PZ Myers. 2006 Jan 11. Philosophers, are you furious yet?. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/philosophers_are_you_furious_yet/>. Accessed 2006 Feb 13.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Philosophers, are you furious yet?

Since biologists have proven intractable, the next direction the IDists are going to take is to target other spots in the curriculum. Here's the comment that leapt out at me in an article on California creationism.

At a special meeting of the El Tejon Unified School District on Jan. 1, at which the board approved the new course, "Philosophy of Design," school Supt. John W. Wight said that he had consulted the school district's attorneys and that they "had told him that as long as the course was called 'philosophy,' " it could pass legal muster, according to the lawsuit.

Oh. So "philosophy" is the new dumping ground, the subject with no serious content, the one where you can safely present any ol' garbage and it still fits? Like the colloquial definition of "theory" (any guess), I suppose the new definition of "philosophy" is "idiots babbling".

Any doubts that this is a serious course in philosophy are dispelled by the description.

Philosophy of Intelligent Design: "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative response to evolution. Topics that wlll be covered are the age of the earth, a world wide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and geological evidence. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions. The class will include lecture discussions, guest speakers, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution."

How about the instructor's qualifications?

Name: Mrs. Sharon Lemburg
Department: Special Education
Brief Biography: B. A. Degree in Physical Education, Social Science: with emphasis in Sociology, Special Education
Class Description: Special Education
Club Advisor or Coach? Soccer and Softball

And then there's how the course will be taught…

Board members recommended changes to the original course plan, which included 24 videos - 19 of them supporting intelligent design. They also voiced concern over scientific issues in the class, such as the laws of thermodynamics and how fossil dating works.

One weblog has a complete list of the videos and speakers, and there is also an annotated breakdown of the course syllabus by one of the listed speakers for evolution (he was not asked nor did he consent; the other one who is, well, dead…and wasn't it a little presumptuous of the teacher to expect to get a Nobelist to drop in to her little school?) It's worse than you might think: 19 are creationist videos, 1 is about catastrophism, and the remaining four are of mysterious content.

So we have here a course "taught" by a soccer coach and special ed teacher who has no training in either science or philosophy, which will consist of day after day of the teacher queuing up creationist videos (I assume she is capable of running a VCR, but there is probably an A/V department in the school to help her if not), and she's going to teach the kids the evidence that the earth is ten thousand years old.

It's a good thing that the school district is being sued over this course.

With one exception, the suit asserts, "the course relies exclusively on videos that advocate religious perspectives and present religious theories as scientific ones — and because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of the presentation."

…

One of the parents, Kenneth Hurst, who has a doctorate in geology and is a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, said in court papers that the class "conflicts with my beliefs as a scientist. I believe this class undermines the sound scientific principles taught in Frazier Mountain High School's biology curriculum and is structured in a way that deprives my children of the opportunity to be presented with an objective education that would aid the development of their critical thinking skills."

Hurst, who has children in 10th and 12th grades, said the class also interfered with his personal religious views as a Quaker and "reflects a preference for fundamentalist Christianity over all other religious and scientific viewpoints."

That represents reasonable cause, but I think they're missing the most important justification of them all: we ought to have some expectation of competence and some standards of quality in our public school education. This course fails to meet even Sunday School standards of rigor. The school board rushed to have a meeting about it when parents complained about the conflict between religion and state, but they weren't doing their job when they initially approved it—I would be questioning what other dreck they've allowed to slide by.

Posted by PZ Myers on 01/11 at 09:41 AM
Creationism • 2 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
  1. I don't know what they teach in philosophy classes, but don't they ponder these kinds of questions about the origins of the universe already?
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  08:50 AM
  2. I have no problem with ID being in a philosophy or religion course. But I have often worried about how that would be executed...as in, would it not be possible for a teacher to just say "well, this is a comparative religion course BUT we're going to talk about the science of ID and why evolution is unscientific."

    I guess I have my answer.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  08:56 AM
  3. Evidence is mounting that IDists are just not too bright - they seem to think that changing a word is all that matters in the debate over the subject. Changing "creation" to "intelligent design" did not remove the religious content of the concept, and changing "science" to "philosophy" does not remove the science (however misrepresented and misunderstood that science is) from the class. What boggles my little mind is that they haven't learned this from the Dover ID trial results that the people who matter in the debate - scientists and judges - will in fact look at the content of the class and not the title in deciding what the subject actually is.

    did
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  09:02 AM
  4. I wonder how easy it would be to get an actual critical thinking or philosophy of science course approved for high school students. How could someone object to students learning to differentiate good ideas from bad ones?
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  09:23 AM
  5. This is exactly why we need Darwin's Rottweiler and people like him. I can't believe the interviewer from Discover painted Dawkins as being overly "aggressive". You've got to fight Ussher's Bulldogs with fire.
    #: Posted by Palmer  on  01/11  at  09:26 AM
  6. I suspect my brother'll have a lot to say about this. He's got a real philosophy degree, and he's fond of going on anti-ID rants.

    For trexmaster: As my brother put it, philosophy classes are essentially about learning how to think. (Critically.) They deal with logical fallacies, untangling paradoxes, and all that good stuff. They aren't supposed to be some hippy-trippy newage class where they pretend to contemplate zen koans.
    #: Posted by BronzeDog  on  01/11  at  09:27 AM
  7. As Ed Brayton points out, one of the supposed speakers - Francis Krich (sic) - is dead, and another - Hurst - hadn't agreed to be a speaker and wouldn't have if asked. As I've said before, it's a good thing creationists are so stupid.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  09:30 AM
  8. While I'm not opposed to discussion of Paleyism in a philosophical context, when they bring in scientific and biblical aspects of ID "theory", they've crossed the line. IMHO.
    #: Posted by moioci  on  01/11  at  09:37 AM
  9. I'm a PhD student/TA and I'd certainly consider bringing up ID in an intro to phil of sci or intro to critical thinking/logic. Insofar, that is, as it can be torn into as a wholesale violation of basic restrictions on (respectively) science and argument. (Note that I didn't say "good": I suspect that very few philosophical accounts of science would qualify ID as science at all, and I also suspect that very few philosophical accounts of arguments would qualify IDiots' nonsense as arguments at all.) The problem, of course, is that I'm Canadian and this issue has little to no traction here. So, I'd probably end up talking about alternative "medicine" for phil of sci, and something political in critical thinking/logic.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  09:46 AM
  10. "I wonder how easy it would be to get an actual critical thinking or philosophy of science course approved for high school students. How could someone object to students learning to differentiate good ideas from bad ones?"

    My high school had a philosophy of science class - I don't think that ID/evolution ever came up in it at the time (although I'm sure it does now!) - but the first assignment was to find the wonkiest tabloid lunacy we could find and debunk it, in terms of falsifiability, parsimony, etc.

    It was a fun class. (And I'd love to hear what the teacher had to say about ID, given his snarky style and disgust with the non-scientific.)
    #: Posted by mangala  on  01/11  at  09:47 AM
  11. NPR ran a piece about this on Morning Edition. Casey Luskin got tons of air time. It was as if he filed the segment himself. Very terrible reporting.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  09:50 AM
  12. ADR, I'm reminded of the proximate cause of the fall of stockwell "doris" day....
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  09:51 AM
  13. NPR now stands for "Neutered Public Relations" since the Republicans took it over. I now think the canning of Bob Edwards was political, as he would not have stood for such insipid "reporting" as Luskin's.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:04 AM
  14. As a philosophy, yeah, I'm furious.

    This doesn't sound like a philosophy class, though. It sounds like a science class using bad data to prove a bullshit conclusion.

    PZ, as I'm sure you know, we philosophers have the same problem with "philosophy" that you have with "theory." People tend to think that "philosophy" means "my opinion" just as they think "theory" means the same (as opposed to, in both cases, the terms implying specific methodologies). So the class title really just says

    "My opinion about intelligent design"
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:05 AM
  15. I'm a philosopher, and I teach sections on either the argument from design or creationism almost every semester. Of course, my classes look nothing like this bozo's. In my intro class I teach Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in which one character proposes the argument from design and another refutes it. (And the refutation doesn't rely on Darwin, who hadn't even been born yet.) I also teach Boethius and the medieval a priori proofs of the existence of God. I never express my views on the existence of God. With Hume in the mix, I don't have to.

    I also teach creationism in lower level philosophy of science classes, under the heading "marginal science," alongside astrology, alternative medicine, UFOology, etc.

    So the problem with Lemburg's class isn't that it teaches ID theory, but that it is taught by an unqualified, incompetant, partisan.
    #: Posted by rob loftis  on  01/11  at  10:06 AM

  16. Palmer wrote:

    This is exactly why we need Darwin's Rottweiler and people like him. I can't believe the interviewer from Discover painted Dawkins as being overly "aggressive". You've got to fight Ussher's Bulldogs with fire.


    In the case of the Discovery Institute, though, it's more like Paley's Poodles...
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:09 AM
  17. It should be noted that the instructor for the course, who proposed it, is, besides being the girl's soccer team coach and phys ed instructor, is the wife of the pastor at the local Assembly of God church. Guess where she's getting her syllabus?
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:09 AM
  18. My 7yo realized that Mendeleyev organized the periodic table during the American Civil War. (Sterling tends to date things by wars, which makes him rather alarming company in an art museum.) "You know mommy, I know there are lots of reasons for the Civil War. I don't know if there was any other way we could have solved these problems. But I wonder all the time and energy we spend fighting each other. How many better things could we be discovering if we weren't always fighting?"

    This is my frustration with the whole ID, fundamentalist patriarchal idiocy: How much time do we have to waste arguing, and rebutting and staying vigilant against travesties such as this. I know I have other things I'd rather be doing, don't they?
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:15 AM
  19. I live outside the U.S. and have most of my life even though I'm an American citizen. I'm considering a move to the States, almost certainly to a big city, possibly Seattle. I'm the father of two young children. If i live in a big city outside of the south, am I going to have to be constantly on the defensive about having my children taught nonsense (intelligent design, etc) in class? This isn't a rhetorical question and I'd be interested in hearing answers.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:43 AM
  20. I think that the teacher's background in Special Education will come in very handy while teaching the morons who decide to take this course.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:51 AM
  21. Brook, unfortunately the fundie agenda knows no bounds, and part of their sweeping agenda is to save us different-believers, because anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow view of things is doomed to hell, so in reality they're really trying very hard to do us a favor and we should be appreciative and receptive to their efforts, which is why they're never going to stop. You see, in their world view, nothing is more important than saving souls, and the only way we're going to be saved is if we believe exactly the same things they do. As the brother of a fundie (we live on different continents fortunately)I know their mindset, and i can safely answer your question and say that no, there is nothing else they would rather be doing. This is their raison d'etre.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:52 AM
  22. I'm a sociologist and furious--that her professors would allow her to graduate with that major having learned absolutely no sociology. Here's a bit of what I wrote over at Ed Brayton's place:

    Were she to take an honest sociological look at the "philosophy" of ID, she would have to start with the basic proposition from the soc. of knowledge that ideas are produced and sponsored by social actors. The first question should then be, which social actors are putting forth the "theory of ID," and in which social fields are they embedded? Had she received any decent sociological training, she'd be certainly notice that this "controversy" is completely the result of political actors trying to create an issue. A scientific controversy? Not so much.

    She's not qualified to teach philosophy. If she were to stay within her supposed field of study, she'd be asking completely different questions. This woman's professor's should be ashamed.
    #: Posted by MAJeff  on  01/11  at  10:54 AM
  23. On a somewhat related note, did anyone watch the Frontline (PBS) miniseries, "Country Boys" which is playing this week (and is free to watch online on the pbs.org web site). They had some segments in a science class in rural Kentucky and the teacher was saying things like "Evolution says we came from monkeys. I don't think Jesus Christ was a monkey, do you?"

    It was a private school, but still it was a little painful to watch. It seemed like the teacher was trying to be somewhat dutiful to teach the state standards but she was unable to hide her surety that the Christian bible was the true account.

    "Country Boys" was a pretty good watch; the conclusion is tonight.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  11:03 AM
  24. Gracchus: In a place like Seattle, you should find yourself surrounded by mostly like minded folks. There will be creationists, but they won't own the school board.
    #: Posted by rob loftis  on  01/11  at  11:03 AM
  25. My local high school alas. We have way too many churches with way too much influence for a bunch of small mountain towns IMHO. Luckily our local paper has been all over this for the last two weeks with very good well written and very critical articles. The IDiots tried to slip one through and got caught out this time.
    #: Posted by Natasha Yar-Routh  on  01/11  at  11:19 AM
  26. I've read a little (but not much) of how philosophers view ID, and from what little I've read, it appears they also object to the "God of the Gaps" argument. For example, read

    http://www.techcentralstation.com/111705B.html

    It's a little long, but its point is to show how good philosophy tries to fit in with naturalistic explanations, not refute those explanations.

    Anyway, I'm peeved at the way the IDers have come in for a four-week course here. It's an approach we better be wary of. In most cases, the legal system won't move fast enough to stop a four-week course. It's a clever approach on their part; once a court steps in and orders the course stopped, the damage will already have been done. The "course" will be over.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  11:24 AM
  27. Why stop with Francis Crick? Can the soccer mom also get Charles Darwin and William Paley to appear?
    #: Posted by mark  on  01/11  at  11:34 AM
  28. The mystery is why the "Intelligent Design" brand name is getting applied to this course. It appears Young Earth Creationism is riding ID's coattails, skirting by the science class roadblock erected in Dover, PA, and landing in "philosophy."

    From what I read of the Dover ruling, calling it "philosophy" is no help, since the main part about the policy was not that it wasn't science, but that it was creationism in drag. That's no different here.

    As for NPR, Barbara Bradley-Hagerty also gave airtime to Barry Lynn of AU, but Luskin got the zinger about how "even Barry Lynn said it could be taught as philosophy."

    I can't recall if the NPR bit couched the dispute as one about ID, or revealed its YEC roots.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  11:41 AM
  29. Geez, can we possibly arrange for a week or two where we philosophers don't have to be furious?

    And, wouldn't a better title for the course in question be "Religiously grounded attacks on an accepted and productive scientific theory, with very little context concerning science's scope or methodology, no positive scientific argument for the design proposal, and no objective consideration of the relative merits of scientific and religious approaches to understanding the world"? 'Cause calling this course the philosophy of anything is just wrong!
    #: Posted by Dr. Free-Ride  on  01/11  at  11:44 AM
  30. The sad part is, the Philosophy of Design is indeed a legitimate and interesting subject. Too bad it'll get tarred with this El Tejon nonsense.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  11:49 AM
  31. I'm late piling on, but I'm way ahead of you on the title question, PZ. I've been ranting against the cultural equation of 'philosophy' with 'any silly BS someone likes to spout' for a long time. I recall a student comment on my intro course: the student couldn't understand why s/he wasn't getting an 'A', since (after all) philosophy is just a matter of opinion, and s/he had indeed presented his/her opinions in the course work.

    It's clear the teacher of this course has no qualifications at all either as a teacher of science or as a teacher of philosophy-- and both should matter in this case. Worse, of course, and utterly unconstitutional, is the wild religious axe grinding in the course contents.

    As another Canadian, I'm unsure about whether to pity or envy the US on these issues. On one hand, we don't have nearly the level of political support for ID/creationist nonsense the US has. On the other, we have no constitutional barrier between church and state-- so, for instance, here in Alberta, lots of public money goes to support church-run schools that teach creationism in their biology curriculum. They do have to meet provincial standards, but those are pretty soft (the general science curriculum for high school didn't even mention Darwin when I last saw it, though the biology curriculum does). Which is worse? Hard to say, but the battle goes on, on both sides of the border.
    #: Posted by Bryson Brown  on  01/11  at  12:01 PM
  32. From MikeM's link:

    Consider the following example. Imagine yourself as a visiting alien; when surveying "Africa" you discover large termite mounds. Most of the crew gets right down to the business of studying termites and figuring out how they manage to produce their nests. But, a few make a different claim. Given that the termites are clearly not sentient, they decide that the termites could not possibly have built their nests in the absence of an independent sentient nest designer -- The Termite Farmer. Therefore, they take off and go looking for The Termite Farmer instead of studying what termites actually do.

    That's as good an analogy as you're probably going to find on TechCentralStation.

    Also, another enjoyable read from TCS. Two in one day! That's quite a bonanza.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  12:11 PM
  33. Here in Spain, when I explain to my brother-in-law, who teaches math at the local university, that these sorts of arguments are taking place in the US, and being settled in courts no less, he just shakes his head in amazement. Ironically, Spain is a mostly Catholic country where the Church receives public funding and where religion is taught in school (though that's about to become elective) and yet there's no argument about the validity of evolution and even less about this YEC nonsense. Interesting how in a country where there are supposed to be no ties between church and state you have these constant battles going on, while in country with an official state religion there's no controversy whatsoever.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  12:18 PM
  34. PZ, let's help this poor district stay legal: How about you and I go out and do some tag-teaming? You can give the kids real evolution information and dissect the phony philosophy ideas, I'll give a legal overview for how and why such courses are illegal, and with good cause -- I'll bet I can get Timothy Sandefur to come in for a day, too!

    Can we snag Daniel Dennett to do the remedial philosophy stuff required to save the course? Anybody else available?

    And if Casey Luskin's group will cover our air fare and hotel, we can all claim to have collaborated to keep public school courses legal.

    Whaddya think?
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  12:26 PM
  35. On a somewhat related note, did anyone watch the Frontline (PBS) miniseries, "Country Boys" which is playing this week (and is free to watch online on the pbs.org web site). They had some segments in a science class in rural Kentucky and the teacher was saying things like "Evolution says we came from monkeys. I don't think Jesus Christ was a monkey, do you?"

    It was a private school, but still it was a little painful to watch. It seemed like the teacher was trying to be somewhat dutiful to teach the state standards but she was unable to hide her surety that the Christian bible was the true account.


    I saw that too, and had to laugh. The teacher didn't seem real effective. She didn't even seem sure of what she was saying. I haven't watched the whole series, but what I caught of it was interesting and disturbing.
    #: Posted by bourgeois_rage  on  01/11  at  12:58 PM
  36. I pity the poor biology, chemistry, physics and geology teachers who will have to clean up after this mess. "But during the intersession course, we learned that the second law of thermodynamics says that snowflakes can't form.."
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  01:02 PM
  37. "Philosophers, are you furious yet?"

    "Furious" ain't the word....
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  01:03 PM
  38. Gee, all the class needs now is field trips to see God so students can talk to The Big Guy In The Sky in person. Or they can pray for correct answers on their tests.
    #: Posted by The Countess  on  01/11  at  01:16 PM
  39. blockquote
    Interesting how in a country where there are supposed to be no ties between church and state you have these constant battles going on, while in country with an official state religion there's no controversy whatsoever.
    /blockquote
    Dear SergioPOE
    In fact, the ID controversy is the apanage of the US. It is not an issue in other European countries where church is separated from state like France. Hence the problem might be more the success of evangelists or the mean education level.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  01:32 PM
  40. PZ: The second link to the "instructor's qualifications" points to this page smile
    #: Posted by Ithika  on  01/11  at  01:41 PM
  41. Maybe all us heathens should just move to Canada - strict gun laws, low crime, few religious zealots. Sure it's cold there now, but thanks to the Republican-sponsored Global Warming Initiative(tm), the Canadian climate will soon be transformed into a paradise.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  01:49 PM
  42. I wonder how easy it would be to get an actual critical thinking or philosophy of science course approved for high school students. How could someone object to students learning to differentiate good ideas from bad ones?

    I took this class in high school. It was called "Contemporary Issues in Biology" and I learned more in this class than any other. We debated cloning, abortion, euthanasia and other things. But each issue was presented fairly and objectively. When we were debating abortion two women came to speak with the class in the same week - one from a anti-abortion group and one from Planned Parenthood. They spoke and we had the opportunity to ask them questions.

    In the final few weeks of the class we each had to present an issue to the class. We had to lay out the facts and the opinions from two sides of the issue and then take questions from the class.

    It was brilliant.
    #: Posted by Reese Urcher  on  01/11  at  02:20 PM
  43. For those who want to listen to it, the NPR piece is OK -- could have been better, but could have been a lot worse.

    Casey Luskin has driven to the front in the race for this year's Golden Weasel award. I'll get the foundry working on it.
    #: Posted by jre  on  01/11  at  02:22 PM
  44. I wonder how easy it would be to get an actual critical thinking or philosophy of science course approved for high school students. How could someone object to students learning to differentiate good ideas from bad ones?

    I took this class in high school. It was called "Contemporary Issues in Biology" and I learned more in this class than any other. We debated cloning, abortion, euthanasia and other things. But each issue was presented fairly and objectively. When we were debating abortion two women came to speak with the class in the same week - one from an anti-abortion group and one from Planned Parenthood. They spoke and we had the opportunity to ask them questions.

    In the final few weeks of the class we each had to present an issue to the class. We had to lay out the facts and the opinions from two sides of the issue and then take questions from the class.

    It was brilliant.
    #: Posted by Reese Urcher  on  01/11  at  03:05 PM
  45. Gracchus, I'd scout around. Google things like "Seattle ID schools" and see what comes up.
    #: Posted by Phoenix Woman  on  01/11  at  03:22 PM
  46. As long as "teaching ID" means "repeating the same lies, falsehoods, and oft-discredited evidences against evolution", then teaching ID should not be done in schools regardless of what subject matter the class is.

    taxpayers pay enough to politicians to lie to us (and in court, as Dover, PA showed). we shouldn't be also paying them to lie to our kids.

    what is left to teach about ID can be done in about a minute, and showing its scientific invalidity would take another 2. and THAT i have no problem teaching in class.
    #: Posted by Joe Shelby  on  01/11  at  03:42 PM
  47. That certain educators would rather teach WHAT to think as opposed to HOW to think is what disturbs me about courses such as this. Unfortunately public schools will likely not institute genuine programs in critical thinking and informal logic. Such an education would seem all too subversive to those who would have their beliefs uncritically accepted by participants in what is already a coercive institution. That such incoherent nonesense could be presented to the general public as "philosophy" is profoundly insulting.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  04:08 PM
  48. I dunno about this, but ID was brought up in the intro philosophy course i took this past semester. It wasn't focused on at all, it just had to given what we were reading.
    #: Posted by JMJanssen  on  01/11  at  04:13 PM
  49. That Intelligent Design was merely "brought up" in an introductory course to philosophy does not thereby establish its merit as a philosophical concept. Instead, Intelligent Design was likely meant as a topic for discussion, an object to which philosophical concepts were to be applied in its evaluation. There is a difference between dialogue and the subject of that dialogue.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  04:35 PM
  50. That Intelligent Design was merely "brought up" in an introductory course to philosophy does not thereby establish its merit as a philosophy. Instead, Intelligent Design was likely meant as a topic for discussion, an object to which philosophical concepts were to be applied in its evaluation. There is a difference between a dialogue and the subject of a dialogue.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  04:39 PM
  51. I say: let it go through. I'd rather have stuff like this to point to when trying to keep it out of science classes. "See, you can teach this nonsense in a philosophy class if you want, it's just not appropriate for science." is better than having to defend the idea that particular ideas are banned from being taught at all.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  04:46 PM
  52. As usual, someone has responded to one of my comments by attacking a false thesis (hence my alias). I did not argue that Intelligent Design should not be "taught" in certain contexts, or be banned. I just simply refuse to grant ID the honorific title of "philosophy," especially when its advocates can't decide if their ideas are scientific or philosophical, or agree on which label would be most advantageous to their campaign. Now if you will excuse me, I have better things to do, and will no longer responde to any more comments, particularly those which are so obviously fallacious!
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  05:00 PM
  53. Yes, I'm glad you expanded on my short post Strawman. That said, chill out a bit.
    #: Posted by JMJanssen  on  01/11  at  05:04 PM
  54. i always thought creation class would have the best tests...

    "Insert any question here"?

    a) God
    b) God
    c) God
    d) God

    Funny how that's a negative to me, and a positive to the braindead YEC's and Incompetent Designers.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  05:43 PM
  55. First they came for the evolutionists, then they came for the etc. etc.

    In case you don't know the geography of the Los Angeles area, this school district is in the north, in the foothills. Although Los Angeles has a reputation as a hotbed of liberalism, it's really only the area roughly bounded by downtown, the ocean, the 10 freeway and the Ventura freeway that is--the rest of it can be as conservative as any mid-West or Southern town (especially in the suburbs). Didn't surprise me at all that this was happening where it did.

    His personal religious views as a Quaker
    But....but....*all* scientists are godless infidels! It's gotta be a typical heathen trick!
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  06:07 PM
  56. The next phase of the IDiots' campaign, predicted by PZ earlier, has begun tp play out. Next up: American history class. See the amazing Constitution - from God's mouth to Madison's pen! Listen to the Divine Narrative of the history of the United States of America, God's Chosen Land and People! Read about the Founding Fathers' deep and abiding Biblical fundamentalism! Hear how the Liberals lost Vietnam (and soon Iraq), and how God punishes them for their sins with AIDS and 9/11 and electoral defeats! Hear how slavery saved the heathen Negro from eternal damnation by exposing his savage mind to the Word!

    How can you not see Intelligent Design in America's past? After all, history is *way* too complicated to have happened all by itself....
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  06:21 PM
  57. Bokanovsky, I think I just wet myself.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  06:32 PM
  58. You bet I'm outraged. I'm also reserving some amount of my ticked-offness at all those guys who said (fortunately not you, PZ) that it would be fine for ID to be taught in a philosophy class. As others have said, philosophy, like any other reputable subject matter has standards. My claim is contentious, but if you ask me sometimes philosophers are too permissive about things. The only role of ID would be to teach about a socially influential piece of pseudoscience - as a lesson on the merits of rigorous philosophy of science.

    But I must add that even to suggest the next step, namely that one's philosophy should be scientific in the sense that it is a generalization and a "scaffold" for science, or even that it should be consistent with science, is a ridiculous claim to make for many of my colleagues. As I have remarked here previously, I find a philosophy inconsistent with or foreign to (never mind hostile to) science is useless at best. Up until the end of the 19th century, many philosophers did pay attention; at the end of the 20th century a few (but increasing number of) philosophers have attempted to reengage with all the intellectual culture, especial science, technology, mathematics, etc.

    I might add that one thing I adopt even beyond that is that this argument generalizes: my remarks are not special pleading for science and technology (though that is my primary interest) but also apply to matters such as art and music. If you want to, say, be a philosopher of music, you'd damn well better know something about music too.

    mangala, I am curious: where did you take a philosophy of science class in high school? I have never heard of any such thing happening. Though, there were protophilosophical snippets in my senior biology course mentioned on that other thread on that subject...
    #: Posted by Keith Douglas  on  01/11  at  07:09 PM
  59. Speaking of philosophy, here's a class that's being offered next semester at CUNY-grad center.. seems to be quite promising. http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Philosophy/S2006Desc.html#grover. Here's the beginning of the course desc.: "Like some ghastly Hollywood vampire, the argument from design refuses to die, no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart."

    They're going to be reading some of Dembski's "work". Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA ed. William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  07:26 PM
  60. Y'know, if this dog of a curriculum got past the school board, what other crap are they teaching? Do the American history classes teach about how crestfallen the slaves were when they heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? Did the reading curriculum come from Fun-with-Phonics?
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  08:17 PM
  61. plunge: Aside from the arguments from philosophers so far that they don't want ID mucking up their classes, this class shouldn't be allowed to go through because it is a poor exucse for an educational venture, as best encapsulated by Dr. Free Ride's description of it in commment #57473. It's being taught by someone who has no expertise in science or philosophy*, and oh yes, one of their proposed guest speakers is DEAD. It has Propaganda scrawled all over it for anyone with the eyes to see. There is a difference between discussing ID in a philosophy course and having an entire class devoted to rah-rah boosterism of it, with all the scientific fact butchering that it is entailing. Not all goofball notions deserve a fair shake in our education system, even in the dumping ground of philosophy (heh, sorry guys).

    * I suppose I'm being naïvely idealistic by suggesting that this kind of rigor be used in the teacher selection of all high school classes. My sophomore biology teacher was a football coach who needed a class to teach, and he was quite simply unprepared to deal with the evolution-deniers.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  08:21 PM
  62. Hey Ray,

    That "dumping ground" spawned the sciences.
    #: Posted by Johnny Logic  on  01/11  at  09:02 PM
  63. Hey Rey,

    That "dumping ground" spawned the sciences.
    #: Posted by Johnny Logic  on  01/11  at  09:03 PM
  64. Sorry for the double post...mea culpa!
    #: Posted by Johnny Logic  on  01/11  at  09:05 PM
  65. "I don't think Jesus Christ was a monkey, do you?"


    I don't think he was any more real in history than Hercules, but if he was real, he would be an ape, but not a monkey. All humans, I believe, are apes, just like gorillas or chimpanzees. Does anyone here agree?
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  09:11 PM
  66. Keith, I took a course called "Science and Society" in an Ontario public high school (this was before the curriculum was revised 4 years ago, to accomodate a 4-year rather than a 5-year program, and it doesn't look like it's offered any more, sadly). I consider it a philosophy of science course because the focus of the course was the scientific method, the characteristics of scientific inquiry, and ethical issues in science (mainly bioethics). It was definitely the first class I ever took in which terms like "induction" were defined, and the concept of falsifiability was discussed in depth.
    #: Posted by mangala  on  01/11  at  09:13 PM
  67. 'Twas just a joke...
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:18 PM
  68. For reference:

    Beginning in 1971, the Supreme Court has used what is called the "Lemon Test" in order to determine whether a law or governmental policy violates the Establishment Clause. That test asks three questions: whether the government's action has a religious purpose, whether the primary effect of the government's action is to promote or advance a religion, and whether the government's action forces an excessive entanglement with religion. If the government policy or act answers yes to any of these questions, it violates the Establishment Clause.

    It appears that these school boards and their lawyers are unfamiliar with the basic concept of the Lemon Test, even though they were just reminded of those standards by the Dover case.

    Two probable explanations for this nonsense:
    1) these people are morons
    2) they are counting on one of these cases reaching the new and improved Supreme Court of GW Bush where Lemon will be overturned.
    OR c) both of the above.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:40 PM
  69. As others above have noted, there is a vast difference between teaching about a religious concept and teaching the religious concept. These California cases illuminate what crossing this line looks like, just as Dover did.

    This is no accident. These and other 'faith based' initiatives are looking for a ruling on Lemon in the Supreme Court now that a 'friendlier' audience is about to come into the majority. Once they get the ruling that allows religious concept to be taught in schools then ID will evaporate ... to be replaced by Creationism. The lie that it could by any 'designer' will no longer be useful.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:57 PM
  70. I think that the teacher's background in Special Education will come in very handy while teaching the morons who decide to take this course.


    Hey! I was in special ed for several years, but I had no problems getting into college, and even then, I wouldn't buy into this creationist nonesense. In fact, my 4th grade teacher was very helpful in convincing me to reject creationism because she was a creationist. Yes, I know it was a joke, but you shouldn't assume that all special ed students are morons who are likely to accept creationism. Sure, there are loads of exceptions, but there are also people like me who, when nine years old and in special ed, can reject an idea because its proponents fail to adequately support it.
    (Disclaimer: Actually, my case likely applies more to rejecting Christianity/religion then to creationism, but my teacher did literally follow the Bible. She let her ideas leak out to us, but didn't teach them in science class. (She didn't say the opposite, though; actual biology was "outsourced" to another teacher.) In the interests of fairness, I should say that I likely accepted most of her ideas at the time, but rejected them by the time I was in 6th grade. Man, I wish I could use a smaller font for this disclaimer.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  11:49 PM
  71. "I think that the teacher's background in Special Education will come in very handy while teaching the morons who decide to take this course."


    Hey! I was in special ed for several years, but I had no problems getting into college, and even then, I wouldn't buy into this creationist nonesense. In fact, my 4th grade teacher was very helpful in convincing me to reject creationism BECAUSE she was a creationist. Yes, I know it was a joke, but you shouldn't assume that all special ed students are morons who are likely to accept creationism. Sure, there are loads of exceptions, but there are also people like me who, when nine years old and in special ed, can reject an idea because its proponents fail to adequately support it.
    (Disclaimer: Actually, my case likely applies more to rejecting Christianity/religion then to creationism, but my teacher did literally follow the Bible. She let her ideas leak out to us, but didn't teach them in science class. (She didn't say the opposite, though; actual biology was "outsourced" to another teacher.) In the interests of fairness, I should say that I likely accepted most of her ideas at the time, but rejected them by the time I was in 6th grade. Man, I wish I could use a smaller font for this disclaimer.
    #: Posted by  on  01/11  at  11:50 PM
  72. If I were homeschooling a kid, I'd certainly have them read the Bible even though I have no religious beliefs at all. The cultural and literary imporance of the texts makes them part of any serious education; and the Old Testament, at least, contains some great stories. In the typical American high school, however, education about the Bible or religion can be expected to be highly tendentious--right-wing thought control. Under the prevailing political circumstances, I think it's much for the best if all religious topics are avoided in public schools even though omitting this material is a real loss.
    #: Posted by Jim Harrison  on  01/11  at  11:51 PM
  73. I think a course that discusses the actual history of design might actually work for the benefit of us evolutionists. If people could study Paley in context, and what he was responding to, in addition to the responses within the philosophical and scientific community to his design arguments, I bet it would be a good way to quash ID without ever making a direct attack. Teach them the history of the idea and they'll see for themselves where it originates and why it fails as a philosophy. In that respect, I wouldn't mind it in a philosophy class. But what this woman has put together is NOT a philosophy class.

    That said, I teach evolution vs. creationism in my critical thinking classes as my example of why creationism fails every criteria for adequacy in a theory.
    #: Posted by Robn  on  01/12  at  12:11 AM
  74. "Evolution says we came from monkeys. I don't think Jesus Christ was a monkey, do you?"


    So we came from Jesus Christ? Did the Bible "forget" to mention His monkeying around?
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  01:39 AM
  75. Many of us who are faithful followers of the FSM are planning on sending a few helpful letters so she has some information on why piracy is good for the environment.....Any word on when the attempted destroying of public education will cease?
    #: Posted by Bryan Trim  on  01/12  at  05:19 AM
  76. One of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind (or Every Child Left Behind depending on your point of view) is that all teachers be highly qualified. Of course, this legislation coming out of the current regime, what constitutes "qualifed" is pretty wacky. I understand there were some pretty slick guerilla tactics used by the wingnuts but maybe we could get some good out NCLB by using it to weed out some of the more obviously unqualified....
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  06:02 AM
  77. This caught my eye:
    " The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution."

    Tell me, what is the title of the course? If it's actually entitled "Philosophy of Intelligent Design" then why not write the paper above and substitute "intelligent design" for "theory of evolution"? I guess disproving the scientific theory of evolution (at least in their necrotic minds) is equated with proof for ID....
    ...Stupidity in abundance.
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  06:16 AM
  78. Under the prevailing political circumstances, I think it's much for the best if all religious topics are avoided in public schools even though omitting this material is a real loss.

    I find myself nodding... sorta... and also somewhat regretfully.

    I'm yer basic materialist empiricist atheist type. Got a lot that's critical to say to those who clutter up their cosmologies with various magical entities for no better reason than that their g'g'g'granddaddies did, too... But that said, the history of religion is a big part of the history of the world.

    In my perfect world, I'd love to see it taught critically, thoughtfully, rationally. The shining school on the hill I dream of has smart folk who talk about the great awakening from a sociological perspective, ask what rural alienation has to do with creationism, ask whither came the currents of anti-intellectualism that drive and accompany it, do their level best to look at the hard facts of events like the inquisition in the larger context of European anti-Semitism. It's got fair-minded folk who look at religion rigourously in the context of a larger history of human knowledge, who lead fruitful discussions about the various religions' roles as social instutition, national ideology, so on... Paley put in context is worth understanding. His way of thinking was a big part of the world, in his time (I won't get into whether it still is; that, I'm less clear on).

    This could happen in lot of places. I suspect in the religious studies departments of some universities, you get an approximation of the same, in the better courses...

    But it's pretty hard imagining it happening in the public school systems of the US right now. Sad reality, methinks, is fruitful discussion of these topics requires a level of willingness to confront religion as a human construct that's going to make too many touchy obscurantists far too uncomfortable. It feels like a concesion to them to say it, but maybe leaving it for postsecondary ed is the more realistic move.
    #: Posted by ajmilne  on  01/12  at  08:33 AM
  79. Just dropping by for a quick comment: My brother, strawman, recognizes his need to chill out:

    1) He had never been to this site before, and didn't understand the comment arrangement: He thought some of the other comments were specific replies to him. (I suspect that got him into adversarial mode.)

    2) He had WAY too much coffee yesterday.
    #: Posted by BronzeDog  on  01/12  at  08:42 AM
  80. Quite frustrating. There is philosophical merit to debating ID, the boundaries between faith and reason, the aims of science, and there's plenty of good texts, like Paley, Hume, etc., that provide intellectually stimulating, critical views on evolution, the 'God of the Gaps' problem, and so forth.

    It doesn't usually entail watching movies that show how evolution's wrong, though.
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  09:49 AM
  81. I don't know. This site looks pretty legit to me, and maybe the YEC El Tejon folks can use it to bolster their case. I just had a meth-crazed creationist triumphantly point out that its content "disproves evolution beyond a doubt," and given his science acumen I had to give it a long, hard look.

    http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/
    #: Posted by Beaming Visionary  on  01/12  at  10:01 AM
  82. This site looks pretty legit to me...


    Boy, I hope that was sarcasm!

    If you want a legit science site try, Talk Origins. The one you referred to is simply rehashing standard YEC tripe. The kind that was found to be purely religious by the Aguillard decision in 1987.

    NJ
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  10:12 AM
  83. Found this on the site Beaming Visionary pointed out.

    "It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life."

    And the first thing I thought was "Well shit, there goes easter!!"
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  10:18 AM
  84. Hmm... how many of you think that Beaming Visionary is a creationist disguised in a rational thinker's clothing? Raise your hands now.
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  10:26 AM
  85. "Hmm... how many of you think that Beaming Visionary is a creationist disguised in a rational thinker's clothing? Raise your hands now."

    Ouch. Sorry to mislead; I consider myself wildly sarcastic as it is, but maybe I need to crank it up even more.

    I thought referring to a "meth-crazed creationist" (to whom I referred TalkOrigins.org, by the way, with no success) would be a tip-off. I guess you guys haven't seen my other comments here, or my vitriolic site.
    #: Posted by Beaming Visionary  on  01/12  at  10:30 AM
  86. Gosh, this whole IDiocy makes me going crazy. Right now, Germany is relatively save from that stuff. Let's see how long, since Chancelorette Angie with her Christian Democratic Union is ruling here - oh, and of course, since the new pope is German (well, Bavarian, to be exactly). If I'm going to have children in the future, I'll have a REAL close look at their syllabus!
    #: Posted by littleandy  on  01/12  at  12:57 PM
  87. dilireus, I don't know if it is true that Canada has fewer religious nuts, proportionately, than America. I do know it has nuttier nuts.

    Query: who'd you rather have as a neighbor, a Southern Baptist or a Doukobhor?

    (As far as I've ever heard, no Doukobhors south of the border, thank someone.)
    #: Posted by  on  01/12  at  03:27 PM
  88. Very amused to see that the Discovery Institute isn't happy about their precious "theory" being associated with (gasp) creationism!

    From http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1685773,00.html

    ' "It's clear that the course wrongly mixes intelligent design with ... biblical creationism," said a letter from the Discovery Institute to the school board. Intelligent design, the letter continued, "is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture" and "does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life." '

    (In other news, Pope Benedict XIII converts to Zoroastrianism and bears become unexpected new target market for bathroomwares.)
    #: Posted by  on  01/13  at  06:53 AM
  89. I think that many people believe a lot of things without much reflection. This spans from atheism to theism. Generally, intelligent people who have reflected fully on the underlying assumptions of their beliefs and the beliefs of others can still disagree on these issues. I don't think that tongue-in-cheek ridicule of folks who come to different conclusions adds anything to the discussion. I know people on both sides of the argument who are frustrated because they "know the truth" and can't seem to get the "other guy" to understand their position. The best thing to do is dialogue and try to achieve an understanding. Don't presume to understand... even though you "know" you got the "other guy" all figured out. You will be surprised how different people come to different conclusions.. all of whom are really smart.

    That said...
    I think the 6000 year old interpretation of the Bible needs to die along with the flat earth interpretation and the the Ptolemaic interpretation.

    Further...
    If any version of "supernatural intervention into history" is going to be discussed in the public school system, it needs to FIRST be discussed at the universities. If it survives there and becomes established either in Philosophy or Science, then (and only then) should it be brought into the public schools. I think some of the ID advocates are putting the cart before the horse.

    I am a theist, but also a skeptic... so I see evidence both ways... and the jury is still out for me.
    #: Posted by  on  01/13  at  02:44 PM