American Federation of Teachers Statement on President Bush’s Comments on Intelligent

[AlanFromWichita]

As it is, I think most people just grab onto a side, and to the degree they can regurgitate the mantras of that side of the argument, is whether they dare open their mouths about it in mixed company.

As a pro-life conservative politician amongst many hard core protestant Republicans, especially in Kansas infamous for leading the aggressiveness in this debate, I can tell you this. Many of those who weild political power on both sides of the issue behave like total fools, and very little dialog actually takes place. Debates are more like scripted arguments from a telephone salesperson. Nobody seems to want to use their own brain on the issue, lest they be found wanting I guess so they pick their heroes and try to mimick whatever they say, their own personal convictions so vague as to be nonexistent.

Alan

 

[BLB_Oregon]

jman507:

It may not seem like it fall under the purpose of ‘science.’ But I think there is a further question of what is the purpose of education. It would be excellent if there was a philosphy course required, but its not going to be there in high school. There must be something there that connects with everything else. What is the point of teaching someone something, if you don’t also teach someone what it’s purpose is, and the limations of it.

If you teach the topics of science, but not the thinking that is required to do science, then you are not teaching science. If you are not even going to require the intellectual discipline required of scientists in science class, then where? Is there going to be no place in the curriculum that insists on more than opinion, conjecture, and wishful thinking?

The power of science is in the intellectual limitations it imposes, the structure of argument that it requires. Science and mathematics work are a logical framework from which the natural world can be explored with imagination and curiosity without getting lost talking to ourselves, about ourselves.

Education is in the drawing out of the mind by intellectual disciplines. You cannot re-draw the discipline of science to accomodate the wishes of politics. You end up misrepresenting the entire enterprise.

Do scientists lose their objectivity? Of course they do. They even do it just because they so much want a beautifully elegant idea to be true… in my limited experience, in fact, that is the most common reason. But that pitfall is the scientific equivalent of a deadly sin. It taints thinking and blinds inquiry.

The antidote to the inobjectivity of scientists stuck in the thinking of the status quo is not to allow the scientists wishing for change their own portion of the deadly draught. It is to return objectivity and scientific rigor to the debate. If there is evidence that evolutionists have lost their objectivity, the antidote is to combat that within a scientific framework, not to drag in an equal amount of wishful thinking from the other direction.

That this whole question is debated in sound bites is a symptom of the lack of intellectual rigor in our political debates in general. We require very little of the rhetoric of politics these days, except that it not offend our preconceptions nor tax our attention spans. Dragging a half-baked opinion into science class as if it merited equal consideration with ideas that, although imperfect, have true scholarly merit isn’t going to help that.

So yes, teach the limitations of science. But don’t teach as established theory that which is at this point still just an interesting question.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Of course, by the time it filters down through the teachers’ unions, I wonder what form it’s going to take.

How much you wanna bet if this gets implemented it will go to the Supreme Court?

Alan

 

[jman507]

BLB_Oregon:

So yes, teach the limitations of science. But don’t teach as established theory that which is at this point still just an interesting question.

All this is a very nice quote. Which is why I’m saying teach that in science class. If there are reasons why ID is not on equal footing with evolution teach why. Or do you prefer having to revisite the arguement every few years? Evolution might be a week 26 topic, but why cannot one go back and make a connection to a week 1 topic?

I’m not saying teaching this would be science. I’m saying that this is the philosphy of science. Sure the philosphy of science may not have the same rigor of science, but what good is science if one does not understand it’s purpose and limations?

If one says that one that science has no connection to anything in the supernatural, that can only be made with faith, which is going to get you outside the area of science. One can say natural selection, but if there is a connection between what we can know by faith and reason, it could be a supernatural selection too.

If one is teaching a biology class, that class will touch on all kinds of subjects. It’ll require a little chemistry, a little physics, a little language (especially if you write reports), a little philosphy, and heck for that matter a little ethics. One doesn’t need to delve deeply into those subjects, just enough to make what you need to teach shown in the proper light. One doesn’t say this isn’t an English class, just make up your own grammer rules. Things must be consistant. Hopefully they will pick up a deeper knowledge of the subject in other classes.

Look if your getting frustrated you see the differance between the science of evolution and ID, but other people don’t see the differance. Perhaps part of the problem is that the educators have not taught about it. We want to keep “science in science and religion and religion.” But does science stop once it becomes religion class? Some might say yes, but Catholisim says no. (Thats a qustion of philosphy and theology, of course that delves into a little science too) But if people are confused I propose that its because we have done little to draw out where those connections are and where those connections are not.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Karin:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 – The following is a statement by Antonia Cortese, executive vice president, American Federation of Teachers, on President Bush’s Comments that ’Intelligent Design’ should be taught in the nation’s science classrooms: …

thank God someone is fighting for our nation and standing up to this nonsense
Can you belive that the president would say such a thing? You would think Harvard would do a little better at teaching basic science

I know votes are important to him but selling out our future this way.

the national center for science education is objecting too

 

[BLB_Oregon]

jman507:

All this is a very nice quote. Which is why I’m saying teach that in science class. If there are reasons why ID is not on equal footing with evolution teach why…
…
If one says that one that science has no connection to anything in the supernatural, that can only be made with faith, which is going to get you outside the area of science. One can say natural selection, but if there is a connection between what we can know by faith and reason, it could be a supernatural selection too.
…
One doesn’t say this isn’t an English class, just make up your own grammer rules. Things must be consistant. Hopefully they will pick up a deeper knowledge of the subject in other classes.
…
Look if your getting frustrated you see the differance between the science of evolution and ID, but other people don’t see the differance. Perhaps part of the problem is that the educators have not taught about it. We want to keep “science in science and religion and religion.” But does science stop once it becomes religion class?

It is entirely within the curriculum to teach what are and what are not scientificly allowed lines of argument, and to do so throughout the course, over and over. Absolutely. Using the “theory of the day” is a fine way to do it, should the teacher decide to do that.

But when you are in Spanish class, you don’t insist on English grammar. You may spend a little time explaining why a common mistake is made by English speakers who are learning Spanish, or how English has parallels in Spanish, but you don’t require that comparison to be made part of the standard curriculum.

The bone of contention here is the requirement to present ID alongside evolution… and I think we may be safe in saying that the legislative intention is not that ID suffer in the comparison.

Use as an example cold fusion. Experiments purporting to demonstrate cold fusion actually showed up in the scientific literature. ID isn’t even that far. Cold fusion has since been discredited. So look back and ask yourself, “Should the legislature have gotten involved and *required *that cold fusion or any other largely unsubstantiated hypothesis be presented as part of the science curriculum?” I hope the answer is obvious.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Steve Andersen:

thank God someone is fighting for our nation and standing up to this nonsense
Can you belive that the president would say such a thing? You would think Harvard would do a little better at teaching basic science

I know votes are important to him but selling out our future this way.

the national center for science education is objecting too

A. Didn’t the President attend Yale?

B. Although science is usually a requirement for graduation, regardless of major, biology usually isn’t.

C. Much of today’s molecular biology and paleontology was not even dreamt of when Mr. Bush was in college.

D. Mr. Bush does not report having been an exemplary student, in any case.

Conclusion: Don’t be so quick to blame his alma mater. With the responsibility to be a life-long learner on his shoulders, this choice is on the President’s head.

 

[Adonis33]

BLB_Oregon:

A. Didn’t the President attend Yale?

B. Although science is usually a requirement for graduation, regardless of major, biology usually isn’t.

C. Much of today’s molecular biology and paleontology was not even dreamt of when Mr. Bush was in college.

D. Mr. Bush does not report having been an exemplary student, in any case.

Conclusion: Don’t be so quick to blame his alma mater. With the responsibility to be a life-long learner on his shoulders, this choice is on the President’s head.

President Bush earned his undergrad at Yale - and his Masters at Harvard.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Adonis33:

President Bush earned his undergrad at Yale - and his Masters at Harvard.

I would think that the only thing like biology that you get at Harvard Busines School is economic Darwinism, if that. (But then, I’m stuck back in the days when business had a reputation as an activity that primarily used the reptilian brain.)

 

[Karin]

AlanFromWichita:

What are you talking about? Who attributed this letter to you? I thought you were just showing it to us.

I didn’t see any particular sympathy for Bush, or antipathy for you, except that when I quoted that one part of the article I forgot to edit the quote thing and it showed by you. It might have given the impression that the part of the article I was bashing was written by you, to the relatively careless thread reader.

I voted for Bush. I was precinct committeeperson and walked the precinct handing out his campaign materials door to door. I am not pleased with some of his actions, and if he thinks ID is scientifically established then I must be misinformed or he is. I thought is was a purely speculative layer thrown on to of evolution in an attempt to make it more palatable to creationists, in an attempt to maximize votes. That’s all without knowing specifics, of course.

I have not seen any opinions from you, other than the one that “you people” cannot read. Perhaps you would like to opine on the article, or if we’re not coming through with the discussion you hoped to hear, guide us into it. Speaking for myself, I was not intended to either bash you or support you because you have not said anything to bash or support.

Alan

Alan-
Once again I really have to apologize for myself. I read the post I quoted one way and it was meant in a totally different way…it also did not help that I was having an argument with my ex-husband…so I aplogize for biting peoples heads off and simply being rude!
-Karin

 

[Brad]

Steve Andersen:

thank God someone is fighting for our nation and standing up to this nonsense
Can you belive that the president would say such a thing? You would think Harvard would do a little better at teaching basic science

I know votes are important to him but selling out our future this way.

the national center for science education is objecting too

Squashing dissent by ridiculling the intellect of the dissenter is a favorite pastime of Darwinians. It keeps the attention away from having to prove the theory of evolution and/or prove that the theory is benefical for shoolchildren to learn.

 

[Trelow]

Sucks for ya’lls kids. At least by home-schooling we can push our own political, social, moral, and religious agenda.

 

[wabrams]

Brad:

And now we see the major force behind keeping our kids in the dark. The very people responsible for teaching them. It is the secularlists that oppose God that start hyperventilating when any of their anti-God, pro-femminst, pro-liberal sex, pro-homosexual agendas are under attack by rationale thinking and praying persons.

This is demonstration of why our public schools need radical reform.

I believe intelligent design should be kept in the philosophy and the religion classes. Does this make me a liberal secularists?

 

[vluvski]

The push for teaching intelligent design seems to be a rather large step. How about we first start teaching the truth that the fossil record is far from complete enough to suggest that humans evolved from apes? Then move on to teach students about the documented situations that also don’t follow typical evolutionary science.

Many respectable scientists do believe in intelligent design. It is impossible to get a representative sample of scientists (from say, the national academy…) who believe intelligent design is plausible, let alone sound science, because so many scientists choose their career because they like the way it “disproves” the existence of God, or at least does not irrefutably prove his existence.

 

[Zerith]

Just on the issue of evolution. I attend a Catholic school. In my religion class, my science class, and over-all in general, I have been taught evolution.

Why, or even how, is there such controversy over it in America?

The Vincentian Order, which my school is run by, fully endorses the teaching of it. It’s not disputed by the Priests, religion teachers nor by the science teachers. (All of whom are Catholic, of course, if you teach in my school, you must teach through a Catholic ethos).

Tell me, then, has the Catholic Church suddenly gone “Anti-Religion”, then? No, of course not. Has my school just broken away from the teaching? No, of course not, every school teaches evolution, private, or public. Religious, or secular. No one has a problem, not the religion teachers, Priests nor science teachers, whether they’re religious (Most likely) or not.

I do believe, it’s just the difference in “Breed” of Christians between Europe and America. In America, we view them as more “Extreme” (No, not the crazy, “woo let’s kill/ourselves, in the name of God”, of course not), whereby it’s taken more literal (Though, we view it more so as Protestants). I.e. Creationalist Theory is more widely accepted amongst the religious, and most scientists are “g0m! religion 4 teh sux!1”. Here, they’re less distinct. Though, on the rest of Europe, while, of course, I’ve been there many times, I’d need to be a native from each country to be able to tell you.

It does not disprove anything about God, nor religion. Rather, that God created a much more, complicated, interesting and beautiful universe.

I do, firmly believe, that, yes, it IS a step backwards, but then, somehow, everything is controversial and complicated over there, must there be only two sides to everything? I mean, can you not even take a piss without being protested against? Of coruse, I do intend no offence, here.

 

[Brad]

wabrams:

I believe intelligent design should be kept in the philosophy and the religion classes. Does this make me a liberal secularists?

Only if you believe evolutionary theory should be continued to be pushed as fact in science class without mentioning Darwin’s own theological motivation.

If intelligent design and evolutionary theory were taught in philosophy class or “theoretical” class then we’d be ok.

 

[Brad]

vluvski:

The push for teaching intelligent design seems to be a rather large step. How about we first start teaching the truth that the fossil record is far from complete enough to suggest that humans evolved from apes? Then move on to teach students about the documented situations that also don’t follow typical evolutionary science.

Many respectable scientists do believe in intelligent design. It is impossible to get a representative sample of scientists (from say, the national academy…) who believe intelligent design is plausible, let alone sound science, because so many scientists choose their career because they like the way it “disproves” the existence of God, or at least does not irrefutably prove his existence.

The vast majority of evloutionary theory scientists that are opposed to intelligent design are opposed to it on the basis that it has no natural cause for the beginnings of a life form. In other words, it jumps outside of that which is natural. It sets limits on the natural.

I agree that we should teach the true about science, say when we don’t know something, and admit that what we can learn from the natural is limited. If this happened, there wouldn’t be as much of a push to teach Intelligent Design.

 

[Brad]

Zerith:

Just on the issue of evolution. I attend a Catholic school. In my religion class, my science class, and over-all in general, I have been taught evolution.

Why is this such an important topic to teach that it needs to be taught all over? Do you also learn math in religion class?

Zerith:

Why, or even how, is there such controversy over it in America?

Because a lot of the “facts” are far from proven but are so “religiously” accepted that even the “religous” will bend over backwards to make sure they are not seen as anti-science and continue to promote that which they have little or no factual knowledge regarding.

Zerith:

The Vincentian Order, which my school is run by, fully endorses the teaching of it. It’s not disputed by the Priests, religion teachers nor by the science teachers. (All of whom are Catholic, of course, if you teach in my school, you must teach through a Catholic ethos).

Many Catholics teach non-Catholic things. Some aspects of evolution can be accepted by Catholics. That does not mean they need to be promoted so heavily.

Zerith:

Tell me, then, has the Catholic Church suddenly gone “Anti-Religion”, then?

In many ways in America, yes.

Zerith:

Has my school just broken away from the teaching?

Don’t know. What else do they teach? Do they teach Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist? Do they teach Priest celibacy? Do they teach that the Pope is the authority of the Church in all doctrinal and moral matters? Do they teach that Genesis is a myth?

Zerith:

No, of course not, every school teaches evolution, private, or public. Religious, or secular. No one has a problem, not the religion teachers, Priests nor science teachers, whether they’re religious (Most likely) or not.

A great deal of scientists have a problem with the theory.

Zerith:

It does not disprove anything about God, nor religion. Rather, that God created a much more, complicated, interesting and beautiful universe.

This depends on which aspects of evolution are being taught and how it makes a statement regarding the truth of the Bible.

Zerith:

I do, firmly believe, that, yes, it IS a step backwards, but then, somehow, everything is controversial and complicated over there, must there be only two sides to everything? I mean, can you not even take a piss without being protested against? Of coruse, I do intend no offence, here.

What?

 

[Zerith]

Don’t know. What else do they teach? Do they teach Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist? Do they teach Priest celibacy? Do they teach that the Pope is the authority of the Church in all doctrinal and moral matters? Do they teach that Genesis is a myth?

Duh, you know why? My school’s Catholic run, and this is the entire Catholic view throughout not just Ireland, but Europe. With few exceptions.

This depends on which aspects of evolution are being taught and how it makes a statement regarding the truth of the Bible.

Truth? Do you think that the truth of the Bible is compromised THAT easily? No, there are no “Aspects” of evolution that ever contradict the truth of the Bible, only raise questions whether a PART of it is metaphorical, or what-not. Unless you’re weak in faith, you will not collapse under such theories, while, of course, on the opposite end of the scale, you have the “extremists” (Again, not in the “bad” way, but this is how all or most religious Americans are viewed) who just completely disagree with it, and refuse to listen to anything contrary to what they were taught.

And God help us, if, in Ireland, the Vincentian Order, over the last one hundred and sixty years (Ireland was very religious until 25-30 years ago, let alone one hundred! It still has strong Church - State relationships), turned out to be randomly teaching non-Catholic things - Think, next time, please, and don’t mis-quote me, add in the “Of course not”, next time.

Why is this such an important topic to teach that it needs to be taught all over? Do you also learn math in religion class?

Of course not. This does have relevence, showing how Genisis is more of a metaphor. While maths, (of course!) does not.
But many subjects are inter-twined. For example, in Geography, learning about plate tectonics, formation of the planet etc… But I do believe, there’s no need to prove the curvature of the Earth, or, do we? Well, I for one cannot say anything about a foreign country, like you did. For all I know, you’re taught otherwise, so do not jump to random conclusions about the Irish syllabi - Which, need I add, yet again, is very Catholic.

Many Catholics teach non-Catholic things. Some aspects of evolution can be accepted by Catholics. That does not mean they need to be promoted so heavily.

Not when they’re forced to by the Priests who run the school, also the Vincentian Order, and of course, the Bishops and Arch Bishop. (Not to mention the State, which over the last… Several hundred years, up to even present days, still has strong (Enough) Church-State relations to keep religious education to the standards of what the Church states - Ireland, if you like, has been an extension of the Church into politics, nothing up until the 1970s went against the Church, and many of those policies are still implimented)

The Irish Catholics, being regarded as the most religious in the world by Pope John Paul II, are obviously not going to allow teachings that damage the religion, if it did damage the religion and its teachings, then Ireland would’ve been the bastion defending the faith against it, with little opposition. Trust me… If the state did something remotely against the Church, it would pay… For an example, there was the “Mother and Child Scheme” during the '60s, I think it was, whereby Mothers and Children recieved free healthcare, the Church percieved this as against the family, and therefore, the Health Minister who proposed it, was quickly ousted, and his career ended.

I am not saying: “What you believe is wrong!1!”, rather, be realistic, this doesn’t disprove/damage the religion/teaching.

 

[Peter_Wright]

The difference between education and indoctrination is the purpose of education is to give people information and teach the how to think through it. The purpose of indoctrination is to give people information and tell them what to think about it. Public schools do not educate our kids, they indoctrinate them. If they were truely interested in education, they would give them all possible theories on universal genesis and allow the kids to think through them and come to their own conclussions.