Evolution

[GomJabbar]

Intelligent Design as far as advancing the science understanding and comptitiveness of the United States should not be put into our education system because of this reason. Because it attempts to put forth faith as an easy "out" to a scientific (science as a methodology - not as a belief) study.

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I certainly don't feel that scientific pursuit should be put aside because we already know the answers to life's story. Molecular biology, quantum mechanics, archaeology, and the other sciences are fascinating fields of study. We need to study all these things to remain competitive globally. You are quite right that much of our youth are educationally challenged. Too many 'Jay Walkers'. It is appalling.

I just don't want someone telling me that it fruitless to consider that God or a Creator is involved in the story of life. The little sticker in the textbooks is the type of thing I want, not the teaching of theology in science class. I just want the esteemed scientists to admit that it is not impossible that an intelligence could be a part of evolution and creation.

[DaveO]

Some questions:

1) Could someone please direct me to one of the asserted "ad hominem attacks" in this thread?

2) Could someone please direct me to an assertion in these posts "...that evolutionists...CANT be wrong"? [In the 100+ posts in this thread to date, the only assertions that one's position "can't be wrong" appear to me to be coming from the proponents of intelligent design.]

3) A repeat question: Is the next step an "intelligent design" theory of quantum mechanics?

4) Could someone please explain or point out where anyone has claimed "...the 'science' behind sending men to the moon somehow has something to do with the 'philosophy' of evolution!" other than as an example or analogy of the difference between "science" and "non-science"?

I made some general comments concerning the debate as a whole, I have been watching them for many years, I was not specifically directing the comment to anyone in this thread.

As far as evolution/creation debates go, this one has been relatively sober and controlled.

[BillMorrow]

i am constantly amazed at the high quality of thought exhibited in this thread (and others) by the members of this thinkpad community..

just for interesting reading, check this site out:

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

try to wrap your mind around basic physics..



i will be keenly interested too hear the considered thoughts of those who do read poart or all of string theory..

[egibbs]

Great link Bill, and I heartily recommend "The Elegant Universe" to anyone else who is interested in one possible explanation of how this all came to be.

And if you want to keep up with the bleeding edge across a whole range of sciences and aren't scared of a bit of math, try http://xxx.lanl.gov/

No, it's not a XXX site despite the URL - it's the Los Alamos National Laboratory's e-print server, where physicists, mathematicians, and others of their ilk pre-publish their papers for comment by their peers.

Be warned that while there is some wonderful stuff there, it is all preliminary - it is not by any means "generally accepted scientific theory" - it is where "generally accepted scientific theory" starts.

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

i am constantly amazed at the high quality of thought exhibited in this thread (and others) by the members of this thinkpad community.

I agree. I have found the ones I have debated with in this thread to be very articulate and knowledgeable. Even though I often don't agree with their opinions, I can certainly tell that they are not 'Jay Walkers'. It has been a real challenge for me to rebut in the same calibre of thought that I am confronted with here. I am not sure how well I am succeeding, as it is sometimes hard to view one's own writing objectively. I tip my hat to you all.

And to Bill. I knew your little challenge would open Pandora's Box. With this post, we will only be 3 posts away from tieing the all time record for the "Off Topic Stuff" forum. The current record holder is "Off-topic: Wanna a gmail account?" [sic] with 127 replies, on page 9.

[egibbs]

The little sticker in the textbooks is the type of thing I want, not the teaching of theology in science class. I just want the esteemed scientists to admit that it is not impossible that an intelligence could be a part of evolution and creation.

Ok, I'll do my part to make the record...

First - Clarke's Law. Anytime an esteemed scientist says something is impossible, he is wrong.

I don't think you will find many esteemed scientists saying that intelligence could not be a part of evolution and creation - at least not in a scientific sense. What they will say is whether or not there was intelligence involved is not a question that science can answer. It goes to one's beliefs and values, and is properly outside the purview of science. The ID proponents are saying that's not good enough -we want the idea that there was an intelligent deigner taught AS science.

I would have no problem with the little sticker, as long as we put it in ALL the science and math books. But it doesn't go far enough.

When I went to school, we were taught about the scientific method - how one examines data and formulates a hypothesis, then uses the hypothesis to make predictions. Then you perform experiments and compare the results to the predictions, and either discard, modify, or validate your hypothesis. We were taught that a hypothesiis that correctly predicts the outcome of a large number of experiments becomes a theory. We were also taught that all theories have problems, and will eventually be replaced by a better theory - with the caveat that whatever the new theory is it must make essentially the same predictions about the outcome of experiments as the old theory in all areas where the old theory was found to make correct predictions.

I haven't chcecked the curriculum of our schools in years, but if we have stopped teaching the scientific method, then we need to start doing so immediately. If we are teaching it, then I'm not sure why the sticker is needed, but anything that helps to keep young minds open is good.

Now if we could just get a similar sticker in the front of every religious tract...

Ed Gibbs

[doppelfish]

Now if we could just get a similar sticker in the front of every religious tract...

No Problem. But the courts might disagree.

scnr,
-- fish

[GomJabbar]

In my normal reading of The Washington Post, I came across the following article this morning.

Following is the opening paragraph from the article: Evolution Debate in Kansas Spurs Battle Over School Materials

In an escalation of the nation's culture war over the teaching of evolution, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association announced yesterday that they will not allow Kansas to use key science education materials developed by the two organizations.

[egibbs]

And this...

Is US becoming hostile to science?

Someone here said that their parents were both science teachers, and the had some interesting dinner table discussions.

I've got that beat - my father was a Lutheran Minister, and my mother was a research biologist turned biology teacher. And yet they rarely disagreed about science or religion. My mother is deeply religious, but does not believe that everything in the bible must be taken literally. My father felt the same way, and he was fascinated by physics, cosmology, biology, and psychology (he had training as a psychiatric counselor, which helped him greatly in ministering to his flock).

My father felt that a God who could speak one number, and have flow from that number electrons, protons, hydrogen, stars, planets, cells, fish, dinosaurs, badgers, people, Euclid, Einstein, and Eminem was infinitely more powerful and awe inspiring than some janitor-style God, who had to be constantly cleaning up and adjusting his creation.

Sadly, not many people see it that way.

Ed Gibbs

[DaveO]

Its amazing to me how fervently both sides "religiously" hold on to their positions.
Even the media continues to report complete with their own biases, of course.
More than ever one has to read betweenthe lines.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[a31pguy]

I just don't want someone telling me that it fruitless to consider that God or a Creator is involved in the story of life. The little sticker in the textbooks is the type of thing I want, not the teaching of theology in science class. I just want the esteemed scientists to admit that it is not impossible that an intelligence could be a part of evolution and creation.

I would respectfully disagree on the subject of intelligent design in the classroom. I know it's an overused cliche - but the concept of the "slippery slope" seems to apply.

To me - it would be like coming to church and trying to teach evolution in sunday school. It's just not the proper forum.

I think it's about context and parental responsibility. Personally, I don't see the need to put religeon back into the classroom. As a parent myself - I believe it's the responsibility of the parent to guide their children in either helping them discover their personal beliefs or bring them to specific religeous training. If I wanted my children to understand buddhist beliefs (my own cultural heritage) I would not expect their public school to account for it in science education or set community standards for such.

[BigWarpGuy]

There would be a conflict to the students if they learn at home/church of intelligent design and lean evolution at school. Since both a theories and can not be proven in a lab, it would be nice if there was an alternative to just evolution being taught. (just my opinion).

[a31pguy]

I understand your point completely.

But I think there are conflicts all the time that a parent must clarify. With such a large society and diverse views - it's pretty much unavoidable. This is just another thing that a parent needs to do in the due course of raising kids.

In my opinion - putting it in the science education is like me saying - well I'm going to clarify it for my kids and your kids. IMHO - that doesn't need to occur.

[dsvochak]

I know I said I was done participating. So I was wrong. Isn't the first time and won't be the last. The articles cited since my last post and the exchange between a31pguy and BigWarpGuy are so interesting I just couldn't resist.

1) DaveO has 5 links in his last post. I've read all 5 plus some of the links his links link to (is this a cyber-sausage?). I don't find the term "intelligent design" used in the links posted by DaveO. I have no idea what the law is in Australia but, as the links posted by doppelfish point out, this is a settled issue in the US. "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution."

2) Is the US becoming hostile to science? Well, yes and no.

As far as the government goes, the Department of Agriculture, Energy, Defense and others are pragmatic. If science can increase crop yields, energy output, build a better bomb or a faster jet, go with it. I think those decisions are classic examples of the view of government toward science. Most of us lead our lives the same way. We are, after all, having this discussion on the thinkpads.com support forums.

A quote:

"Polls for many years have shown that a majority of Americans are at odds with key scientific theory. For example, as CBS poll this month found that 51 percent of respondents believed humans were created in their present form by God. A further 30 percent said their creation was guided by God. Only 15 percent thought humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years."

I guess 4 percent must have checked "none of the above".

Seriously, part of the final paragraph of the article is really what I see to be the issue: "...we are going to be confronted with hundreds of important public policy issue that require some understanding that all life is interconnected".

Are we going to resolve these public policy issues by taking a poll? Don't be so quick to answer yes.

"CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll:
This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 to 23. They asked 1,001 randomly selected American adults the question: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"
Results:
55% responded sometimes legal. This is an increase of 1 percentage point from a similar poll in 1975
23% always legal; this is an increase of 2 percentage points.
20% always illegal; this is reduction of 2 percentage points.
2% uncertain.
Margin of error ±3 percentage points"

3) Another quote from the Washington Post article:

"John G. West of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the major force behind the intelligent design movement, decried the science organizations' latest moves.

"This is clearly an effort to censor the discussion of scientific criticism of Darwinian theory by intimidation and threat," West said."

No, it's just a determination by the NAS and National Science Teachers Association that Kansas won't be allowed to use copyrighted material until issues in the Kansas science education standards related to "...uncertainties about the theory of evolution and fail[ure] to make it clear that supernatural phenomena have no place in science." are resolved.

Withholding the right to use, copy, disseminate or any other right granted by copyright is not censorship. It's just "you can't use my material". Nothing the organizations have done prevents Mr. West or anyone else from engaging in a "... discussion of scientific criticism of Darwinian theory".

Which brings me to:

4) The most interesting link I found in DaveO citations was this one

http://www.equip.org/free/DE206.htm

A six page article (when you print it) titled "DISPELLING FALSE NOTIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT: The Falsity, Futility, and Folly of SEPARATING MORALITY FROM LAW" [caps and emphasis from article] that mentions the first amendment only once. The reason I find this article so interesting is it's a pretty well written statement of one side of the question.

The opposite side of the question came up in a discussion involving, among others, a Lutheran Minister. The minister made some interesting comments when the topic moved to the role of religion in government.

At one point, he flippantly said, "I'm really glad that Lutherans aren't Baptists.", not as a statement of the superiority of Lutherans over Baptists, but as an introduction to his views on the differing official positions of the Lutheran and Baptist churches. It was a reaction to a previous comment that, when Jesus said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" he wasn't just talking about the coins imprinted with the image of Caesar. The minister went on to point out that there's nothing in the bible to indicate that Jesus counseled his followers to rise up, rebel or revolt against, or replace the Roman government. He ended by saying that "my kingdom is not of this world" seems to indicate that the reverse is true.

Does morality/religion have a role in public policy decisions and, if so, what is it? Or, in the context of an earlier posting of mine: Are we all, at some point, Amish?

[a31pguy]

Let me pose this question:

What is the difference between the Middle Ages and the period known as "The age of enlightenment"?

[GomJabbar]

What is the difference between the Middle Ages and the period known as "The age of enlightenment"?

IMO - Dogma vs Reasoning.

Dogma - definitiion:

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Reasoning - definition:

1 a obsolete : to take part in conversation, discussion, or argument b : to talk with another so as to influence his actions or opinions <can't reason with her>
2 : to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions
transitive senses
1 archaic : to justify or support with reasons
2 : to persuade or influence by the use of reason
3 : to discover, formulate, or conclude by the use of reason <a carefully reasoned analysis>

While I am pretty sure you mean to apply the former to Religion and the latter to Science, it is possible for the tables to turn so to speak. Note that part of the definition of Dogma is "something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet". I think most of us could say that the Theory of Evolution prevailed during the last century, so that would be the established opinion. Now, some might argue that we are entering a period of Reasoning. This is where we can reason on established opinion.

Now I will be the first to admit that many have not left pre 20th century dogma. So dogma is dogma. Established opinion is often times wrong and reasoning needs to be applied constantly. Otherwise we have a tendancy to become Dogmatic. Note the synonym in the definition below.

Dogmatic - definition:

1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma
synonym see DICTATORIAL

[egibbs]

Are we going to resolve these public policy issues by taking a poll?

I would bet that if pollsters had been around when Copernicus began spouting all that nonsense, 99+ % of the population would have said that the Earth was the center of the universe.

I would also bet that 90+ % of the current US population would, if given a basic primer on Quantum Mechanics, declare it utter nonsense of no use to anyone, and if given the chance would vote to kill all funding for research on anything related to it.

But if you then took away their computers, radios, TVs, DVD Players, LED flashlights, laser pointers, handheld GPS, and cell phone, they would scream bloody murder.

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

I would also bet that 90+ % of the current US population would, if given a basic primer on Quantum Mechanics, declare it utter nonsense of no use to anyone, and if given the chance would vote to kill all funding for research on anything related to it.

I guess I fall in the other 10%. I can't speak for others, but I have a feeling that most would not say that Quantum Mechanics is utter nonsense (even though they don't really understand it - in other words, it's beyond their ken). What they might say is that money may be better spent on improving the human condition.

I think it is useful to consider the cost/benefit ratio when we pursue certain endeavors. Government wastes money on all sorts of programs. When public money (my tax dollars) is being spent, I want the best result. Pursuing knowledge for for knowledgement's sake can sometimes not be worth the cost. While we certainly don't know all the possible (good and beneficial) ramifications of pursuing a scientific path, we still need to consider if the cost is worth it when public money is involved. If the private or commercial sector thinks that an endeavor is worth pursuing, then all the power to them as long as they are ethical about it.

Pursuing knowledge can be enlightening, fun, interesting, and beneficial or harmful. It is one of the great things that we can do as intelligent beings. So all I have to say on the 'pursuit of knowledge' is this: just count the cost.

EDIT: In times of prosperity, there would be more money available to spend on esoteric pursuits. In times of need we should be discrete in our spending.

[dsvochak]

a31pguy asks: "What is the difference between the Middle Ages and the period known as "The age of enlightenment"?" GomJabbar responds: "IMO - Dogma vs Reasoning." and defines the terms.

An alternative difference which is not mine but comes from a professor of a "Philosophy of Law" class: "The spark and flowering of the idea that "dogma" may be ignored, challenged or disbelieved without incurring civil or criminal penalties. In other words, freedom of thought and, by extension, freedom of speech".

I'm not sure that's quite got it but the idea that one is free to think without worrying about the thought police must have seemed quite wonderful when it first began to gain wide acceptance.

"Dogma" has a pragmatic definition today: "A load of crap I don't believe in". "Reason" on the other hand means "A load of crap I do believe in."

A quote:

"Pursuing knowledge for for knowledgement's sake can sometimes not be worth the cost......
In times of prosperity, there would be more money available to spend on esoteric pursuits. In times of need we should be discrete in our spending."

Two areas of questions:

1) how does one determine what constitutes an "esoteric pursuit"? Like "dogma" vs "reasoning","esoteric pursuit" may mean many different things.

2) how, realistically, can one do a cost/benefit analysis of "the pursuit of knowledge" until after the fact? Was the Apollo program a good deal on a cost/benefit basis? Can the "benefit" be non-monetary? Is the "cost" only monetary?

In answer to one of my earlier questions, we all are, at some point, Amish.

Each of us has some point, some line in the sand, beyond which we will not go. I realized we were getting close to mine when I saw a few news reports about research into "face transplants" a few months ago. The idea's just creepy. You can figure out whether my position on face transplants is dogma or reasoned by reference to whether a face transplant is over the line for you.

But how do we figure out whether face transplants are okay for people who are non-Amish about them? The preamble to the Constitution may be instructive in this regard:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

A better statement of the purposes of government is not likely to be written.

Does banning "face transplants" in any way "... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" [Okay, maybe it does possibly promote "domestic Tranquility" because no one would go screaming down the street because they saw the face of some recently departed relative on some other guy's head].

If we can agree that the purposes of government are outlined in the preamble to the constitution, we have a framework for resolving the public policy questions. If we think there are other purposes, lets list them.

As far as my answer to whether banning "face transplants" promotes a governmental purpose: No, as long as they're not mandatory either.

PS: a question for a31pguy: Given that the President now has to nominate someone else for the Supreme Court, do you think it's time to redress the historical under-representation of buddhists on the court?

[GomJabbar]

Two areas of questions:

1) how does one determine what constitutes an "esoteric pursuit"? Like "dogma" vs "reasoning","esoteric pursuit" may mean many different things.

2) how, realistically, can one do a cost/benefit analysis of "the pursuit of knowledge" until after the fact? Was the Apollo program a good deal on a cost/benefit basis? Can the "benefit" be non-monetary? Is the "cost" only monetary?

The answer to 1 & 2 go hand-in-hand. If you subscribe to the Democratic form of government, then the majority decides where the public monies are spent. As the elected officials decide how to spend these monies, they should consider the will of the majority and the public good, and legislate likewise. It's too bad that they are often self-serving. And too often they serve a minority interest. As has been said from long ago: "Man has dominated man to his injury".

The scientists need to plead their cause if they wish public funding. If they are successful, then well and good. If not, then too bad. Take your blanket and go home, or find other (legal and ethical) means to accomplish your goals.

Benefits and certainly risks (or costs) are not only monetary. Even if a pursuit only accomplishes a gain in knowledge, that has worth. And certainly each gain serves as a stepping stone to further achievements.

One example of the above is the knowledge of nuclear power which has both peacetime and wartime benefits and costs. The public is still trying to resolve all the issues involved. Are we as living beings better off for our knowledge of nuclear power? Maybe, maybe not. We'll just have to see how it's used in the future. If it leads us to becoming a burnt cinder because of some radicals, then I think everyone could agree (if they were alive) that that was a road better not traveled. (I don't think that we will become a burnt cinder, but it does seem within the realm of possibility).

Question: Should we pursue knowledge at any cost? Is that the greatest achievement of mankind? Remember the Krell..........

[BillMorrow]

Question: Should we pursue knowledge at any cost? Is that the greatest achievement of mankind?

my opinion is that, simply put, Knowledge Is..

and thats it..

to avoid it because of the possible bad uses is silly..

ID is dogma, evoloution (darwin) is the studied accumulation of numerous observations..

and thus you see the problem, dogma requires that knowledge be controlled and limited to such knowledge as is in agreement with that dogma..

Remember the Krell..........

i probably should as i read all the sci-fi ever written up to about 1975 or 1980 and much thereafter..

[BillMorrow]

There would be a conflict to the students if they learn at home/church of intelligent design and lean evolution at school. Since both a theories and can not be proven in a lab, it would be nice if there was an alternative to just evolution being taught. (just my opinion).

WAIT..!!
let me introduce the fruit fly again..
evoloution CAN be proved..
at least to a small degree..

IMO, some need a "higher authority" to hand down laws and rules of moral conduct..
some are just plain honest and simply can not do bad to any significant degree..
i admit to being in this category.. i DO exceed the speed limit and make rude remarks from time to time, but i fervently "believe" in the right of a woman to control her own body (please, lets leave THIS topic for some other off topic mini-riot) and a man to be able to swing his arm wildly about until it makes contact with the end of my nose..
i also "believe" in the death penalty (lets send them on their way in their long trip to perfect karma) and a few rotting corpses of looters and the like, hanging from lamp posts would go a long way toward ending looting..
(well, ok, maybe not)

we all should be able to think what we want and not be force fed anothers idea of which god is god and which god is not god..
whether it be any of the hundreds of christian "faiths" or jewish or muslim or buddist or the many other "faiths"..

for me, i like the american indians "great spirit" and i think the great spirit is comprised of all who went before and all that is now..

hows THAT for a faith..?

[GomJabbar]

Question: Should we pursue knowledge at any cost? Is that the greatest achievement of mankind?

my opinion is that, simply put, Knowledge Is..

and thats it..

to avoid it because of the possible bad uses is silly.

That's true. Knowledge Is..

But if we can perceive that pursuing a certain path of knowledge could likely risk the very existence of mankind, should we continue? Should we pursue that path of knowledge just because we can? I am not saying that the pursuit of knowledge is bad, just suggesting that we don't always have the wisdom to deal with the what we find, so perhaps some areas of pursuit are not prudent. These questions are just rhetorical. I am sure there will always be someone somewhere that will plod ahead in areas that should be left alone. Taking the proverbial apple as it were - to be like God. So really my opinion here makes no difference, since these things will continue on anyway.

ID is dogma, evoloution (darwin) is the studied accumulation of numerous observations..

and thus you see the problem, dogma requires that knowledge be controlled and limited to such knowledge as is in agreement with that dogma..

Yes, dogma requires that knowledge be controlled. So what do you think is occuring in the following quote listed previously?

In an escalation of the nation's culture war over the teaching of evolution, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association announced yesterday that they will not allow Kansas to use key science education materials developed by the two organizations.

[dsvochak]

"Take your blanket and go home, or find other (legal and ethical) means to accomplish your goals"

Isn't that the same advice as "Evolution is wrong? Not a problem. Home school your kid."? And, incredibly enough, in our country today you can.

"The answer to 1 & 2 go hand-in-hand. If you subscribe to the Democratic form of government, then the majority decides where the public monies are spent."

Ignoring that in the U.S. we have a republican form of government not a democratic one, then I think what you're saying is we take a poll. Which is okay with me as long as we operate "democratically" (that is like a New England town hall meeting) and take a poll on everything. It's likely we wouldn't have time to do anything else but vote in polls, but that's okay. To paraphrase Bob Weir, since we're going to hell in a bucket we may as well enjoy the ride.

"Yes, dogma requires that knowledge be controlled. So what do you think is occuring in the following quote listed previously? [Washington Post quote omitted]"

This was previously addressed, but I'll revise and extend.

Withholding the right to use, copy, disseminate or any other right granted by copyright is not censorship or dogma or dogmatic. It's just "you can't use my material". Nothing the organizations have done prevents Mr. West or anyone else from engaging in a "... discussion of scientific criticism of Darwinian theory".

In music, there are a limited number of notes in the scale. When you write, and copyright a song, you do not thereby gain exclusive rights to the notes you use. All you get is the exclusive right to the particular arrangement of notes in your copyrighted song. The copyright give you an almost absolute and unfettered discretion to determine whether someone else can use your song.

Kansas is free to "take [its] blanket and go home, or find other (legal and ethical) means to accomplish [its] goals". One might be to use or write their own "song".

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that this is in accord with what has been suggested ought be the case.

[GomJabbar]

"Take your blanket and go home, or find other (legal and ethical) means to accomplish your goals"

Isn't that the same advice as "Evolution is wrong? Not a problem. Home school your kid."? And, incredibly enough, in our country today you can.

True enough. I wasn't being very charitable there. But I do think that comparing (1) the support of just any scientific endeavor with public monies with (2) scientists preventing the teaching of alternatives to evolution, is really comparing apples to boxcars.

Ignoring that in the U.S. we have a republican form of government not a democratic one, then I think what you're saying is we take a poll. Which is okay with me as long as we operate "democratically" (that is like a New England town hall meeting) and take a poll on everything. It's likely we wouldn't have time to do anything else but vote in polls, but that's okay.

I think you are correct in saying that this country is Democratic in name only. I am not suggesting polls. I was trying to say that in a 'true democratic society' the public's will would take place. That is why I said: "If you subscribe to the Democratic form of government, then the majority decides where the public monies are spent.". This is the theory but not quite the reality.

"Yes, dogma requires that knowledge be controlled. So what do you think is occuring in the following quote listed previously? [Washington Post quote omitted]"

This was previously addressed, but I'll revise and extend.

Withholding the right to use, copy, disseminate or any other right granted by copyright is not censorship or dogma or dogmatic. It's just "you can't use my material". Nothing the organizations have done prevents Mr. West or anyone else from engaging in a "... discussion of scientific criticism of Darwinian theory".

The withholding of the materials is of course the right of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, it is a form of coercion in this case. By denying the copyrighted materials, they are trying to force the hand of the school board or others, so that they will cry 'Uncle' and give in. They know that the schools need these materials to teach science. And science encompasses so much more than evolution and creation. They are really saying "My way or the Highway". They are trying to control knowledge by being dogmatic.

The refusal came after the groups reviewed the latest draft of the Kansas State Department of Education's new science education standards and concluded that they overemphasize uncertainties about the theory of evolution and fail to make it clear that supernatural phenomena have no place in science.

Until those issues are properly dealt with, the two groups said in a letter to state Assistant Education Commissioner Alexa Posny, the state will not be granted permission to use their science curriculum materials. [text color changed]

Those include the National Science Education Standards, which serve as the foundation for science curricula in virtually every state in the nation and which were written by the academy's affiliate, the National Research Council. [text color changed, underline added] They also include the science teachers' Pathway to the Science Standards, which help translate the NRC's guidelines for everyday use.

[dsvochak]

"The withholding of the materials is of course the right of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, it is a form of coercion in this case. By denying the copyrighted materials, they are trying to force the hand of the school board or others, so that they will cry 'Uncle' and give in. They know that the schools need these materials to teach science. And science encompasses so much more than evolution and creation. They are really saying "My way or the Highway". They are trying to control knowledge by being dogmatic."

At least we agree that "The withholding of the materials is of course the right of the copyright holder". The rest of the quote makes certain inferences and conclusions that I don't think are logically justified, or bolstered by the Washington Post quote.

I don't know that "... the schools need these materials to teach science". It may be more convenient to teach science using these materials than other materials for, among other reasons, that they are readily available and generally accepted, but that doesn't make them required or needed. The first sentence of the Washington Post quote establishes that Kansas has developed it's own "science education standards" which would seem to negate the idea that the National Science Education Standards are needed to teach science. It appears that Kansas is free to develop it's own standards.

The Kansas School Board adopted proposed new science education standards. It is "... anticipated that the board would approve "the substance of the standards" as written". The NAS and National Science Teachers Association "reviewed the latest draft of the Kansas State Department of Education's new science education standards and concluded"..."in a letter to state Assistant Education Commissioner Alexa Posny, the state will not be granted permission to use their science curriculum materials."

How does this become "using coercion", saying "My way or the Highway" or "trying to control knowledge by being dogmatic"? I doubt these terms are at all applicable to this particular situation.

"Using coercion"?

Black's Law Dictionary defines "coercion" as "Compulsion; constraint; compelling by force or arms". The school board clearly is neither "compelled" to adopt the association standards nor "constrained" from adopting other standards. The issue of "force or arms" does not apply.

"My way or the Highway"?

An earlier post argued "The scientists need to plead their cause if they wish public funding. If they are successful, then well and good. If not, then too bad. Take your blanket and go home, or find other (legal and ethical) means to accomplish your goals." It appear to me the associations pled their cause, and, when unsuccessful, chose to "Take [their] blanket and go home", or by withholding copyright permission are using "... other (legal and ethical) means to accomplish [their] goals".

"trying to control knowledge by being dogmatic."?

Whether the intended usage was meanings 1, 2 or the synonym "dictatorial" in the definition of "dogmatic" previously given the result is the same. As Kansas has developed their own standards, the associations are not "imposing one's will or opinions on others". The associations are also not "being unduly and offensively positive in laying down principles and expressing opinions". The only principle at stake here is "If you're going to use my materials, use my standards. If you use different standards, use different materials". I fail to see how this is ""being unduly and offensively positive".

Kansas has chosen to use standards which do not, in part, comply with the associations standards. That, apparently, is their right. The associations have chosen to not grant permission to use their science curriculum materials to teach standards which are different from their own. That, apparently, is their right.

Yet, when the associations choose to exercise their rights they are "using coercion", saying "My way or the Highway" or "trying to control knowledge by being dogmatic". Why?

The only answer to the question I can see is the associations must have some unstated obligation, or restriction on their rights, which is not shared by the school board. But until someone specifies what that obligation or restriction might be I am totally at a loss.

[dsvochak]

On a lighter note, for those who missed it. (And because it's perversely applicable to this discussion) Saturday Night Live Weekend Update reported last night on a "recent poll".

The results were that 66% of the American Public believe President Bush is doing a poor job in the war in Iraq. The other 34% believe Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church.

Sometimes reductio ad absurdum can at least give us a laugh.

[GomJabbar]

"Using coercion"?

Black's Law Dictionary [words bolded] defines "coercion" as "Compulsion; constraint; compelling by force or arms". The school board clearly is neither "compelled" to adopt the association standards nor "constrained" from adopting other standards. The issue of "force or arms" does not apply.

Regarding: "Using coercion"? "My way or the Highway"? "trying to control knowledge by being dogmatic."? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a ______ (fill in the blank).

Yep, I can see that I am debating with a litigator. I kind of thought as much a few posts back. Unfortunately one can be 'right' and still lose in a court of law. A skilled litigator can persuade a jury to go against the spirit of the law instead to follow the letter of the law (usually a technicality). This can result in justice not being served. Don't get me wrong, I feel our judicial system is very good, just not in every case.

The Kansas school board is being compelled by force in this sense. Sure they can come up with their own materials, but at what financial cost? School districts in general are not known to be flush with money. And how much money for education do you think is available in the "Sunflower State"? Even if other materials are available, they would have to be discovered first, then vetted for their educational quality, accuracy, cost, and possible similar restrictions. If Kansas develops their science materials in-house, how much time do you think that would take? What about the students in school now? Deny them a science education? Note that the State of Kansas does not want to deny a science education to their children, they just want to be sure that their children are not swayed to a generally athiestic point of view. They let their students hear both sides of the arguement, so they can make up their own mind. Kansas is not forcing ID on their children, just letting them know that it is one thing to consider when studying Evolution.

The above stance is taken by the "National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association" (a group of scientists) because it challenges their long held established opinion. It is their dogma. Hence their reason for being dogmatic. Sad.

Note that several years ago I was crossing the State of Kansas by automobile. What I heard being preached (regarding a religious belief) on the talk radio is definitely not what I believe. I have the feeling that I do not share the religious beliefs of many Kansans. Nevertheless I do not think that the State is being out of line here in their stance.

[dsvochak]

"The Kansas school board is being compelled by force in this sense. Sure they can come up with their own materials, but at what financial cost? School districts in general are not known to be flush with money. And how much money for education do you think is available in the "Sunflower State"? Even if other materials are available, they would have to be discovered first, then vetted for their educational quality, accuracy, cost, and possible similar restrictions. If Kansas develops their science materials in-house, how much time do you think that would take? What about the students in school now? Deny them a science education?"

To be blunt, none of this is the problem of the two associations.

It's a problem the Kansas school board should have thought about before, as the Washington Post article points out, they repeated their 1999 action. The associations apparently took the same position then. I think the Kansas school board should have seen this one coming and prepared accordingly.

The fact that they failed to do so neither imposes an obligation on the associations to bail them out, nor makes the associations "dogmatic". All it really does is it allows us to characterize the school board as "short sighted". While it may be polite to do so, there is no principle in either the law or justice that requires you inform someone that they are about to step in a pile of dog crap.

To clear up another apparent mis-conception, "justice" and "the law" are not one and the same. They are two different ideas that only at rare times have any relationship to one another.

I don't mean this as a negative statement regarding GomJabbar, but using a perjeorative term like "dogmatic" often is not useful in advancing the discussion. It doesn't tell us anything other than the side using the term doesn't like what the other side is doing. In this case, I don't care whether either side is "dogmatic" or not.

I might have been more swayed by the "What about the students in school now? Deny them a science education?" argument if this wasn't the second time since 1999 that this exact situation had arisen between these exact parties. This time around, unless there's some argument a whole lot better that I haven't yet heard, all can ask is "What did the school board expect?"

By the way, GomJabbar, given that you're "the lone ranger" in this discussion and you've got a limited supply of ammunition against, apparently, every "black hat" in the world with endless bullets, I think you're doing pretty well.

And I'll be as clear as I can: I'm not trying to convince you evolution is correct. I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than it will take a lot more than I've heard so far to convince me that, under the current state of the law (having nothing to do with "justice") in the U.S., "intelligent design" has a place in public school science curricula.

[GomJabbar]

And I'll be as clear as I can: I'm not trying to convince you evolution is correct. I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than it will take a lot more than I've heard so far to convince me that, under the current state of the law (having nothing to do with "justice") in the U.S., "intelligent design" has a place in public school science curricula.

No 'legislating from the bench' I take it. I guess either side can espouse that view. (Referring to Yourself and the Current Executive).

Thanks for the largesse. My mother used to say when I was a teenager that I should be a lawyer because of my propensity to advocate my viewpoint (paraphrasing here). Well, I didn't follow that course in life, but ended up as a chief engineer on a seagoing tug. Too late to turn back the clock now, but I do kind of wish I had furthered my formal education and pursued different career goals.

Time to reload my ammo belt for the next salvo.

EDIT: I meant to add that participating in this debate has been fun for the intellectual challenge, but disappointing for the direction it has headed, in that I appear to be so much in the minority here. I am the champion of the underdog in this thread. Actually I could use Underdog right about now.

Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog. Underdog!