Why?

[Winstonm]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20110128_16_A15_CUTLIN39811

[hotShot]

Lawyers have little respect towards laws, they believe that there will be a loophole in their favor.

 

They should be taught that this attitude is wrong regarding the laws (and principles) of nature.

 

But then, they could get a jury to make the decision ........

[kenberg]

Kern's House Bill 1551, called the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, says students cannot be penalized for subscribing "to a particular position on scientific theories."

[/Quote]

 

Properly interpreted, this could be a great policy from the student's viewpoint. Perhaps E really is m c cubed. Who is to say a person is wrong? Water molecules have two oxygen atoms and one hydrogen atom. It's my position, I have a right to it.

 

I suppose most everyone knows of "the Indiana Pi bill":

A Bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the Legislature of 1897.

 

It was withdrawn, but it had its supporters. But then, I think Andy Warhol was a scam artist (scam is a new school of art) even though advanced thinkers tell me that this is just due to my ignorance. So go figure. I don't like Glee either. Don't punish me for my position. Remember, F equals mb, not ma.

[blackshoe]

"I didn't penalize him, I gave him the grade he earned: F." :lol:

[barmar]

Can students get out of speeding tickets if they "don't subscribe" to the Doppler Effect?

[Winstonm]

Brecheen...said in an e-mail that "legislators have a responsibility to ensure state-supported classroom instruction is factual so, concerning evolution, ... we must fully educate using all confirmed scientific discoveries."

 

The relevant fact is that this guy hates evolution, and the confirmed discovery is that he wants creationism taught instead.

[PassedOut]

From the link in the OP:

 

But Kern's and Brecheen's bills state that they are not intended to promote a religious viewpoint.

What's interesting to me is that people like Kern and Brecheen (following the example of St. Peter on Good Friday) are perfectly willing to deny their religious beliefs when expedient.

 

Honest people will say, "I don't believe evolution simply because it contradicts my religious beliefs." And that's fine with me and with most folks. We can move on to another topic.

 

But honesty won't get Kern and Brecheen past the first amendment, so dishonesty takes over. What kind of religion requires dishonesty to advance its agenda? The US educational system needs a great deal of improvement, not more of this chipping away at quality.

[nigel_k]

The curriculum is just made up by some bureaucrat somewhere and it's perfectly proper for elected representatives to legislate to change it. The actual legislation is silly of course, but that's because it's based on false beliefs, not because it violates the first amendment or is unprincipled for some other reason.

[kenberg]

My question really is about the electorate. Aren't the voters at least a little embarrassed to be represented by these two? There will always be such people, nothing to be done about that, but you don't have to vote for them.

[Winstonm]

My question really is about the electorate. Aren't the voters at least a little embarrassed to be represented by these two? There will always be such people, nothing to be done about that, but you don't have to vote for them.

 

 

I think the answer to this question came in last year's Gallup poll.

 

And a brand-new Gallup poll tied to Darwin's birthday finds that just 39% of Americans believe in evolution.

As expected, Gallup notes, education plays a big role here: 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution. That's compared with only 21% of high school grads (or those with less education) who believe in the theory.

 

Ditto religion: 55% who don't attend church believe in evolution, versus 24% of weekly churchgoers who believe in it.

 

One thing troubling to me about this poll - why would you frame the question as one of belief? Evolution by natural selection is not a belief system but a rational explanation of how speciation may have occured - it is supposed to be understood, not believed.

 

And yes, Ken, I am embarrassed by my Okie roots.

[blackshoe]

A religious might say then that one may understand the theory of evolution, while rejecting it as a correct explanation because it contradicts an article of faith.

[hotShot]

Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer asked 926 biology teachers at american high schools and only 28% teach that there is proof for evolution while 14-21% favored creationism and ID.

 

What do teachers actually teach? The authors estimate that 14-21 % of teachers unconstitutionally endorse creationism in the classroom, while others find ways to undermine the theory of evolution or avoid teaching it entirely. Their Science article estimates that 28 % teach evolution according to recognized standards, whereas the remaining ~60 % are cautious for various reasons, not least their own failure to understand evolution themselves.

 

http://pandasthumb.o...ontrols-am.html

[luke warm]

One thing troubling to me about this poll - why would you frame the question as one of belief? Evolution by natural selection is not a belief system but a rational explanation of how speciation may have occured - it is supposed to be understood, not believed.

so should the poll have been worded "do you understand evolution?"

[PassedOut]

I think the answer to this question came in last year's Gallup poll.

And a brand-new Gallup poll tied to Darwin's birthday finds that just 39% of Americans believe in evolution.

As expected, Gallup notes, education plays a big role here: 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution. That's compared with only 21% of high school grads (or those with less education) who believe in the theory.

Clearly the dumbing down of high school has been a disaster, but 74% with post-graduate degrees is a very poor showing also.

[kenberg]

What teachers should and do teach is a tricky matter. Myself, I never had a problem with teachers inserting their own beliefs from time to time. My high school chemistry teacher believed that colds were caused not by germs but by stress. My hs psychology professor told us that no young woman was truly happy engaging in sex if she was not married. One of my English teachers in hs was of the opinion that modern authors mostly wrote dirty books. Moving forward in time, my yoga instructor speaks as if she believes in fairies. I have never quite worked out if she is serious. She probably agrees with my hs chem teacher about colds.

 

We all have to learn to think for ourselves and school should encourage this. Still, quantum mechanics, relativity, the helio-centric solar system, and evolution are all real, astrology is quackery, and if a teacher wants to say s/he believes otherwise s/he owes the students an acknowledgment that his/her beliefs are in opposition to essentially universal scientific consensus. George Washington did not confess to his father that he had chopped down a cherry tree and no matter how nice a story it is, it still isn't true. Neither is the Biblical story of creation, at least not if taken word for word literally. In my experience, very few religious people maintain that it is.

[Winstonm]

There are not many who when pressed subscribe to a literal 24-hour day interpretation of the creation story. There are quite a few, though, who accept a god's-hour type timeline. And then there are also those who accept a god-directed evolutionary process.

 

But who are the ones attacking the teaching of evolution and what is the motivation? If there were genuine flaws in the science and genuine concerns that would be one thing, but what is occuring is an ideological-based attack. In one of the quotes, one of these Okie lawmakers states that evolution is religion - and this has been the thrust of the Discovery Institute and anti-Darwin crowd for years, now, a drive not to elevate creationism and Intelligent Design to the level of a science, but to lower scientific theory to the level of belief system.

 

This is why you hear so many times, it's only a theory, it's not 100% proven, yada, yada, yadi - all attempts to compare what they assume is belief to belief.

 

The only thing I can determine is that those who attack evolution in this manner are fearful that science will undermine belief, so the best way to protect beliefs is to eliminate the threat.

 

But if belief is so tenuous, is it really worth saving?

[Winstonm]

so should the poll have been worded "do you understand evolution?"

 

If the poll wanted to know about belief then it was worded correctly. The only thing that concerns me is that the creationists' assertion that evolution "is only a theory", making scientific theory appear equal to belief claims that are accepted or rejected based on emotive personal reasons rather than evidentiary procedures, has stealthily seeped into society's consciousness, and thus into the polls.

[kenberg]

Really most people, including myself, have no direct basis for discussing evolution. Or quantum mechanics. Or Freudian psychology.

 

This matters. If a Gallup person were to ask me "Do you believe in quantum mechanics?" I would regard it as a pretty weird question. I am aware of the scientific theory, I have a general trust in the scientific method, I am not prepared to debate the issue with a professional nay-sayer who will plop down all sorts of objections I have never considered. Possibly a more productive question would be "If scientific opinion is in conflict with your religious faith, which way do you jump?".

[Gerben42]

Asking "do you believe in evolution" is a trick question and is geared towards people answering "no" as it feels like "do you believe in evolution OR do you believe in god". And only a minority of Americans would like themselves being portrayed as someone who would not believe in god.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been tested and re-tested and tested again and it works great. At least for quantum mechanics there is a case that it clashes with relativity where both meet.

 

What evolution and quantum mechanics have in common: Both scientific theories are well-tested and for both the consequences can be profound. That's life. Denying it doesn't make it go away.

 

Galileo probably didn't LIKE having to tell those in command that the Earth wasn't the centre of everything, but he did the correct thing and stick with what he observed and not with what he was told that should be true.

 

Denying what you can readily observe to be true is lying to yourself, and lying is a sin in Christian theology. Therefore, if you are a Christian, it seems to me that denying evolution is a sin.

 

But normally if a non-Christian points this out, this is not well-received. So from me an appeal to those who CAN reach the Creationists to convince them to stop lying to themselves.

[Winstonm]

So are the polls purposefully skewing results with this subtle poisoning of the well?

[mycroft]

Again, "do you believe in evolution?" is not the question most people answer when they hear it.

 

Yes, I believe in evolution - I've seen it happen; I've done the fruit fly experiment, and I've seen the "white moth/black moth" thing. What else can I say, except "I believe in evolution the way I believe in black ice - it happens"?

I believe in evolution-caused speciation - I haven't seen it, but I have read enough of the literature of those who have to believe that they're not faking *all of it*.

 

Do I believe that evolution is the cause of *all* speciation on Earth? Well, that's an interesting question. I'm weird, and tend to believe in God the Tester and/or God the Experimenter; yes, that puts me in stress with more mainstream Christians (of the leftie persuasion, at least - I want to scream the bible reading we had this week at the more rightie types that seem to be in power in the States). So I'm very willing to believe in "let's set physics to work *this way* in this universe, and see what happens". Is that the same thing as the original question? In theory, no. In practise, yes.

 

So, shorter me: "Fact: evolution happens. Fact: evolution can cause speciation. Theory: evolution has caused all speciation in nature, now and formerly. That theory has not been disproven. Other theories account for all the facts; Occam's razor cuts them, though. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. Oh, and in Science class, you do science. If you don't do science, you fail. Your choice."

[kenberg]

So are the polls purposefully skewing results with this subtle poisoning of the well?

 

Imagine the above as a poll question: Do you believe that the polls purposefully skewing results with this subtle poisoning of the well? My answer is naw.

 

Try it differently: Do you believe that this poll question adequately measures the public attitude toward evolution? Again, no.

 

Most people I know have come to some sort of reasonably comfortable resting place, on one side or the other, concerning the existence of God. Often they have little interest one way or the other in evolution.

 

So any poll that really tries to determine public attitude towards evolution should include an option such as "Haven't thought about it at all and don't intend to". The usual "No opinion" doesn't quite do it. "No opinion" sounds wimpy."Don't give a rat's" would often be closer to the truth.

[barmar]

FWhat's interesting to me is that people like Kern and Brecheen (following the example of St. Peter on Good Friday) are perfectly willing to deny their religious beliefs when expedient.

 

They're not denying their beliefs, just denying that they're trying to proselytize.

 

They're not hypocrytes or flip-floppers, they're just liars.

[barmar]

What evolution and quantum mechanics have in common: Both scientific theories are well-tested and for both the consequences can be profound. That's life. Denying it doesn't make it go away.

Where they differ is that quantum mechanics has little effect on one's self image, or view of man's place in the universe. People like to believe that there's something special about us (we're "made in God's image"), and evolution's explanation that we're just the result of lucky accidents contradicts this. On the other hand, being made up of quarks has little impact on this.

 

The possibility of evoution creates cognitive dissonance, quantum mechanics doesn't. When you have cognitive dissonance, a deeply held belief will prevent you from believing the conflicting concept, no matter how convincing the evidence is when viewed logically. The brain is good at manufacturing excuses around this.

[Winstonm]

The more I learn and understand about how and why humans hold irrational beliefs, the less harshly I judge others as irrational actors - until an attempt is made to impose personal beliefs on others.

 

In that sense, I can find no other explanation for the "Why?" question in this topic heading than to answer because they want to impose their personal beliefs as a fundamentally correct interpretation of reality and how reality functions.

 

But in that same sense, how is an attempt to impose a creationist belief fundamentally different between the Christian creationist lawmaker introducing a creationist bill and the Islamic Mullah ordering prayer in schools 5 times a day? Either way, it seems to me an attempt to alter the perception of reality based on an individual's or group's-in-power belief system.