Elwed: a closed mouth gathers no foot, eh.

Elwed: Quite frankly, what’s your estimate of the percentage of creationists that are sincerely open to abandoning their position when confronted with Evolution 101 course work?

Don’t know.  I had thought that most people here were confronted with evolution during high school, but have been surprised to find that it is not the case.  These folks are prime candidates for the fundies because with only bits and pieces of knowledge the get sucked in by the fundies false science. 

I agree with you about the trench warfare analogy.  This is problematic for science.  Because the fundies have widened the debate.  Evolutionists are being painted as arrogant asses who are anti-God, anti-country, anti-mom, and anti-apple pie.  If scientists want to educate the populance they will cut the bullshit that feeds into the widening of the argument.  Scientists need to narrow the argument to what it should be about-the facts.

Consi writes…

I agree with you about the trench warfare analogy.  This is problematic for science.  Because the fundies have widened the debate.  Evolutionists are being painted as arrogant asses who are anti-God, anti-country, anti-mom, and anti-apple pie.  If scientists want to educate the populance they will cut the bullshit that feeds into the widening of the argument.  Scientists need to narrow the argument to what it should be about-the facts.

The problem with that is most of the anti-Evolution crowd isn’t interested in facts and will dismiss any you provide them with out of hand.

Scott Adams, though he claims otherwise, is kind of a good example of this very thing. His blog entry that started the big flare up between him and PZ Myers was basically a long essay about how he doesn’t know enough about either Evolution or Intelligent Design theory to be able to decide which one is correct AND that there were no credible people on either side of the debate that he could trust to give him correct answers because everyone on both sides had their own agendas and biases.

In short, his argument was that he didn’t know and both sides had vested interests other than pursuit of “The Truth” that automatically made them non-credible sources of information as far as Scott is concerned. Myers jumped all over Adams because Adams appeared to be claiming that the claims of the Intelligent Design crowd were just as valid as the claims of the Evolutionist crowd and Adams responded back with: “See? This is exactly what I was talking about.”

In this situation Adams will discount any facts that Myers may present simply because Myers has “an agenda” as actual working scientist and university professor. Whether what Myers presents is factual or not doesn’t enter into the equation as far as Adams is concerned because Adams doesn’t trust Myers to be truthful with him because of his status as a scientist.

Now as much as I enjoy reading Dilbert, I have to wonder how Adams gets through life at all if he’s going to discount evidence provided by professionals because they have a vested interest (e.g. making a living) in doing what they do? I wonder if he goes to his doctor with a head cold and then tells the doctor that he has no credibility in determining what Adams’ illness is because the doctor actually makes money from being a doctor? Or how about his car mechanic? Does he discount what the mechanic has to say because the guy is charging him to fix his car?

Adams isn’t, as far as I can tell, part of the anti-Evolution crowd (he even admits that, if pressured, he’d side with the Evolutionists), but he still makes a great example of how people can just write off the facts because they don’t want to accept the people who are presenting them as any kind of an authority.

So simple presenting the facts alone isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind. If you don’t show these people why they’re being idiotic they’re going to think they’ve got more than a couple of brain cells to rub around. You’re not likely to convince them, but you are more likely to convince the others who have a few more brain cells to spare.

FR,

It’s simple really.  Science says to test your hypothesis.  That’s all.  If you think something might be true, then gather some data, interpret it using sound, cogent reasoning, and let others independently test for the results.  That is really all that science demands.

This isn’t a popularity contest.  I don’t care whether the women and men in white lab coats are surly and can’t hold a proper cocktail party conversation.  I care that you can show me, independently and whether I can repeat it, assuming I follow your steps exactly.

As for whether a theory is true or not, gravity is a common example.  Clearly, I can’t see gravity per se.  All I can do is ask the question “why do things fall?” I might come up with Sir Newton’s theories, but for me, for my personal decision whether to believe in gravity, I’m left with my own personal observations and evaluating how well someone else’s explanation holds up in explaining those observations. 

Science doesn’t predict as much as it attempts to explain.  A point once made to me in 8th grade science class by my patient teacher was that as a scientist he could never guarantee that the pencil he held would not fall when he dropped it.  That is, science is empirical.  I’m from Missouri, says science, show me.

So, with regard to evolution, it is only a theory.  Theories are just explanations of observations, the facts themselves.  Evolution does not guarantee that the next species must evolve from what we have; evoluation can only examine data from the past.  We can extrapolate and attempt to predict where it might go, but then such predictions are only as valuable as later confirmation of the evidence shows it to be.  To paraphrase from Hume, you don’t know fire will burn you until you try it.

Yet, I’m not a biologist, and FR you make a reasonable point.  Is science a kind of faith?  Well, to anyone, with a science background or not, to accept the conclusion of anyone else, without having done the groundwork of education, of examining details myself, from reviewing all other research in the area, is the same as accepting a premise on faith. Surely, an astronomer or physicist with Ph.D. is in the same boat as I when it comes to biology. 

The difference is that which marks whether I accept the reasoning of any other individual:  could they prove it if I asked them to show me?  Can they trace their reasoning from data gathered to their end conclusion?  Have they tested it?  Do I have a reasonable basis on which I could expect to independently repeat their work and reach the same conclusions?  Even so, I can’t really count on science to guarantee the results as predictive, just as an explanation of what was previously seen.

So FR, it’s simple.  We can quote academically reviewed articles on various experiments that confirm various evolutionary results, within and among species.  Can you, will you, provide us with articles that demonstrate from specific, independently gathered data how ID is supported by confirmable or repeatable observations?

If my only argument is that some Dr. Smith said it and so it’s true, then you’re right.  This isn’t science, it’s faith.  My acceptance of his answer is based on whether I trust Dr. Smith could show me if I was willing to invest the time and energy to follow his 8 years of post-secondary education and years in a research lab.

If your only argument is fundmentally that “the Bible says it, so I believe it”, and you point to Genesis, then this isn’t science, it’s faith. 

You’re left with somehow convincing us to leave Missouri and accept you at your word.  Please, FR, why should we?

It seems to me that FabulousRog is intelligent and stepped into the lion’s den in good spirit.  As with most sweeping social debates, we can’t expect some immediate resolution; instead, it comes down to educating people one at a time.  Personally, I don’t mind if Creationists want to believe what they wish.  Still, science should be about empirical evidence.  They can take or leave the evidence, but it should remain intact and free from religion in the class rooms.  It kind of parrallels the whole “Give unto Caesar” deal.

One of the fundamental arguments behind the debate is the claim that agreeing with evolution requires faith, too.  And, yeah.  It does, ultimately.  Unfortunately, that’s an older philosophical debate that has no resolution.  Ultimately, with all knowledge there has to be a starting point based on assumptions.  All of knowledge and all of science is ultimately undefendable if reduced far enough.  Those arguing with the Creationists often pull out the sledge hammer and attack the Creationists for a lack of understanding of scientific theory.  When the “just a theory!” cry goes up, that’s code for “all knowledge is ultimately based on assumption and/or faith.” Rather than gamely addressing this claim, most evolution defenders ignore it simply because Creationists often do not share the same ideological memes to express it this way.

The concept of evolution is easy, but, to be fair, it takes a huge amount of study to have an understanding of scientific principals behind evolution.  Understanding the base principals that allow age dating techniques ultimately requires relatively advanced knowledge of physics, math, geology, chemistry, botany, at atmospheric studies.  The great majority of people arguing for evolution don’t even come close to having that knowledge.  Where the IDers are saying God told me so, the vast majority of evolution supports are essentially saying “12 (or 50) sceintists tell me this is so.” That’s faith in my book.

What if the 10 smartest methmeticians/physicists in the world were the only ones with minds prepared to truly understand a new deduction from string theory..?  Play along.  Someone on a modern day level like Einstine pops out a very solid deduction from String theory (or your physics/math of choice) that unquestionably shows the existence of a God.  Of all the scientific community, only nine others have the smarts, knowledge, and imagination to really visualize the concept in their minds’ eyes.  These are nine of the most respected cornerstone of our scientific community.  And now they say string theory proves god’s existence.  Would you devote your life to advanced study in the hope that you have the makeup to someday see the formula at work for yourself in your own mind’s eye?  Or would you just believe what the ten told you?  Or would you call them quacks and be another group like the IDers that rejects good solid science?

The concept of evolution is easy, but, to be fair, it takes a huge amount of study to have an understanding of scientific principals behind evolution.

Well, CitizenX, it depends on what you mean by “understanding”.  Of course, to understand evolution in any detail takes a huge amount of study.  But to understand enough to see that it provides a better fit to the evidence than, say, Young Earth Creationism, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist.

And “faith” is a loaded word.  If my belief in evolution is “faith”, so is my belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning.

Also- I don’t understand string theory, but I have “faith” that God cannot be hiding there, because that would be illogical, no matter what string theory says.

RDNewman has the better reply. 

FabRog: My argument is based on the fact that the Bible CLAIMS to not only be a canon that shows a way for humankind to be reconciled to God, it also purports to be a historical record of the origin of species. Not only is the claim made, but it is backed up by the actual historical record.

You do realize the only fact you mention is a claim.  Your argument is just as valid for Greek, Roman, Norse, etc, mythologies.  They have the same historical backing.  Just b/c a story is based in a real setting, does not make the story factual.  It’s like claiming Joss Whedon’s “Angel” is all real b/c it’s based in Los Angeles.

Perhaps there is some truth to this statement, however, for the scientific explanations of origin to be true requires that ID or creationism must be vanquished.

While the “God said it, I believe it�? argument may seem intellectually bankrupt to you, for many Christians, this is enough.

That was my point about the pratical impossibility of explaining evolution in less than three words.  Not to mention that even those who can understand it, may not WANT it to be true b/c it upsets their comfortable little world.

CitizenX: Where the IDers are saying God told me so, the vast majority of evolution supports are essentially saying “12 (or 50) sceintists tell me this is so.�? That’s faith in my book.

No, exactly.  The scientists can produce evidence and experiments to back them up.  The only faith is taking them at face value without looking into their evidence.

Or would you just believe what the ten told you?

Again, they’d have to show the proofs.

No, exactly.

Should’ve been “Not exactly”

zilch, technically, your conviction that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith.  Exactly.  Any bookie would round the odds up to 100% based on past observations.  The fact that evidence is so overwhelming doesn’t change the underlying faith issue.

Actually, Ragman, the centuries devoted to an unsuccessful search for provable first knowledge leaves all of science technically in the realm of faith, even for those scientists you are talking about having faith in.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not arguing that science is an equal leap of faith.  I’m just saying that, logically, the ID argument about both stances requiring faith is legitimate though rarely addressed due to IDers often failing to make the point clearly.

I’ll put $10K on the sunrise for tomorrow.

Consi,

Don’t know.  I had thought that most people here were confronted with evolution during high school, but have been surprised to find that it is not the case.  These folks are prime candidates for the fundies because with only bits and pieces of knowledge the get sucked in by the fundies false science.

Which leads to the next question: What are kids taught in high school anyway? I have never attended an American one; my sister did for a while and I can’t begin to tell you how upset she was about the “academic standard” compared to the schools back home.

I agree with you about the trench warfare analogy.  This is problematic for science.  Because the fundies have widened the debate.  Evolutionists are being painted as arrogant asses who are anti-God, anti-country, anti-mom, and anti-apple pie.  If scientists want to educate the populance they will cut the bullshit that feeds into the widening of the argument.  Scientists need to narrow the argument to what it should be about-the facts.

Which leads to another question - since the creationist’s objections to evolution are of a religious and not a scientific nature, shouldn’t it be up to the calmer religious minds instead of scientists to educate their own? This is a start: An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science.

Perhaps the proper way to deal with creationists is to refer them to the nearest member of the clergy that’s compatible with their beliefs…

zilch, technically, your conviction that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith.  Exactly.  Any bookie would round the odds up to 100% based on past observations.  The fact that evidence is so overwhelming doesn’t change the underlying faith issue.

You’re equivocating on the meaning of faith.

Try to see it from another angle. What changes if you develop cracks in religious ‘faith’, as opposed to ‘faith’ in empiricist methods?

You’re equivocating on the meaning of faith.

Try to see it from another angle. What changes if you develop cracks in religious ‘faith’, as opposed to ‘faith’ in empiricist methods?

This line of thinking essentially becomes an argument over which type of faith is less or more rigid.  The fundamentalists will argue that certainty is better.

On another note, I feel we as a scientifically enlightened culture are reaping what we sewed.  Evolution is not compatible with a literal view of Genesis, buy no area of science is contrary to the existence of God.  However, our liberal media and many professors have blatantly attempted to marginalize the faithful of our country.  Surprise, they are coming out fighting.  Yes, the U.S. is founded on principles of religious freedom; yet it is foolish to marginalize the majority.  ID probably wouldn’t be an issue if the religious majority had not felt attacked at every corner.  It’s far too often that children from religious backgrounds find ridicule in higher education in areas far outside of debate on evolution or the big bang.

I don’t believe what the fundamentalists believe, but I do believe in the right to take a stand for what you believe in.  I’m not at all surprised to see the fundamentalists regrouping and counter attacking.  Were I responsibe for leading that group, I’d be looking to take the conflict to my oponent’s home turf, too.  Tit for tat, perhaps.  “You want to pull our Ten Commandments off the wall after decades of display?  You want to take our prayer from the schools?  You want take away our charitable tax status?  Let’s see how you like it.”

It’s far too often that children from religious backgrounds find ridicule in higher education in areas far outside of debate on evolution or the big bang

I sympathize with people who are ridiculed in the arena of higher education.

On the other hand, if you’ve been taught for your entire life to -not- question, and to -not- exercise critical thinking skills, it’s not really that surprising if you don’t excel in an environment that privileges those skills.
If you turn in a paper, in a humanities class, that uses “God said so” as the support for your argument, yeah, people are going to laugh at you. 

Tit for tat, perhaps.  “You want to pull our Ten Commandments off the wall after decades of display?  You want to take our prayer from the schools?  You want take away our charitable tax status?  Let’s see how you like it.�?

Yes.  Just like we want to do away with laws that preclude women from making decisions about their own reproductive system, just like we want to do away with a system that says that women and black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, just like we want to do away with a system that says that it’s OK to deny someone a government position because they aren’t sufficiently ‘Christian.’

The fact that something has been done ‘for decades’ doesn’t mean that it was the right thing to do.

It’s not surprising at all that people who are doing the wrong thing don’t like to be called on it, and ‘fight back’ when people get fed up with their shit.

Unabashedly triple-dipping…

Where the IDers are saying God told me so, the vast majority of evolution supports are essentially saying “12 (or 50) sceintists tell me this is so.�? That’s faith in my book.

Nope, it’s the argument from authority, combined with the argumentum ad numerum in the latter case.

Where scripture is accepted voluntarily or as a result of indoctrination, anybody can sit down and think his or her way through the principles of evolution. Anybody with a modicum of programming skills can write a few toy programs that demonstrate that these principles can be successfully applied to real-world problems.

This line of thinking essentially becomes an argument over which type of faith is less or more rigid.

Once you admit that there are different types of faith, that particular debate is over.

Were I responsibe for leading that group, I’d be looking to take the conflict to my oponent’s home turf, too.  Tit for tat, perhaps.  “You want to pull our Ten Commandments off the wall after decades of display?  You want to take our prayer from the schools?  You want take away our charitable tax status?  Let’s see how you like it.�?

Which is exactly what happens in the big picture. On the one side, you have religious troglodytes who want to ram their personal beliefs down everybody else’s throat; on the other side you have people that will have none of it. Science is just an innocent victim of a drive-by thumping.

Were I responsibe for leading that group, I’d be looking to take the conflict to my oponent’s home turf, too.  Tit for tat, perhaps.  “You want to pull our Ten Commandments off the wall after decades of display?  You want to take our prayer from the schools?  You want take away our charitable tax status?  Let’s see how you like it.�?

Elwed and nowiser beat me to it.  What they said.

Christians can be just as condescending to other religions, if not outright hostile.  Atheists don’t usually throw bricks through the windows of christian cars. 

It’s not god I have a problem with.  It’s his fanclubs.

Scott Adams, though he claims otherwise, is kind of a good example of this very thing. His blog entry that started the big flare up between him and PZ Myers was basically a long essay about how he doesn’t know enough about either Evolution or Intelligent Design theory to be able to decide which one is correct…

Myers jumped all over Adams because Adams appeared to be claiming that the claims of the Intelligent Design crowd were just as valid as the claims of the Evolutionist crowd and Adams responded back with: “See? This is exactly what I was talking about.�?

I’m not saying Adams is right, or that his position isn’t a result of laziness.  I’m saying that Myers reaction was overblown and the complete wrong approach.  All it did was make Adams point in a lot of minds. 

Disregard the screwed up thinking Adams and others are using to draw their conclusions that this makes their point.  The bottom line is that what Adams is reading and hearing is the howling and screeching coming from both sides at decibel levels that fail to promote understanding, but somehow get the “faithful” on both sides all jacked up to play.

Myers missed an opportunity.  Here he had Adams openly saying I don’t know enough.  All Myers had to do was to ask a simple question:  If a lay person with no stake were to explain the foundations for both positions would you be willing to listen?  How freaking reasonable does that sound?  How can ya say no to that?  Why not just play on the other guy’s field with the other guy’s refs and in front of a hostile audience? If your case is strong enough, play wherever. I do. 

Elwed: What are kids taught in high school anyway?

...since the creationist’s objections to evolution are of a religious and not a scientific nature, shouldn’t it be up to the calmer religious minds instead of scientists to educate their own?

Either the scientists get in touch with the art of persuasion or they will find their future research assistants spouting off about the geological evidence for Noah’s flood.  I see it as a matter of self-interest, as well as a public duty to children across the land.  Lawyers aren’t the only profession that should have to do a bit of pro bono work.  It’s good for the soul.

I don’t believe you fully understand the ramifications of the religious fundamentalists winning. Or perhaps you do and you are indeed a victim of the rationalistic fallacy.

Evolution is not a specialty field of study in biology, but something that pervades almost all hard science. It won’t happen overnight, but once science education in America is subverted and acceptance of evolution is an outcome of a popularity contest, it is just a matter of time until an exodus of scientists and foreign students to greener pastures sets in. Arguably, the fallout from 9/11 has already set this in motion.

This inevitable brain drain will be detrimental to the American national interest; science in America will become second-rate and the next generation of scientists-to-be will fight for research assistant jobs in the U.K., continental Europe, and everywhere else where science isn’t held bondage by the religious. What scientists remain will favor foreign students for research assistant jobs that don’t have to unlearn as much and these students will know better than to stay once they’ve learned what there is to learn.

I personally believe that there is a lot more at stake than the watering down of the American science curriculum. It is indeed a matter of self-interest for sciencists to get their point across. However, it’s not as simple as putting in some pro bono work. I doubt there are many people sitting on the fence that can be won over by explaining things just the right way; before scientists can even go there they have to fight an uphill battle against the results of the neglected and underfunded American school system. By and large, scientists have to fight a vicious circle that works against them.

Perhaps the battle is already lost anyway:

Slacking Off in Science

zilch, technically, your conviction that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith.

Granted, the varieties of knowledge we have, or believe we have, about the world, is a large and slipslidy topic, CitizenX.  That said, I beg to differ.  Some people may use the word “faith” in the way you describe, but it’s not the way I use it.  My usage is closer to the definition in Wikepedia:

The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to “belief”, “trust” or “confidence”, but unlike these terms, “faith” tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God or a higher power. The object of faith can be a person (or even an inanimate object or state of affairs) or a proposition (or body of propositions, such as a religious credo). In each case, however, the faithful subject’s faith is in an aspect of the object that cannot be rationally proven or objectively known.{my italics}

If anything can be said to be “rationally proven”, it’s the rising of the sun tomorrow.  Broadening the definition of “faith” to include all possible knowledge of future events makes “faith”, in this context, indistinguishable in meaning from “knowledge”, or “prediction”.  For me, and perhaps for most people and dictionaries, “faith” implies trust that is not based on material evidence, and “knowledge” implies trust based on material evidence- a rather large difference in meaning, and one that is often ignored by fundamentalists, to whom belief in God and belief in evolution are both “faiths”.

Of course, you can rationally believe in the Bible, or parts thereof- i.e. not take it on “faith”, but believe that it describes historical events and personages: the Flood, Herod, etc.  These beliefs can be investigated scientifically, and some of them can be substantiated or disproven to a reasonable degree of confidence, without faith entering into the picture at all.  But as soon as invisible superior beings enter the picture, faith comes too.  That’s fine for those so inclined, but it has no place in public school science classes.

When little Suzy gets bashed by the teacher when she answers a question with “God did it”, then Suzy is probably going to end up one of the adults that is out trying to overthrow evolution in the public school system.  Our teachers need to be open minded enough to give kind explanations and to leave students’ beliefs in God alone.  For instance, when Suzy explains the orbital path of Pluto by saying God made it that way, her answer isn’t provably wrong.  The teacher should respect that.  Profs should have the sense to br respectful and offer some mind-expanding information.  The prof might approach it like this:  “Well, Suzy.  There are many educated Christians that believe the truth in Genisis is alagorical, God’s way of explaining the nature of humanity.  The previous Pope felt this way for instance.  Einstine belived in a God.  For these Christians, they see God’s power and mystery at work in the mechanical laws of the Universe.  In science, we study these laws in isolation without consideration for who put them there or for what reason.  It is perfectly natural for you to have your own beliefs about religion.  Now, Suzy, what mechanical systems do you think might explain Pluto’s orbit?”

See?  Rather than teachers leading religious students to feel there is some conflict, as though God is the wrong answer, they should teach them to separate scientific knowledge from faith.  If the prof bashes Suzy’s belief, then she is likely going to reject education and science as the enemy of her faith.  If she is handled wisely, fairly, and without the prof. making sweeping and unprovable assertions about God being the wrong answer, she won’t be forced to find the two systems at odds.  She might even go on to help others in her religious community to see that good unbiased science is just another wonder of God’s Universe.

That jerk prof. with the ID class may have found a way to piss off a bunch of IDers, but he is also doing a wonderful job of creating more of them.  I think the professors and scientists that alienate the faithful for no good reason are a very large part of the problem.

That’s an excellent point CitizenX, and well-explained. Just to drag out a bit on some material that was previously covered, and I could be wrong, but part of the testing of many kinds of phenomena (including the physics of stellar bodies like Pluto) beg the prediction of the following result. Unfortunately, doing that is becoming very very tedious, and relies on principles not made easily intuitive to the current generation of students. However, it’s still a common problem, and one that “God did it” will never address, since “God works in mysterious ways”. Einstein, if I remember correctly, thought of coming closer to God by discovering the Universe’s mysteries. Using that example is a more intuitive way to help people make place for science in their world.

If Little Suzy answers goddidit in a science class, she’s already a lost cause. She education system has failed her miserably and it’s much more likely that she’ll join the ranks of evolution opponents than turn into a goodwill ambassador for science.

I agree that people skills shouldn’t be neglected, but I also invite you to examine the hidden assumptions in your post.

I grade papers for an introductory astronomy class. I’ve actually seen people turn in homework saying “God did it.”

They got a 0.

“When little Suzy gets bashed by the teacher...”

We should not require a teacher to be deferential to nonsense.

We need to start teaching our kids to ask the right question.  If the teacher says something upsetting, the question is not “Is the teacher being mean to me?” but “Is the teacher right?  What do I need to know in order to decide?”

Niceness is overrated.  We hurt our children by letting them pout and refuse to learn because someone wasn’t nice to them.  Not just for science class, either; in literature, history, English, math, etc.  Yes, some people are jerks, including some teachers. Dealing with jerks is an extremely valuable skill.  You probably can’t change the jerk, but you can try to get as much value as possible from the transaction.

I taught my kids; “You do not have to like your teacher, or even respect him/her.  Just learn as much as you can, and don’t disrupt the class.”

And let’s reserve the term; “bashing” for something you do with a club.  It has become just another way of whining that someone was mean to you, by which we mean they disagreed and were not sufficiently deferential.  (Bush-bashing, Kerry-bashing, evolution-bashing, religion-bashing, etc.)

Well CitizenX, I myself can not solve complicated calculus problems or work out the physics necessary to put a probe on Mars and could, if I had no self respect, claim that while I do not understand them God does. How would it make you feel if I launched a multi-million, or possibly billion, dollar probe into the ether wasting all that taxpayer money because I BELIEVED God would guide it to Mars? Would you encourage NASA to put me in charge of another mission? Would you encourage the taxpayers to fund another faith-based space project?

I believe you should encourage children in many persuits, but there is a place for religious encouragement and it is in the churches and the homes of those who want such things. I want to encourage critical thinking and acedemic excellence, religious indoctrination has no place in public schools. Any child who can not learn the material that is taught, whether they choose to believe it or not, should not be coddled when they choose to use metaphysical mumbo jumbo as a cop out. The last thing America needs more of are people pretending to be scientists who have no understanding of scientific principle.

I don’t expect I will be in support of any God probes into empty space.  I don’t call for educators to support religious thinking in schools.  You miss my point.  The teacher has absolutely no evidence to say God didn’t do it.  The point is to accomodate both sides and then focus on exclusive empirical thinking.  No matter what science goes into a space probe, the teacher can’t say God isn’t behind it.  God really isn’t an issue, but the educator is wrong to alienate anyone for thinking God is involved.  The teacher should diplomatically show that the science doesn’t prove or disprove God and should definitely not attack the faithful or even show disdain.  What the educator should do is to say that, even if God is or isn’t behind the wheel, there are these nifty physical laws that are amazing, intricate, and predictable.  Let’s study them, class.

You know, those who handily write off the kids that come in with a God solution are as much of the problem as any fanatic literalist preachers.  We are talking about half the damn nation coming from this background.  We’ll just write off half the population—no, half the kids—because they were raised in a religious home?  That kind of thinking will sink our country just as fast as all our scientists fleeing to other countries.  That’s the big problem.  Two sides in their trenches and both don’t have the sense to look after the greater good.