overturn the Lemon test for 1st amendment violation. IANAL, but my guess is that he doesn't care about creationism or evolution, but he doesn't like the Lemon decision, in particular that a law must have a secular purpose. As long as a decision does not rely on the "secular purpose prong" it is relatively safe from Scalia et al.

Frank J said: BTW, since everyone insists on referring to the teaching any anti-evolution scam as "teaching creationism" it behooves us to be crystal clear that we define "creationism" as any scam that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution, whether or not it mentions a Creator or designer.

Eric...There are two justices whose terms expire at the end of this year... Robert R. Cupp and Terrence O'Donnell.

Info from website: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/SCO/justices/

I've learned from a science teacher in the Mt. Vernon City schools that after the rejection of his 2003 proposal to adopt the Intelligent Design Network's Objective Origins Science Policy, the science department organized a workshop on teaching evolution properly and also covering what is unacceptable. It was led by the Chair of the high school science department and was intended to address Freshwater's confusions and issues about evolution. He was specifically invited to it. However, he failed to attend. If he lacked guidance about materials and acceptable science teaching methods, it was due to his own damned intransigence.

the science department organized a workshop on teaching evolution properly and also covering what is unacceptable. It was led by the Chair of the high school science department and was intended to address Freshwater’s confusions and issues about evolution. He was specifically invited to it. However, he failed to attend

The Ohio Supreme Court is composed of 6 Republicans and one Democrat (with the Democrat appointed by former Governor Ted Strickland). As far as I know, the Republicans, while conservative, are not crazy/creationist conservative.

My far-out prediction (far-out: if I'm right, it'll make me look like a genius; if I'm wrong, nobody expected it anyways) is that the case will be dismissed as improvidently accepted. As the briefs come it, they will see that the case really isn't about the propositions of law as stated, and decide not to take the case after all.

In my opinion the Ohio Supreme COurt should have not bothered with this case. I believe the school board clearly deliniated what materials were permissible and what were not. I think their direction concerning Intelligent Design was clear as day and Freshwater took it upon himself to ignore it. Even implying that if something isn't specifically prohibited is a dangerous course to take!

On the second point I do not believe his firing was upheld simply due to religious material a posters. I think a great deal went into the decision including his burning of kids arms with crosses, his lying to investigators, his request that his students lie for him, AND his blantant disregard for school policy. Add in the fact that his students had to be retaught basic science in later grades adds up to a failure to me. He should have been fired years before he was.

Ted Herrlich

Frank J said:

If this happens sooner rather than later, it would be well before the retirement of conservative SCOTUS justices like Scalia, Kennedy and especially Thomas. As we know, Scalia was one of only two SCOTUS justices to dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard.

— Tenncrain

Scalis has had 25 years to think about it, and 6.5 years to contrast it with Judge Jones' decision. Has anyone tried to get him on record? I have not seen one word among the 1000s "assuming" that he must be a "creationist." I realize that one does not have to agree with something to declare it legal. Nothing makes that more clear than the recent "Obamacare" decision. But I'm not interested in their legal arguments. Rather I'm interested in how they answer hard questions about what they think the evidence supports, starting with the basic "what happened when" question. And whether it's fair to teach, on the taxpayer's dime, what has, by any reasonable measure, not earned the right to be taught. I bet that 25 minutes will be enough to get Scalia to admit that he's either a "Darwinist" or an Omphalist (YE or OE version). We've had 25 years.

I have a hard time imagining a conservative court siding with a teacher over an administration by ruling that the 2-year, multi-million firing process was not comprehensive enough. If anything, I would think they’d be naturally inclined to rule the other way, and use this case to give Ohio administrations greater leeway to fire teachers.

This wasn’t directed at me, but since neither I nor anyone else has ever suggested that Scalia is “a creationist”. It is impossible to know, does not matter, and is intensely unlikely that he is privately “a creationist”.

— harold

2) As you mention, he has not said anything else in 25 years. Why you conclude from this that he has been soul-searching and has decided that his original dissent was wrong is beyond me.

— harold

Frank J said: I have not seen one word among the 1000s "assuming" that he must be a "creationist."

I have to say I agree with Harold (and Orwell) about ideologists. Ideology corrupts the soul, after which everything else is cosmetic. In nearly every important case over the last decade the SCOTUS has voted 5-4 along straight party lines. Polls indicate they are now seen as even more politically partisan than Congress. People understand that neither the facts nor the law are important to ANY of them anymore.

Which makes this a great time to hustle creationism as the Official American State Religion to the Supreme Court to be rubber-stamped as "fairness" (enforced unfairness) or "academic freedom" (to teach creationism OR ELSE.) Orwell must be cackling with well-justified glee.

In nearly every important case over the last decade the SCOTUS has voted 5-4 along straight party lines. Polls indicate they are now seen as even more politically partisan than Congress. People understand that neither the facts nor the law are important to ANY of them anymore.

I would speculate that if Romney is elected, one of the ways he could endear himself to the religious right wing of his party, which hasn't been any too enthusiastic about him yet, is to nominate another Scalia. It's not inconceivable that he'd have the opportunity to nominate two of them, AND have a Republican majority to approve them in the Senate. And if that should happen, I imagine we would see an avalanche of creationist litigation, because we'd have a high court disposed to both hear and agree with the creationists. Not to mention a wholesale rollback of individual liberties.

I forsee the end of a long swing away from the law as protection from ideology, and toward the law as a means of enforcing ideology. Praise Jesus, of course.

Flint said: I forsee the end of a long swing away from the law as protection from ideology, and toward the law as a means of enforcing ideology. Praise Jesus, of course.

One can only hope that, if it comes to pass that it is ruled constitutional to teach creationism in public schools as a matter of "fairness" or "academic freedom", that it must then also be constitutional to openly criticize creationism in public schools. Fine. Let's have at it. Bring it on. How quick do you think someone would sue a school board if a teacher were to open deny and ridicule YEC to her science class? How quick do you think someone would sue if a teacher were to teach the Koran as the literal truth in his science class? Ruling YEC as "science" would just open the flood gates to more and more suits.

OTOH, I expect we'd simply see the Red states getting redder (and stupider), and the Blue states getting bluer (and more cynical).

I've read all the comments. Lysenko's ghost lurking in the shadows?

Scott F said: How quick do you think someone would sue if a teacher were to teach the Koran as the literal truth in his science class?

tomh said:

Frank J said: I have not seen one word among the 1000s "assuming" that he must be a "creationist."

Scalia may not come out and said he's a creationist, but he has made it clear that he thinks the Court has gone way too far in trying to separate church and state. He's perfectly happy with religion in the public square, 10 commandments on every wall, and prayer in school (see his dissent in Lee v. Weisman , for his views on prayer in school). I see no reason Scalia wouldn't be perfectly happy to extend that to science classes, no doubt under the guise of "academic freedom." He stops just short of Thomas, but then Thomas's view of the Establishment Clause is, "the establishment clause restrains only the federal government, and that, even if incorporated [i.e., applied to the states], the clause only prohibits actual legal coercion." Roberts and Alito are on board with Scalia's line of thinking on this - one or two more votes and the banner of "academic freedom" will carry the day.

One can only hope that, if it comes to pass that it is ruled constitutional to teach creationism in public schools as a matter of “fairness” or “academic freedom”, that it must then also be constitutional to openly criticize creationism in public schools. Fine. Let’s have at it. Bring it on. How quick do you think someone would sue a school board if a teacher were to open deny and ridicule YEC to her science class.

— Scott F

Frank J said:

One can only hope that, if it comes to pass that it is ruled constitutional to teach creationism in public schools as a matter of “fairness” or “academic freedom”, that it must then also be constitutional to openly criticize creationism in public schools. Fine. Let’s have at it. Bring it on. How quick do you think someone would sue a school board if a teacher were to open deny and ridicule YEC to her science class.

— Scott F

You’re missing a crucial point. The “creationism” that most activists demand in recent years is not YEC, but rather “evolution plus misrepresentations of it.” These scam artists know that some students – even in the reddest of states - will see the fatal weaknesses of YEC even without the refutations. But few if any students will detect the fatal flaws in those carefully crafted “weaknesses of evolution” arguments. And that’s where you can bet that trained teachers will censor any refutations. And the can do that without lifting a finger, for the simple reason that those refutations will take more class time than is available to compete with the catchy, but misleading anti-evolution sound bites. Louisiana might provide a clue of what to expect. After 4 years of “academic anarchy” there have been no reported incidents of teachers misrepresenting evolution. All it takes is one student to blow the whistle, and they all have Zack Kopplin to back them up. I recall reading that ~16% of science teachers (nationwide?) want to teach some anti-evolution strategy. Even if that % is double in LA, 2 things shout out: First, it’s still a minority, suggesting that the majority of science teachers, presumably mostly very religious, simply refuses to bear false witness. Second, it’s still a large number of teachers, all of whom have had 4 years to think about it. Could fear of another Dover be making them hesitate? Especially since Judge Jones (that right wing Christian!) made sure to include replacement scams (IIRC Academic "Freedom” was not mentioned specifically, but implied) along with ID (the subject of the trial) among the “breathtaking inanity” that is inappropriate for science class.

Having followed this "debate" for nearly 40 years (seriously, I need a better hobby) I think it comes down to three things:

1. My granddaddy ain't no monkey.
2. Jesus loves me.
3. All dogs go to Heaven.

Alas, the cold facts are as we all know:

1. My granddaddy and the monkey shared a common ancestor.
2. Nobody cares, least of all the Universe.
3. When you're dead you won't even know it.

This is very disturbing for a lot of people and rather than cry like a little girl about it and move on, they go into denial which makes everybody miserable. It's not so much a legal problem or a science education problem, but a sociological problem of people being unable to comport their wants and dreams (no monkey, etc) with the knowledge of how the universe really is.

Too bad, really. I certainly find the real world a wonderful, joyful, exciting place to be.

“ID” was created to get evolution denial into schools in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard.

Mike Elzinga said: ... ID/creationists can be attacked on their sheer incompetence in understanding scientific concepts and their inability to make their misconceptions and misrepresentations work in the lab. One doesn’t have to fire them for their religious dogmas; every damned one of them is sterile and incompetent.

Frank J said: Louisiana might provide a clue of what to expect. After 4 years of “academic anarchy” there have been no reported incidents of teachers misrepresenting evolution. All it takes is one student to blow the whistle, and they all have Zack Kopplin to back them up. I recall reading that ~16% of science teachers (nationwide?) want to teach some anti-evolution strategy.

Having followed this “debate” for nearly 40 years (seriously, I need a better hobby) I think it comes down to three things:1. My granddaddy ain’t no monkey. 2. Jesus loves me. 3. All dogs go to Heaven.

— Doc Bill

@tomh:

Thanks for the link. I might be thinking of a different study, but I'll check it out, and will revise my assessment as needed. In the meantime I should clarify that, just because a "Louisiana Dover" hasn't happened yet does not mean that it can't happen any minute.

As for anyone who may be "teaching creationism," the first thing I would recommend is to determine exactly what that means. Are they just omitting evolution (a la Kansas)? Are they teaching "evolution plus misrepresentations," and if so are they including the refutations of those misrepresentations? Are they teaching any alternate testable, falsified claims of "what happened when," and if so are they allowing students to critically analyze them?

Richard B. Hoppe said: I've learned from a science teacher in the Mt. Vernon City schools that after the rejection of his 2003 proposal to adopt the Intelligent Design Network's Objective Origins Science Policy, the science department organized a workshop on teaching evolution properly and also covering what is unacceptable. It was led by the Chair of the high school science department and was intended to address Freshwater's confusions and issues about evolution. He was specifically invited to it. However, he failed to attend. If he lacked guidance about materials and acceptable science teaching methods, it was due to his own damned intransigence.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: I forsee the end of a long swing away from the law as protection from ideology, and toward the law as a means of enforcing ideology. Praise Jesus, of course.

If that happens – and it is not out of the question given the current political climate – the current generation of scientists and their professional organizations will need to be acutely aware of ID/creationist history, tactics, misrepresentations and misconceptions. ID/creationists can be attacked on their sheer incompetence in understanding scientific concepts and their inability to make their misconceptions and misrepresentations work in the lab. One doesn’t have to fire them for their religious dogmas; every damned one of them is sterile and incompetent. It they ever get the political support to push past peer review and competence checks, they may regret what they wish for. As of now, they cloister together in their sugar daddy funded offices and protect themselves from grappling with reality. There is nothing in ID/creationist pseudoscience that will make any progress in the lab. They cannot teach anyone how to write a research proposal let alone actually put together a research program that works. They will have to pass laws to protect themselves from lawsuits for the consequences of their incompetence (they are already thinking along those lines to protect themselves for incompetence in teaching).

Frank J said: As for anyone who may be "teaching creationism," the first thing I would recommend is to determine exactly what that means. Are they just omitting evolution (a la Kansas)? Are they teaching "evolution plus misrepresentations," and if so are they including the refutations of those misrepresentations? Are they teaching any alternate testable, falsified claims of "what happened when," and if so are they allowing students to critically analyze them?

The part of the anti-evolution movement that really fascinates me is how, almost immediately after being repackaged as a pseusoscience, it started backpedaling on the “what happened whens” - the very part that is 100% legal to teach anywhere. That it has zero evidence and many internal contradictions does not make it illegal to discuss, even in publicly funded science class. Chemistry class can and does still discuss the Rutherford and Bohr models of the atom. So why have anti-evolution activists been increasingly recluctant to teach it? Even before the courts forced them to omit references to “creator”? I have heard the argument that they feared that it was “too close to Genesis for comfort,” but I don’t buy it.

Flint said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: I forsee the end of a long swing away from the law as protection from ideology, and toward the law as a means of enforcing ideology. Praise Jesus, of course.

If that happens – and it is not out of the question given the current political climate – the current generation of scientists and their professional organizations will need to be acutely aware of ID/creationist history, tactics, misrepresentations and misconceptions. ID/creationists can be attacked on their sheer incompetence in understanding scientific concepts and their inability to make their misconceptions and misrepresentations work in the lab. One doesn’t have to fire them for their religious dogmas; every damned one of them is sterile and incompetent. It they ever get the political support to push past peer review and competence checks, they may regret what they wish for. As of now, they cloister together in their sugar daddy funded offices and protect themselves from grappling with reality. There is nothing in ID/creationist pseudoscience that will make any progress in the lab. They cannot teach anyone how to write a research proposal let alone actually put together a research program that works. They will have to pass laws to protect themselves from lawsuits for the consequences of their incompetence (they are already thinking along those lines to protect themselves for incompetence in teaching).

If I were a creationist and found myself in power, I doubt I'd do battle on those grounds. Instead, I would exercise ideological control over research funding, research publication, scientific activities like conferences, to the extent that I could do so with financial control over discretionary spending. I could chop off US support to other nations doing such research much the same way Republican presidents kill all medical assistance to nations that allow abortions the day they are inaugurated. Given the sheer ubiquity of public funding in universities, in subsidies to private industry, etc. combined with the power to reward those whose ideology is Officially Approved, the sheer scope of the "chilling effect" that could be achieved would be decisive. How many people would go into biology or biological research if even the act of hiring them would cut off all Federal funding to whiever hired them? Look at theological governments around the world. There's no need to punish those who study the wrong things, because such study simply is not done. Making the attempt is guaranteed to accomplish nothing but personal grief. Why bother?

harold said: If you accept that your opponents may be ruthless, cunning, deeply resentful, loathing, tireless ideologues, you will not be unprepared if some opponents do not have that full set of traits, and you will be ready if some do.

You are right about the minds of many ID peddlers, but I believe you are wrong about the law here.

— harold

It is, and in my opinion very much should be, illegal to either teach that specific religious dogma is proven by science to be superior to other religious dogma, or to do the opposite.

What’s the difference? There are over 50,000 high school biology teachers in the US and the majority of them don’t teach evolution properly.

— tomh

What you might mean is my claim that teaching evidence for a young earth or independent origin of species is legal. And it is, as long as one does not mention that a creator or designer “did it”. The catch of course is that the evidence just ain’t there, and the scam artists have known or suspected it all along.

Frank J said: But most people are what we would call "fence-sitters" (or not too far on either side),

Religion may be a problem, and the only tool we have to address the "supply" issue. But we have many other tools to address the demand issue.

Remember that some of the most vocal critics of ID/creationism are more devoutly religious than the average fence-sitter.

I may have mentioned this elsewhere on Panda’s Thumb, but I had a good friend who was a multiple award-winning biology teacher. Duane Gish would show up uninvited in her classroom and harass her mercilessly; and he did this with many biology teachers in the area. The result was that biology teachers tiptoed lightly around evolution for years afterward.

My last conversation with her was a week or so before she died of ovarian cancer. She still felt the pain and bitterness of those encounters with Gish nearly 40 years earlier.

But she was remembered as one terrific biology teacher; and one of her daughters is carrying on in her place. They still managed to get students interested in evolution.

harold said: If you accept that your opponents may be ruthless, cunning, deeply resentful, loathing, tireless ideologues, you will not be unprepared if some opponents do not have that full set of traits, and you will be ready if some do.

You think that religion may be a problem? If you’re talking about teaching accurate biology, religion is the only problem. As far as supply and demand, I don’t know what your’re talking about.

Religious authoritarianism is the problem.

— harold

Frank J said: The only catch is that very few nonscientists have the slightest interest in science, and far too many have an unhealthy suspicion of it.

harold said: "Religion" broadly defined is not the problem. Society of Friends, Tibetan Buddhism, Wiccanism, Reform Judaism - not the problem. Academic theologians who decide the official positions of mainstream Protestant churches - not the problem.

Frank J said: The only catch is that very few nonscientists have the slightest interest in science,

tomh said:I think that is demonstrably untrue. Every major newpaper in the US has a science section and science reporters. Some are good, some aren't, but that's another question.

I think that is demonstrably untrue.

— tomh

Richard B. Hoppe said: And it appears to me that even the NYTimes Tuesday Science section is thinner now than it was a decade or two ago.

tomh said:

harold said: "Religion" broadly defined is not the problem. Society of Friends, Tibetan Buddhism, Wiccanism, Reform Judaism - not the problem. Academic theologians who decide the official positions of mainstream Protestant churches - not the problem.

Fine, let's define religion more narrowly. Let's exonerate the Wiccans, the Tibetans, and a few other statistically insignificant groups. As for the Society of Friends, 40% of Friends belong to Evangelical Friends who profess Biblical inerrancy and, in North America, belong to the National Association of Evangelicals - part of the problem. As for academic theologians, of course they're not the problem. They never do anything. But on the ground, in the classrooms, where biology teachers are pushing creationism, those teachers are impelled by their religious beliefs, witness Freshwater. Where school boards are stifling the teaching of evolution, they are impelled by religious beliefs, witness Dover. And, most pernicious of all, where parents harass teachers who attempt to teach evolution, they are impelled by religious beliefs. I don't see how this could be considered controversial.

I hope no-one thinks that I am making the absurd suggestion that Mitt Romney is personally a creationist. http://commondescentblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-mitt-romney-believe-in-evolution.html

However, if sectarian science denial is officially taught as "science" in public schools, then eventually, more and more people will be creationist, simply by virtue of having been taught that, uncontested, in their only exposure to science education.

If such a condition comes about, it will be irrelevant whether it is put into place by "sincere creationists", or as a reward to loyal allies.

harold said: May I ask, and please don't be offended ...

...trying to ignore the political aspect of evolution denial.

tomh said:

harold said: May I ask, and please don't be offended ...

No to all questions. And Romney?? Please, now I am offended.

...trying to ignore the political aspect of evolution denial.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I've been a political animal since Adlai Stevenson ran for president. I'm probably not the big picture guy that you are, though. Perhaps the difference is that you may see the political side using the religious to achieve their goals, while I see the religious using politics to achieve theirs. They all come out in pretty much the same place.

harold....I agree completely with all you have said. Jindal is on the short list of
Romney's running mates. A governor who has supported fundie legislation that allows
tax dollars to support Christian madrassas and intended to allow creationism taught as science.
If Romney chooses this "pray with me to plug the leaking oil well" liar for Jesus then
there will be no doubt that if he were elected he would cowtow to the fundies to stay in office.

harold said: It is, and in my opinion very much should be, illegal to either teach that specific religious dogma is proven by science to be superior to other religious dogma, or to do the opposite.

Carl Drews said: How do you teach about the Galileo Affair in science class without bringing up religious dogma?

Paul Burnett said:

Carl Drews said: How do you teach about the Galileo Affair in science class without bringing up religious dogma?

Better yet: How do you teach about the Giordano Bruno Affair in science class without bringing up religious dogma? (For the clueless: Giordano Bruno, an Italian astronomer who proposed that the sun was a star and the earth went around it, was burned at the stake in 1600 after the Inquisition found him guilty of heresy.)

Paul Burnett said:

Carl Drews said: How do you teach about the Galileo Affair in science class without bringing up religious dogma?

Better yet: How do you teach about the Giordano Bruno Affair in science class without bringing up religious dogma? (For the clueless: Giordano Bruno, an Italian astronomer who proposed that the sun was a star and the earth went around it, was burned at the stake in 1600 after the Inquisition found him guilty of heresy.)

harold said:

tomh said:

harold said: "Religion" broadly defined is not the problem. Society of Friends, Tibetan Buddhism, Wiccanism, Reform Judaism - not the problem. Academic theologians who decide the official positions of mainstream Protestant churches - not the problem.

Fine, let's define religion more narrowly. Let's exonerate the Wiccans, the Tibetans, and a few other statistically insignificant groups. As for the Society of Friends, 40% of Friends belong to Evangelical Friends who profess Biblical inerrancy and, in North America, belong to the National Association of Evangelicals - part of the problem. As for academic theologians, of course they're not the problem. They never do anything. But on the ground, in the classrooms, where biology teachers are pushing creationism, those teachers are impelled by their religious beliefs, witness Freshwater. Where school boards are stifling the teaching of evolution, they are impelled by religious beliefs, witness Dover. And, most pernicious of all, where parents harass teachers who attempt to teach evolution, they are impelled by religious beliefs. I don't see how this could be considered controversial.

I still don't entirely agree here. "Define religion more narrowly"? No, the religions that are not part of the problem are STILL religion. "Be specific about which religious sects we are referring to" would be accurate. This blog is about science education. Science education - public education in general, for that matter - is being attacked, and it is most certainly not being attacked by the ill-defined abstract concept "religion". The commonality is an authoritarian political/social/religious movement. There are devout Christians who teach evolution correctly. There have been authoritarian officially atheist societies which also censored and distorted the teaching of evolution. The same right wing authoritarians who deny evolution also tend to deny human contribution to climate change, HIV as the cause of AIDS, some of them still perform their original hit, denial of the link between cigarette smoking and health problems, and they are rapidly adopting vaccine denial. I'm not denying the religious claims and justifications that are associated with this anti-intellectual, authoritarian right wing political/social movement. I'm just pointing out that for now, the extremely vast majority of anti-evolution legislation, from the level of local school boards, through state bodies, to the federal level "Santorum amendment", has been associated with the political party that is controlled by this movement. The Catholic Church doesn't even deny evolution. Yet some Catholic individuals and institutions are associated with defending science denial. The Thomas Moore Legal Center. Rick Santorum. Antonin Scalia. Their being Catholic doesn't predict this. Ken Miller is also Catholic. Do they all have something in common which does predict it? May I ask, and please don't be offended if the answer is "no", are you a disciple of Ayn Rand, a libertarian of some sort, or determined to support "fiscal conservatism" no matter what it is associated with? I ask not because you have expressed any of these views, but because these traits are associated with trying to ignore the political aspect of evolution denial. I don't want to be too controversial, but anyone who is wringing their hands about creationism in schools, but planning to vote for Romney, who will make at least one SCOTUS appointment if elected, is at best conflicted and at worst insincere.

harold said: Your argument here . . .

harold said: I don't want to be too controversial, but anyone who is wringing their hands about creationism in schools, but planning to vote for Romney, who will make at least one SCOTUS appointment if elected, is at best conflicted and at worst insincere.

Carl Drews said:

harold said: Your argument here . . .

I did not make an argument there. I asked a total of 3 questions.

Now I will ask another: Is the following statement "religious dogma" or not?The earth's climate is getting warmer.

Tenncrain said:

harold said: I don't want to be too controversial, but anyone who is wringing their hands about creationism in schools, but planning to vote for Romney, who will make at least one SCOTUS appointment if elected, is at best conflicted and at worst insincere.

To some degree, perhaps. The SCOTUS situation will indeed influence my vote. But probably like for lots of us, so will many other issues. I suspect few of us are one-issue voters.

There was a Republican candidate who was not overtly anti-science, whom I was old enough to vote for. George H. W. Bush. I did not vote for him, for a variety of reasons, and would have had a very hard time voting for the man who allowed himself to be promoted via the "Willie Horton" campaign, but certainly, those who did vote for him did not make an overtly anti-science vote. He was not associated with strong pandering to religious authoritarians, particularly savage gutting of science funding, nor with appointing cynical partisan ideologues to the Supreme Court.

Those days are over, and in fact, George H. W. Bush is excoriated by members of the current Republican party for precisely those reasons.

harold said: I may have perceived an implication that was not there. If so my apologies.

On a radio show yesterday, Inhofe explained: “Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Some of you students may have questions about the larger implications of what we are learning, what are some of the religious viewpoints concerning evolution, what is the place of humans in the universe, and so on. Those are great questions, and worthy of your study and discussion. If any of you would like to pursue them further, I strongly encourage you to sign up for "Philosophy of Knowledge" class next semester. This class will be limited to Science.

I would perhaps refer to the "Religious Philosophy" course, if there were one offered. I would also say that these are questions to be taken up with your parents, and then with your religious advisor, pastor, minister, priest or imam. I am here to teach the science; you are here to learn it.

Public school teachers should teach the science, teach it right, teach only the science in science class, and not be overly concerned about what religious dogma you are trampling on.

Carl Drews said: My daughter was well aware that YEC was going down in flames and Theistic Evolution was standing tall.

tomh said:

Carl Drews said: My daughter was well aware that YEC was going down in flames and Theistic Evolution was standing tall.

This seems a little puzzling. If you just want to focus on the science, why add the "Theistic" modifier to evolution?

Carl Drews said: The context of the comment was that some theological views are contradicted by science, while other theological views are upheld by science.

phhht said:

Carl Drews said: The context of the comment was that some theological views are contradicted by science, while other theological views are upheld by science.

What theological views are upheld by science?

Carl Drews said:

phhht said:

Carl Drews said: The context of the comment was that some theological views are contradicted by science, while other theological views are upheld by science.

What theological views are upheld by science?

1. Theistic Evolution: Christianity and evolution and the Bible are compatible. Since my Anglican denomination accepts and honors science, this is kind of a tautology, but you asked. The Anglican church takes no formal position on the age of the earth. For a more limited topic: 2. King Hezekiah ordered the construction of the water tunnel under Jerusalem that bears his name. That's a historical claim, but as we noted, just about anything can be considered religious dogma.

Carl Drews said: ...but the perceptive student will realize what's happening.

phhht said: In what way does science uphold the notion of theistic evolution?

phhht said: In what way does science uphold the notion of theistic evolution?

Carl Drews said:

phhht said: In what way does science uphold the notion of theistic evolution?

Oh, I think I see what you're driving at. How about if I use the term "compatible with" instead of "upheld by"? That term is more in line with the topic of this thread anyway. Revision: The context of the comment was that some theological views are contradicted by science, while other theological views are compatible with science.

Maybe the point of saying "theistic evolution" instead of just evolution is mainly to point out that the person holding that opinion isn't an atheist?

Henry

Henry J said: Maybe the point of saying "theistic evolution" instead of just evolution is mainly to point out that the person holding that opinion isn't an atheist? Henry

That would depend on what else had come up in the conversation in which it comes up.

Henry J said: Maybe the point of saying "theistic evolution" instead of just evolution is mainly to point out that the person holding that opinion isn't an atheist? Henry

Henry J said: Maybe the point of saying "theistic evolution" instead of just evolution is mainly to point out that the person holding that opinion isn't an atheist? Henry

SWT said:

Henry J said: Maybe the point of saying "theistic evolution" instead of just evolution is mainly to point out that the person holding that opinion isn't an atheist? Henry

I despise the term "theistic evolution". It makes some sense, I suppose, to refer to theists who accept modern evolutionary theory as the best available scientific explanation of biological diversity as "theistic evolutionists". However, the theory they accept is not (IMO) "theistic evolution"; the theory they accept is "evolution". Then again, the term "evolutionist" rubs me the wrong way too; to my ear, it has a ring of ideology or doctrine that's almost as irritating as "Darwinism".

The original context was science class in a public high school. There is a good teacher (Dave Luckett) who is teaching only the science, and expecting the students to learn the science. What happens when students with various theological views attend the class: Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers, etc? Although the teacher does not mention any of these religious views by name, the students will probably figure out if their own views are compatible (or not) with what's being taught.

Carl Drews said: ... the students will probably figure out if their own views are compatible (or not) with what's being taught.

tomh asked: I still don't understand why you want to add religious beliefs to the science of evolution and make a hybrid called "theistic evolution." What purpose does that serve?

tomh said:

Carl Drews said: ... the students will probably figure out if their own views are compatible (or not) with what's being taught.

No doubt the parents will reinforce their religious training if the children are confused. I still don't understand why you want to add religious beliefs to the science of evolution and make a hybrid called "theistic evolution." What purpose does that serve?

Carl Drews said:

tomh asked: I still don't understand why you want to add religious beliefs to the science of evolution and make a hybrid called "theistic evolution." What purpose does that serve?

1. High school students who are religious will focus on learning the science in Biology class instead of thinking they have to argue with their teachers. 2. Parents of those high school students will support their Biology teachers instead of harassing them. 3. School Boards won't waste a whole bunch of time and money on lawsuits over Ken Miller's textbook.

Mike makes it sound so easy. The kids are tabula rasa, so just paint good science onto it. Kids all know better, some are just troublemakers, so make it clear you mean business, and you'll be fine.

Meanwhile, back in reality, these kids are building mental models of their world. The goal of good education is to produce a mental model as congruent with reality as possible, but kids do NOT come into high school science classes as dry sponges. And kids from some types of religious backgrounds have models science just can't fit into. The models don't have the appropriate structure, the appropriate hooks, for even good science teaching to be grasped easily.

Earlier, SWT was bothered by some of the terminology. It seens an "evolutionist" is someone who "believes in" something called "evolutionism." This terminology didn't happen by accident, it's a natural result of how notions of evolution must be configured to fit certain religion-oriented mental models. In these models, everyone is a believer in some religion, and all other religions are false, and evolutionism is one of the religions that is MOST false. Most of the religion of science is pretty neutral, because God never said anything inconsistent with gravity (for example).

And this isn't just someome being a troublemaker. This is a kid who has learned all his life to see the world in religious terms, and to fit everything into his model according to how it accords with his religion, and to categorize all other people according to their posture toward his religion. Explain to him about changes from one generation to the next, and he won't be curious about the mechanism of the changes, he'll immediately want to know the Ultimate Purpose of those changes. His natural questions, to fill in his mental model, will be along the lines of Why does God do this? What is God trying to accomplish?

And THAT means that if the teacher tries to explain that this is just the way it happens, and we'll get to the mechanisms of heredity later, this kid's questions have been blown off! In refusing to explain God's purpose, the teacher has made meaningless claims that can't be attached to the mental model, and nothing is learned (except a bit of resentment at being blown off).

And so the kid turns to his religious leaders, whose statements are fully meaningful and understandable within the model. Evolution is a false faith, God doesn't do things that way, you were created AS IS as the crown of creation, God's in his heaven and all's right with the world. And so the kid now understands evolution.

To get the concepts of evolution across to this kid, you have to work with that model, not pretend it doesn't exist and hand him crap he can't relate to at all. For better or worse, in the US evolution IS a religious subject. I notice that on general all-subject internet discussion forums, evolution is categorized under "religion" most of the time, because that's where most people will look for it. Pretending otherwise might be good science, but might not be good teaching.

The goal of good education is to produce a mental model as congruent with reality as possible,

but kids do NOT come into high school science classes as dry sponges. And kids from some types of religious backgrounds have models science just can’t fit into. The models don’t have the appropriate structure, the appropriate hooks, for even good science teaching to be grasped easily.

Earlier, SWT was bothered by some of the terminology. It seens an “evolutionist” is someone who “believes in” something called “evolutionism.” This terminology didn’t happen by accident, it’s a natural result of how notions of evolution must be configured to fit certain religion-oriented mental models. In these models, everyone is a believer in some religion, and all other religions are false, and evolutionism is one of the religions that is MOST false. Most of the religion of science is pretty neutral, because God never said anything inconsistent with gravity (for example).

And this isn’t just someome being a troublemaker. This is a kid who has learned all his life to see the world in religious terms, and to fit everything into his model according to how it accords with his religion, and to categorize all other people according to their posture toward his religion. Explain to him about changes from one generation to the next, and he won’t be curious about the mechanism of the changes, he’ll immediately want to know the Ultimate Purpose of those changes. His natural questions, to fill in his mental model, will be along the lines of Why does God do this? What is God trying to accomplish?

And THAT means that if the teacher tries to explain that this is just the way it happens, and we’ll get to the mechanisms of heredity later, this kid’s questions have been blown off!

In refusing to explain God’s purpose, the teacher has made meaningless claims that can’t be attached to the mental model, and nothing is learned (except a bit of resentment at being blown off).

And so the kid turns to his religious leaders, whose statements are fully meaningful and understandable within the model. Evolution is a false faith, God doesn’t do things that way, you were created AS IS as the crown of creation, God’s in his heaven and all’s right with the world. And so the kid now understands evolution. To get the concepts of evolution across to this kid, you have to work with that model, not pretend it doesn’t exist and hand him crap he can’t relate to at all. For better or worse, in the US evolution IS a religious subject. I notice that on general all-subject internet discussion forums, evolution is categorized under “religion” most of the time, because that’s where most people will look for it. Pretending otherwise might be good science, but might not be good teaching.

I imagine a high-school science class about geology. One student says, "It looks to me like the Grand Canyon is the result of a geologically recent flood."

Nothing religious at all in that assertion, right?

The science instructor need have no qualms about saying something like this:
"No, the Grand Canyon was NOT the product of a geologically recent flood, but instead, is the result of long, geologically slow erosion. Here's why..."

No need to pussyfoot around and hem and haw to accommodate the counter-factual beliefs of that student, right? No need to culturally sanction that particular delusion!

Right?

Well, poor people in the US do tend to be more religious, and their religion tends to be more fundamentalist.

I read that of all creationists who enter and complete college biology degrees, 80% of them are STILL creationists after graduation. The implication, at least to me, is that college is too old for most people to re-wire their creationist convictions. Maybe 12 or 13 isn't. But you may be right, and for legal, administrative, and pedagogical reasons those kids who enter science classes with strong religiously based preconceptions aren't worth talking to. Here's the lesson kid, memorize it for the test. Believe whatever you want. If it doesn't make sense to you because you've been trained otherwise all your life, well, you're a jerk.

I'm not a teacher. I'm inclined to say, just teach the science. But if for reasons of stupid indoctination some kids are having real trouble making sense of the science, I should think there might be something a good teacher could do beyond send the kid to someone who will hand him Jack Chick tracts and show him Kent Hovind videos. Maybe not, though. Maybe it's just not worth the bother.

Now I imagine a high school science class in biology. A student says, "I think everybody is descended from a single pair of human beings, male and female."

Not the slightest religious claim there, right?

The authoritarian atheist instructor immediately grasps a chance to inflict his social views on a captive classroom! He responds, "No, that's not possible: there are too many genes for that. See, here's how you tell..."

That supercilious infidel has no fear of divine retribution, much less the wrath of Caesar, because this is a SCIENCE class, and nobody has even hinted at religious issues!

Right?

Flint said: Mike makes it sound so easy.

Mike, I'm curious. Is it the case, as your history implies, that any person can show up in a classroom in a public school in the US and disrupt the class, as Gish did? Is there no tort of trespass in public classrooms in the US?

Dave Luckett said: Mike, I'm curious. Is it the case, as your history implies, that any person can show up in a classroom in a public school in the US and disrupt the class, as Gish did? Is there no tort of trespass in public classrooms in the US?

Now I imagine a high school science class in biology. A student says, “I think everybody is descended from a single pair of human beings, male and female.” Not the slightest religious claim there, right?

The authoritarian atheist instructor immediately grasps a chance to inflict his social views on a captive classroom! He responds, “No, that’s not possible: there are too many genes for that. See, here’s how you tell…”

That supercilious infidel has no fear of divine retribution, much less the wrath of Caesar, because this is a SCIENCE class, and nobody has even hinted at religious issues!

A couple of additional points -

1) It is trivial to mention this, but I have always strongly supported accurate teaching and communication of science, and never once ever suggested that creationist beliefs, or other anti-scientific beliefs, should be pandered to. In fact, as I said so clearly above, it would be using class time to directly "rap about Jesus", whether to promote or disparage religion, that would represent pandering. Teaching the straight science and telling students to deal with it elsewhere if they have a religious problem with it is actually maximal non-pandering, and maximally fair to all student.

2) Perhaps what Phhht really wanted to discuss whether or not "authoritarian atheists" exist, or whether or not I think that he is an "authoritarian atheist.

In answer to that, Phhht -

I was not thinking of you and, other than the fact that you straw-manned my comments, have no reason to think of you as an authoritarian atheist.

I think atheists as a group tend to be far less authoritarian than the general population.

However, yes, there are some authoritarian atheists, and I find them annoying.

An argument could be made that authoritarian atheists are "Utopian authoritarians", seeking the common good rather than raw power for its own sake (lest there be any confusion here, I am a progressive who supports strong social programs and regulations for the common good, not some kind of Randian or libertarian). One could argue that "Utopian authoritarians" are less offensive than "cynically corrupt authoritarians", of the type we see in both major US political parties, but to a far greater degree in the Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party "Republican" party. In fact, that is probably true, but I oppose both types of authoritarian systems.

harold said: I am typically a very clear writer.

My examples were intended to illustrate that in practice, it is not possible to exclude religious ideas from the science class.

An instructor may be an "authoritarian" - he may refuse to address such questions on the grounds that he's the teacher and what he says and doesn't say goes and besides, this is science class - but I doubt anyone wants instructors like that.

I want an instructor in science class to teach science. Not facts, not life skills, but the scientific paradigm. You know, the primacy of evidence, the tentative and uncertain nature of fact, the methodology: the way of knowing. I want the instructor to promulgate
"a mental model as congruent with reality as possible."

That means I want
"atheists... who... share the goal of using a science classroom as a podium for preaching their [scientific] views to a captive audience." That's what a science teacher SHOULD do.

And inevitably such teaching will conflict with contra-factual beliefs and delusions. A science teacher should have no qualms about flatly contradicting such assertions, no matter how popular, no matter how "socially sanctioned."

harold said: ...“too many genes” is not how we know that humans are not descended from a single mating pair...

phhht said:

harold said: ...“too many genes” is not how we know that humans are not descended from a single mating pair...

So enlighten me. In the metaphor of a genetic bottleneck, what is the ketchup, if not the number and variety of genes?

phhht said:

harold said: ...“too many genes” is not how we know that humans are not descended from a single mating pair...

So enlighten me. In the metaphor of a genetic bottleneck, what is the ketchup, if not the number and variety of genes?

My examples were intended to illustrate that in practice, it is not possible to exclude religious ideas from the science class.

An instructor may be an “authoritarian” - he may refuse to address such questions on the grounds that he’s the teacher and what he says and doesn’t say goes and besides, this is science class - but I doubt anyone wants instructors like that.

I want an instructor in science class to teach science. Not facts, not life skills, but the scientific paradigm. You know, the primacy of evidence, the tentative and uncertain nature of fact, the methodology: the way of knowing.

I want the instructor to promulgate “a mental model as congruent with reality as possible.” That means I want “atheists… who… share the goal of using a science classroom as a podium for preaching their [scientific] views to a captive audience.” That’s what a science teacher SHOULD do.

And inevitably such teaching will conflict with contra-factual beliefs and delusions. A science teacher should have no qualms about flatly contradicting such assertions, no matter how popular, no matter how “socially sanctioned.”

harold said:

phhht said: So enlighten me. In the metaphor of a genetic bottleneck, what is the ketchup, if not the number and variety of genes?

Some organisms have many more genes than other organisms. Humans have more genes that fruit flies, for example. However, any species can experience a bottleneck, regardless of number of genes. A bottleneck usually occurs because there are very few mating individuals in a population. From a genetic perspective, this means there are very few alleles per locus. For example, a single mating pair of diploid organisms such as humans possesses at most four alleles per locus between them. In practice one or the other will be homozygote at many loci, and they will share alleles at many loci.

It will be useful in taking a second look at science and religion to understand the true nature of the search for objective truth. Science is not just another enterprise like medicine or enginerering or theology. It is the wellspring of all the knowledge we have of the real world that can be tested and fitted to preexisting knowledge. It is the arsenal of technologies and inferential mathematics needed to distinguish the true from the false. It formulates the principles and formulas that tie all this knowledge together. Science belongs to everybody. Its constituent parts can be challenged by anybody in the world who has sufficient information to do so. It is not just ‘another way of knowing’ as often claimed, making it coequal with religious faith. The conflict between scientific knowledge and the teachings of organized religions is irreconcilable. The chasm will continue to widen and cause no end of trouble as long as religious leaders go on making unsupportable claims about supernatural causes of reality.

– E. O. Wilson

Totally false. Scientific ideas are not religious ideas.

No-one recommended anything like this. It is perfectly possible to teach science, in a responsive way, without discussing religious dogma.

Questions - Suppose a science teacher did a good job teaching students the scientific paradigm, but was privately a moderate, liberal Christian. 1) Do you believe that the teacher’s employer should be allowed to question them about religious beliefs? 2) Would you support firing the teacher solely for not being an atheist? These are serious questions, please answer them is a serious, non-ambiguous manner.

Scott F said:

harold said:

phhht said: So enlighten me. In the metaphor of a genetic bottleneck, what is the ketchup, if not the number and variety of genes?

Some organisms have many more genes than other organisms. Humans have more genes that fruit flies, for example. However, any species can experience a bottleneck, regardless of number of genes. A bottleneck usually occurs because there are very few mating individuals in a population. From a genetic perspective, this means there are very few alleles per locus. For example, a single mating pair of diploid organisms such as humans possesses at most four alleles per locus between them. In practice one or the other will be homozygote at many loci, and they will share alleles at many loci.

Google "cheetah population bottleneck"

phhht said: It will be useful in taking a second look at science and religion to understand the true nature of the search for objective truth. Science is not just another enterprise like medicine or enginerering or theology. It is the wellspring of all the knowledge we have of the real world that can be tested and fitted to preexisting knowledge. It is the arsenal of technologies and inferential mathematics needed to distinguish the true from the false. It formulates the principles and formulas that tie all this knowledge together. Science belongs to everybody. Its constituent parts can be challenged by anybody in the world who has sufficient information to do so. It is not just ‘another way of knowing’ as often claimed, making it coequal with religious faith. The conflict between scientific knowledge and the teachings of organized religions is irreconcilable. The chasm will continue to widen and cause no end of trouble as long as religious leaders go on making unsupportable claims about supernatural causes of reality. – E. O. Wilson

Flint said:

Totally false. Scientific ideas are not religious ideas.

This sounds like a misunderstanding. Religions and scientific ideas can overlap to the point where neary ANY idea is both scientific and religious. I think the teacher's goal is to make it clear (by focusing on the science) that these ideas are not entirely and exclusively religious.

No-one recommended anything like this. It is perfectly possible to teach science, in a responsive way, without discussing religious dogma.

No, of course it isn't. When the student comes in convinced that the science is actually religion, any discussion of science no matter how determinedly scientific, is going to be heard and interpreted as religious commentary. Not the teacher's fault, but still unavoidable. Galileo wasn't punished for focusing strictly on the science, even though that's what he did.

Questions - Suppose a science teacher did a good job teaching students the scientific paradigm, but was privately a moderate, liberal Christian. 1) Do you believe that the teacher’s employer should be allowed to question them about religious beliefs? 2) Would you support firing the teacher solely for not being an atheist? These are serious questions, please answer them is a serious, non-ambiguous manner.

In a private parochial school, yes. In a public school, no. I think this is an important distinction, because it highlights the organizational and administrative importance of the teaching environment. Parochial school teachers are ALSO hired to teach science. The slant they put on it matters.

Neither Galileo’s scientific ideas, nor any other scientific ideas, are religious in nature.

Simply because some fool claims that some aspect of scientific reality contradicts their arbitrary religious beliefs, does not make the scientific idea religious.

If it does, all scientific ideas are simultaneously religious, because some jackass could always come along and invent a religious belief that contradicts any scientific idea.

harold said: Neither Galileo's scientific ideas, nor any other scientific ideas, are religious in nature. Simply because some fool claims that some aspect of scientific reality contradicts their arbitrary religious beliefs, does not make the scientific idea religious. If it does, all scientific ideas are simultaneously religious, because some jackass could always come along and invent a religious belief that contradicts any scientific idea.

Why... Europe had to wait nineteen centuries for actual calculus, differential geometry, and analysis is a very long story... The most efficient cause, though, was Aristotle, whose influence of course not only survived Rome but also reached new heights with the spread of Christianity and the Church from like 500-1300CE. To boil it all the way down, Aristotelian doctrine became Church dogma, and part of Aristotelian doctrine was the dismissal of Inf as only potential, an abstract fiction, and sower of confusion, to apieron, the province of God alone, etc. This basic view predominated up to the Elizabethan era.

-- David Foster Wallace (where Inf is the infinity symbol)

Scott F said:

harold said: Neither Galileo's scientific ideas, nor any other scientific ideas, are religious in nature. Simply because some fool claims that some aspect of scientific reality contradicts their arbitrary religious beliefs, does not make the scientific idea religious. If it does, all scientific ideas are simultaneously religious, because some jackass could always come along and invent a religious belief that contradicts any scientific idea.

I don't have any disagreement with your general thesis. I'm not an historian, so I may have this wrong, but my understanding (recently augmented through various popular science media) is that Galileo did not just stick to the science, but very specifically was trying to stick the Catholic Church in the eye, by drawing explicit boundaries between religious teachings and observations of the real world: "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". Obviously no one can know for sure, but my guess is that if Galileo really had stuck to the science as Copernicus had, then he wouldn't have drawn the ire of the Church any more than Copernicus had. But we also wouldn't still be talking about him today in the way that we are, which (if I understand correctly) was his point. Galileo was trying to make a name for himself. And he did. A recently viewed National Geographic show pointed out (to the effect that), when Galileo's book was banned by the Church, it became an instant hit and a must-read for the intelligentsia of the day. While Galileo's ideas are primarily scientific, his expression of them was not. Picking Galileo as a poster boy for sticking to scientific ideas and avoiding controversy with religion is, perhaps, a poor choice of historic figure.

Damn, thought I read that - humans CANNOT reproduce via parthogenesis. Turkeys do.

Galileo's Two New Sciences was in certain respects one long raspberry at
the Inquisition, whose treatment of G.G. is infamous. Part of this agenda was to have the dialogue's straight man act as a spokesman for Aristotelian metaphysics and Church credenda and to have his more enlightened partner slap him around intellectually. One of the main targets is Aristotle's ontological division of Inf into actual and potential, which the Church has morphed into the doctrine that only God is Actually Infinite and nothing else in His creation can be.

-- David Foster Wallace (where Inf is the infinity symbol)

I know what Edmund O Wilson thought, and I'm aware of the history regarding Galileo. What do you think, phhht? Can a religious theist successfully teach science, specifically a biology class, or not?

Empedocles claimed that light had a finite speed ca. 490 BCE. In 1629, Isaac Beeckman proposed an experiment to measure the speed of light. By 1638, the time of Galileo's experiment, the idea of measuring the speed of light was in wide circulation. It was not original with Galileo.

Dave Luckett said: What do you think, phhht? Can a religious theist successfully teach science, specifically a biology class, or not?

Dave Luckett said: Can a religious theist successfully teach science, specifically a biology class, or not?

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: Can a religious theist successfully teach science, specifically a biology class, or not?

Does your religious theist contend that all modern human beings are descended from a single man and woman, within the last ten thousand years? Does your religious theist say that demons cause disease, and that gods cure them, miraculously? Does your religious theist seriously assert the biological possibility that a man, dead three days, could rise from the grave to live again?

Dave Luckett said:

Dave Luckett said: Can a religious theist successfully teach science, specifically a biology class, or not?

phhht said: Does your religious theist contend that all modern human beings are descended from a single man and woman, within the last ten thousand years? Does your religious theist say that demons cause disease, and that gods cure them, miraculously? Does your religious theist seriously assert the biological possibility that a man, dead three days, could rise from the grave to live again?

No, generally no, and yes. I answered your questions. Do you think you might return the favour?

No, phhht. He says, "No, I don't believe in zombies," and he says that with complete truth and conviction. He also honestly says, "I do believe that it is possible for a God to suspend natural law and raise a man from the dead by a miracle. But we are here to study natural law, not what God can do. Let's get on with it."

He does this without evasion, hypocrisy or dishonesty, and may go on to teach science successfully.

Well, technically he believes that his god (NT version) raised a demigod from the dead. Whether this requires a miracle depends on the operational definition of demigods.

Dave Luckett said: No, phhht. He says, "No, I don't believe in zombies," and he says that with complete truth and conviction. He also honestly says, "I do believe that it is possible for a God to suspend natural law and raise a man from the dead by a miracle. But we are here to study natural law, not what God can do. Let's get on with it." He does this without evasion, hypocrisy or dishonesty, and may go on to teach science successfully.

No, phhht. The definition of "zombie" is "dead body reanimated", not "living person". We have established only that you think that the imputation of a word is the same as arguing against a concept. The concept is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead by divine Will, through a miracle. Argue against the concept all you like, but please don't try to make out that calling an idea by a disagreeable name is an argument against it. "Zombie" is only a word; your word.

Look, I'll help you out. Here's an actual argument against the concept:

Technically, Christians (well, mostly) say that Jesus was God in person, not a demigod, which of course involves an obvious logical bind. If he was God, then by definition he can't die, and therefore can't have been raised, and the whole idea of vicarious atonement by his sacrifice goes down the tubes. The religion long ago gave up trying to explain this, and retreated into a series of flat assertions about the nature of Christ that are internally inconsistent, and then insisting that God can do whatever he wants.

So I reject that concept, on the grounds of its internal inconsistency. But to reject the idea that the dead can be fully resurrected to life by divine miracle, I'd have to demonstrate that there is no divinity and no miracles. I can't do that, even if I don't actually believe it, citing lack of objective, empirical evidence. But I don't know everything, and neither does anyone else, and I could be wrong.

What I do say is what is actually attested by empirical evidence, from ASAT scores: it is possible for theists, and for mainstream orthodox Christian theists, successfully to teach science.

So Mr Theist says to Johnny, "I don't believe in zombies because zombies are dead bodies reanimated, and Christ was - well yes, he was dead, bodily, and reanimated - but he was living! Not like all those other zombies!"

See why I say this guy can't teach science?

No.

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: Can a religious theist successfully teach science, specifically a biology class, or not?

Does your religious theist contend that all modern human beings are descended from a single man and woman, within the last ten thousand years? Does your religious theist say that demons cause disease, and that gods cure them, miraculously? Does your religious theist seriously assert the biological possibility that a man, dead three days, could rise from the grave to live again?

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: Can a religious theist successfully teach science, specifically a biology class, or not?

Does your religious theist contend that all modern human beings are descended from a single man and woman, within the last ten thousand years? Does your religious theist say that demons cause disease, and that gods cure them, miraculously? Does your religious theist seriously assert the biological possibility that a man, dead three days, could rise from the grave to live again?

phhht said: So Mr Theist says to Johnny, "I don't believe in zombies because zombies are dead bodies reanimated, and Christ was - well yes, he was dead, bodily, and reanimated - but he was living! Not like all those other zombies!" See why I say this guy can't teach science?