Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

Education

Religion and Education in Iowa

Sep 1st, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Teaching the bible... teaching evolution Americans United for Separation of Church and State posted an article on Facebook today about a public school in Iowa that dropped two new classes in order to avoid any potential legal trouble. One class was a bible class and the other was a critique of evolutionary theory. The Des Moines Register has the full article.

There aren’t any details on the classes, so I can’t see exactly whether the bible class was going to teach about the bible or teach the bible. Those are very different things. However, the inclusion of the class to critique evolutionary theory tends to indicate that the bible class wasn’t going to be an impartial view of biblical literature.

The story aside, what I found more interesting were the comments following the article.

They started out innocently enough with statements like these.

“Use the time to schedule just a little more history teaching. It couldn’t hurt and might help explain the middle East and other troubled parts of our world.”

“Schools are for learning reading, math, and history. Church is for religion.”

“Seems like another attempt to introduce a specific religion into the public schools. Makes me wonder why these individuals feel church, television, radio and door to door are not enough.”

Those sound reasonable to me, especially the last one where it’s pointed out (not nearly often enough in general) that religion is promoted so heavily in other venues that it seems redundant at best to include it in public schools.

Another great comment was this one by “Brandieport.”

With math, science and writing being so important to high school graduation rates and college admission, it seems to me that more electives should be dedicated to core subjects and less to religion, unless there is a variety offered. Why not teach a “religions of the world” course that allows the kids to see the diversity of thought that lies just over yonder hill.

I think a “Religions of the World” course would be a great elective for public schools, but I doubt that would fly, especially in more fundamentalist parts of the country. Some fundamentalists are terrified enough that their children might hear about atheism, much less other religions!

The majority of the comments toward the beginning are mostly rational and only mildly politically charged. However, as the thread progresses, a bit of religious ideology starts to rear its head. It starts mildly with this comment by “aackso” (sic).

[…] I am a young Conservative that has shaped many of my political beliefs based on my personal relationship with God and the Bible as they have made very clear declarations on a number of topics (abortion, taxes, the needy, etc). I do believe whole heartedly in the 3rd Amendment preventing the establishment of a religion, but I also believe in the next phrase protecting “the free exercise thereof.” I believe that Schools should present Christian based Creationism in the same classes that they teach Evolution, they can coexist. I believe that History classes should feature Christianity as it has effected as many cultures over the last 2000 years as anything. […]

Shaping political “beliefs” on 2000-year-old mythology is bad, okay? …and the second amendment is the one that prevents the establishment of religion… and the “free exercise thereof” part means I shouldn’t have your religious beliefs shoved down my throat in any government-sponsored venue (that includes public school). The worst offense in this passage, however, is the statement that Christian-based creationism should be taught in the same class as evolutionary theory… and that they can co-exist. So much for aackso’s support of the second amendment.

Let’s be clear. Christian-based creationism is not science. Period. Since it’s not science, it shouldn’t be taught in a science class. Evolutionary theory is science… one of science’s most heavily supported theories, with over 140 years of evidence-based research… and it does belong in a science class.

Nor can creationism and evolution cannot co-exist. They cannot. They are diametrical opposition. Claiming that humans were created by magic in their present form can, in no way, be reconciled with the idea that humans evolved from more primitive animals over millions of years. That book is closed (or should be).

Another exchange (sic)..

nateborland says: “I wonder how we, as a species, got so far down the path of believing in a mystical being instead of paying attention to the nature around us. […]”

fourputt responds: “Paying attention to the nature around us leads many to believe in a higher power. The beauty and majesty of the earth and the solar system is too profound to be an accident.”

SLSTC expands: “Obviously Christians do pay attention to nature around them, considering they believe God is the one who created this nature. Nature is truly amazing! And when truly observing nature, it’s hard to believe that it could have ocurred by any other means. It’s too intricate, and too profound to have just ocurred by “accident.” Observing nature only further confirms my personal belief.”

This is such a common refrain to hear from theists that it doesn’t frustrate me anymore (mostly). It just makes me sad. It’s a perfect example of how religion is a curiosity-killer. Once you have the all-purpose solution of “God did it,” there’s no reason to look any deeper… no reason to find out about how things work… no reason to discover all the delicate, internal workings of living things and how they’re all directly connected to the workings of other living things… no reason to explore knowledge… no reason. It’s an excuse to willingly sit in blissful ignorance of the world around us. It cheapens life. It cheapens the almost unfathomable level of amazement that this world can provide. Religion tells us to disregard the millions of years of beautiful evolutionary complexities that show the interconnectedness of all life on Earth… and to just say it was magic.

Most of the comments were actually good, rational statements and it was nice to see. It’s a refreshing change from the average comment threads on religiously-charged news stories.

But then “mrspigglewiggle” chimes in with more silliness later in the conversation.

That’s sad, they can teach evolution as fact when it was Darwin’s religious views, they should be able to present both sides in a rational manner. I though scientific fact meant that something had to be observable, the only One there at the beginning of the world was God. I don’t understand how they can present something like evolution as fact when there obviously wasn’t anyone else there. hmmmmmmmmmmm

Thankfully, she receives a well-justified smack down in the following three comments, starting with a return volley of mock silliness by “ponders” where he says “Were you there to observe God? hmmmmmmmmmmmm.” It gets better from there.

I didn’t follow the entire comment thread, but for the amount I did read, there seemed to be a fair number of rational folks fighting back against those spouting religious ideology… and debating other good points among themselves. It was nice to see that, in contrast to the average comment thread following religiously-charged news stories.

Kudos to rational Iowans.

Anti-Islam T-shirts in Florida

Aug 26th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Dove World Outreach Center T-shirt It seems that some Florida students were sent home or required to change their clothes when they wore t-shirts to school that violated the school’s dress code policy. The shirts, which had a verse from the Gospel of John on the front along with a plug for the Dove Outreach Center, a local church, had the words “Islam is of the Devil” on the back.

Tom Wittmer, the school district staff attorney, explained that the t-shirts could be offensive or distracting to other students.

I can understand that. It’s inappropriate for a public school setting. In other venues, all bets are off. I would think it would be relatively well-established that t-shirts spouting anti-religious, sexist, racist, or profane slogans shouldn’t be worn to a public school. If not because of policy, then maybe out of consideration for fellow students who are trapped in the same building for seven or eight hours a day. Students can take a stand if they want to, but they need to make sure they’re aware of the appropriate time and place. in this case, sending them home to change (or having them change at school) was the best course of action, since the time and place was definitely not appropriate.

Evidently, the students and parents who attend the Dove World Outreach Center are unaware of (or perhaps dismissive of) what constitutes an appropriate time and place. They also seem to have a fairly large bigoted streak.

Wayne Sapp’s daughter, Emily Sapp, 15, was the student sent home from Gainesville High on Tuesday. Both Faith and Emily Sapp said it was their decision, not that of their parents, to wear the shirts to school in order to promote their Christian beliefs. Emily Sapp said the “Islam is of the Devil” statement was aimed at the religion’s beliefs, not its members.

“The people are fine,” she said. “The people are people. They can be saved like anyone else.”

Wow. That’s both ignorant and offensive. She seems entirely ignorant that when she says, “Islam is of the Devil” and “They can be saved like anyone else,” she’s not just attacking the beliefs. That statement also implies that those who believe in Islam are following the devil. But in her Christian-centered world, those people are “fine” because they can be taught that their beliefs are nonsense and that her beliefs are the way and the light. Her statement implies that Muslims are lesser people who need to be saved… that they’re currently just Christians who have strayed from the path and who desperately need her help.

Let me make a distinction here. I personally think that Islam is just as vacuous as Christianity… or Catholicism… or any other theistic religion. However, I’m not of the opinion that they’ll be “fine” if they just give up their beliefs. They are “fine” regardless of what the believe. The only time they’re not “fine” is if they try to impose their beliefs on me or my government. So I am probably offending someone when I say that Christianity is mythological, but I’m actually attacking the belief system, not the person. Young Emily Sapp is attacking the belief system and the people by implying that they’re lost until they accept Jesus.

Her father, unsurprisingly, seems to be the same.

He added that his children decided it was time to “stand up for what they believe instead of saying the rules might not let me do it” and said that society has grown “so tolerant of being tolerant” that free speech is eroding.

Free speech does not erode from greater tolerance. It erodes due to a lack of tolerance. Wearing a shirt with a caustic, offensive, anti-Islam message (or anti-Christian, etc) is saying, “I don’t want your religion to be heard. My religion should be the only one.” Follow that up with “They can be saved like anyone else” and you’ve got yourself some grade-A bigotry… and probably one of the most anti-free-speech attitudes imaginable.

To top it all off, here’s a quote from the church’s senior pastor, Terry Jones.

Jones said that, to him, spreading the church’s message was “even more important than education itself.”

That’s pretty much what religion is all about, isn’t it? Studies constantly show that the religious convictions tend to be inversely proportional to the level of education. The church doesn’t want people who think for themselves. They want people who spread the word and follow the church’s teachings. They want people who feel that those of other faiths “can be saved like anyone else.”

They certainly don’t want free speech.

More Trouble for Texas Education

Jul 15th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

schooldesk Texas just hosted a long, drawn-out debate about science standards (specifically pertaining to biology and evolution) which resulted in a mixed bag of results. Some major points were made in favor of actual science while other points in favor of non-science (ie… creationism) were slipped in as minor addendums to the policy.

It seems that the shenanigans are now heading over to the subject of American history.

Outside “experts” (quoted because obviously some of them aren’t) reviewing the Social Studies curriculum in Texas evidently want to make changes in the history classes. As this article in the Wall Street Journal states:

Three reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.

This is beyond absurdity. These are people who are obviously driven by a fundamentalist agenda that want to insert their religious dogma into, it seems, every aspect of public education in an attempt to force it down the throats of our children. Not only do they want to indoctrinate their own children with their baseless beliefs, but they want to indoctrinate everyone else’s children, too.

There are some voices of reason involved in the issue, fortunately.

But the emphasis on Christianity as a driving force is disputed by some historians, who focus on the economic motivation of many colonists and the fractured views of religion among the Founding Fathers. “There appears to me too much politics in some of this,” said Lybeth Hodges, a professor of history at Texas Woman’s University and another of the curriculum reviewers.

However, if the science debates were any indication, some on the Texas Board of Education (think McLeroy, who thankfully is no longer the board chair) think that there needs to be someone who stands up to these real experts. It seems they think we can’t have experts making determinations about issues relating to their fields. That would evidently be crazytown.

In that one little WSJ article, there is so much infuriating ignorance. Here’s a small sampling.

  • The conservative reviewers say they believe that children must learn that America’s founding principles are biblical. For instance, they say the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution stems from a scriptural understanding of man’s fall and inherent sinfulness, or “radical depravity,” which means he can be governed only by an intricate system of checks and balances.
  • “The foundational principles of our country are very biblical…. That needs to come out in the textbooks.”
  • “We’re in an all-out moral and spiritual civil war for the soul of America, and the record of American history is right at the heart of it,” said Rev. Peter Marshall, a Christian minister and one of the reviewers appointed by the conservative camp.
  • Reviewer David Barton suggests swapping out “republican” for “democratic” in teaching materials. As he explains: “We don’t pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands.”

Evidently, David Barton is ignorant, not just of American history, but of the different between “democratic” when used to refer to a form of government and “Democratic” when used to refer to a political party.

This nonsense has to stop. Texas, because of its size, has a huge influence on the textbook market, and the crass, ignorant, fundamentalist proselytizing by these right-wing school board members and their advisors is hurting not just children in Texas, but children across the country. I wrote recently about how education is the key to overcoming theistic intrusion into our government, schools, and private lives… but I specified that it needs to be real education, not this kind of god-soaked, ideological make-believe that some of the Texas BOE are proposing.

Texans should be up in arms over this.

(thanks to Hemant at The Friendly Atheist)

Religion, Criticism, and Education… Oh my!

Jul 14th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Science education Atheists tend to deliver a lot of criticism of theology, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or some other flavor. We find fault with the resurrection of Jesus, the winged horse of Muhammad, Moses and the Ten Commandments, the Holy Trinity, and a myriad of other theistic claims made by these religions. We debunk their holy books, criticize their faith-based messages, argue against their primitive views of morality, and generally demand evidence for their extraordinary claims.

All of these issues, however, rest on one basic foundational principle of theistic beliefs… that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god exists and has always existed without a creator of its own.

Many atheists spend time refuting the existence of a god while at the same time acknowledging that it’s not possible to prove the nonexistence of said entity. The refutations generally come in two main forms: pointing out the complete lack of any credible evidence and dismantling apologetic arguments (such as the cosmological argument). Many of the apologetic arguments consist of so much circus-like, semantic, hoop-jumping that they really should be dismissed out of hand for their absurdity, but we still go through the mental exercise of pointing out the fallacies or refuting the (attempted) logic or issuing counterpoints to invalidate the conclusions.

If the existence of a god cannot be proven (or even demonstrated), then why do we need to continually debunk the other theistic claims of specific religions? Why do we have to repeatedly explain how the biblical flood didn’t happen? Why do we need to point out flaws in the bible? Why do we need to show how the Qur’an is riddled with statements demanding violence? Why do we need to present evidence for evolution… again? Why do we need to do any of this since its validity all rides on the existence of a supernatural, all-powerful deity whose existence cannot be proven, demonstrated, or sometimes even coherently defined?

If there is no god, theistic religions are bunk.

Whatever the biological or psychological need is that nudges humans toward superstitious beliefs, it works fairly well. Most people believe in a god of some sort. Most people are brought up believing in a god, indoctrinated from birth to believe in, not just a deity, but in an entire system based upon stories of miracles and supernatural wonders that defy all rational understanding. It’s a system that can rarely be dismantled simply by attempting to remove the foundational block of god-belief. In most cases, the only way for it to be taken apart is from the top down, starting with the doctrinal beliefs.

The goal, for me anyway, isn’t to rid the world of religion. The goal is to keep religions from being forced upon unwilling recipients, be it via government intrusion, corruption of education, or imposition of archaic moral philosophies. I don’t care if John Q. Public believes in a deity. I care if he lets that belief affect decisions that effect me. I care if he wants to base public policies on unsupported religious doctrine instead of rational thinking. I care if he wants to impose his 1st-century view of morality on me and my family. I care if his religion dictates to me what I can and cannot do.

Most religious folks can handle this just fine. Their day to day living and decisions are based on societal norms and they don’t go around preaching to everyone they meet about how Jesus is the only way to be saved from eternal damnation. They’re generally friendly, fun, trustworthy, and enjoyable to be around. Many don’t even discuss religion except when they go to church on Sunday. It’s just not that important them in a social sense.

Sadly, the religious loud-mouths ruin it for them. From self-righteous abortion protestors to fire-and-brimstone evangelists to morally dubious right-wing politicians who attempt to push biblical policy into our political system, religious fundamentalists are a significant cause of atheists’ vociferous criticisms. And since asking them nicely to keep their religious ideology out of the political system tends not to work, the only way to combat their insidiousness is to speak out, often and loudly, against their theology… and since saying "there is no evidence for your god" tends not to work, the only way to block their religious tentacles from insinuating themselves into our government is to debunk their dogma… debunk their holy books… debunk their claims of biblical truth… debunk their muddled, 2000-year-old ideas of morality.

That’s what we have to do now to maintain our religious freedoms, but how do we keep the situation from continuing ad nauseum? How do we make sure that our children, and our children’s children, don’t fall prey to the same ideological black hole into which we are threatened to be pulled?

Polls show there is an inverse correlation between education levels and religious belief. It would seem that the best approach to stemming the tide of religious fundamentalism and its attempts to creep further and further into our governments, our schools, and our private lives is better education. Real education… education that includes not just memorization of numbers and historical facts, but tools for critical thinking and problem solving.

We need to teach our children to have a sense of wonder and curiosity about the universe instead of settling for the unenlightening answer of "God did it." We need to show them how science is the best way we have for understanding how things work and how language and communication skills are key to spreading knowledge. We need to help them learn the tried and true methods for evaluating evidence and reaching conclusions. We need to teach them that it’s okay if the facts leads somewhere new. We need them to understand that claims of truth require evidence. We need them to learn… learn… learn.

Until then, we’re destined to continue in the fight against superstitious ideology that fundamentalists want to impose on us. We’ll keep debunking, keep criticizing, keep educating, and keep learning… until we have dismantled the ivory tower of theistic dogma.

…from the top down.

Kevin Jennings appointed to education department

Jun 10th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
2 comments

Kevin JenningsKevin Jennings will become the assistant deputy secretary of education for the department’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. That’s quite a mouthful. According to this article, “the office oversees financial assistance for drug and violence prevention and is in charge of developing program policy for the Department of Education.”

Among his many distinctions, Mr. Jennings has been the recipient of the Human and Civil Rights Award of the National Education Association, the Distinguished Service Award of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the Diversity Leadership Award of the National Association of Independent Schools. He seems eminently qualified for the position.

So why do I bring this up? Well… Mr. Jennings is gay. Anyone with a finger anywhere near the pulse of the religious right knows that they seem to feel that being gay is equivalent to child molestation, sexual perversion, subversive indoctrination of children into the “gay lifestyle,” and other atrocities offensive to their god. I saw this attitude in full swing in a recent Facebook discussion.

I’ll give some examples of the discussion here, but without names attached to them. I didn’t ask anyone’s permission, so keeping anonymity is important, though the sentiments expressed should see the light of day to expose the homophobia, intolerance, and factual distortions.

Here are the objections raised against Mr. Jennings at the beginning of the discussion.

  1. He is the founder and former executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
  2. GLSEN is infamous for the “Fistgate Scandal,” a conference in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous acts of sexual perversion, including “fisting.”
  3. Mr. Jennings was quoted as saying “Fuck ‘em” to the “Religious Right.”
  4. Jennings wrote the forward for a book called Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling.

The poster (I’ll call him “Poster Alpha”) was careful to say that he feels Mr. Jennings has the right to live his life however he wants… which is usually the kind of thing you hear when there is disapproval of the life being led. But here are some of his additional comments.

This appointment is just another example of the grossly poor choices our President is making. At the minimum it reveals very poor judgment. At worst, it is another example of how he and his administration are waging battle on core American values.

I’ve known about this dude for a while. He’s a despicable person, who has taken out his anger on, and focused his debauched standards on traditional family values – I say that without reservation. No one should defend or empower a person who wants to trump parental rights and inflict (yes I say inflict!) debauched sexual values on children. Where the heck is the defense of their purity?? I’m so glad my kids aren’t in public school.

And I might add, if the roles were swapped, and a Republican president were to have nominated someone with an ecclesiastic background, there would be no end to the caterwauling from the Left about imposing religious values in the public school system. Tell me, who is the real threat?

I’m not sure where Poster Alpha got his information, but I’m going to venture a guess that it was a site along the lines of WorldNetDaily or MassResistance.org or some other right-wing religious site. It certainly was not an impartial (or even factual) source. Sadly, Poster Alpha will not reveal his sources, even after being asked.

His initial objections were blatantly silly. The only one that really required much looking into was number two (the “fistgate scandal”), but that was easily done. Here are my reactions to each.

1. Jennings founded GLSEN

That boils down to “Oh my god! He’s gay!” So what.

2. GLSEN is infamous for the “Fistgate Scandal”

This is about GLSEN, not Jennings. In actuality, it’s not even about GLSEN that much. GLSEN was one of three sponsors of a “Teach Out” conference at Tuft University about teens and sexual behavior issues. The voluntary conference was for students age 14 to 21 and an attending student asked what “fisting” was. The teachers answered the question, but the conference was being (illegally) taped by a religious right group member and the tape was then used to manufacture a controversy. You can read about the issue here and here. A quick Google search of “fistgate” will bring up plenty of links, some more dubious than others. You’ll find self-righteous outrage along with more even-handed responses.

Jennings was not present at the event and was not responsible for the content of the conference… and GLSEN was only a sponsor, anyway. So bringing up the issue is just plain petty… and silly.

3. Jennings is quoted as saying “Fuck ’em” to the religious right

In actuality, he was quoted as saying “I’m trying not to say ‘Fuck ’em'” which is somewhat different. Either way, however… so what. I suppose it’s a matter of the religious right being piously offended. Somehow, I think they’ve probably given a “Fuck ’em” or two to groups they oppose.

4. Jennings wrote the forward for a book

The book in question is called Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Curriculum, Cultures, and (Homo)Sexualities). It’s only got one review at Amazon, but they have a good synopsis of the book. It doesn’t seem to be about what the title implies and seems like a thought-provoking, interesting book. However, because Jennings wrote the forward, the religious right seems to find him objectionable (again… “Oh my god! He’s gay!”).

The intolerance and bigotry were rampant in the Facebook discussion, punctuated every now and then with a rational response by someone not frothing at the mouth with homophobic mania. Poster Alpha himself ramped up the rhetoric when he added “traditional family values” to the “core American values” Jennings was supposedly assaulting… along with childrens’ purity.

Here’s a sampling of some of the other nonsense from the discussion. These are from one person. I call him Mr. Froth.

However, when people try to promote their own lifestyles upon impressionable youth, youth that are not their own children, that is where I draw the line.

If Mr. Jennings wants to have children and teach them how to “fist” or any other perverted and dangerous methods of “affection” that he practices, that is his own business. (although, one would have to wonder whether child services would get involved if this were happening) When he insists that teaching these methods to other’s children is “enlightenment,” all he is doing is trying to justify his lifestyle.

If I tried to enter the schools and teach my lifestyle of Christian living, I would be run out and probably sued.

Has our society degenerated so severely that teaching deviant sexual practices is acceptable while teaching Christian principles is not? Apparently, it has.

These workshops are no different than cult recruitment events. They are designed to increase the “membership” of Mr. Jennings following.

Overlooking this incredible atrocity to appoint the man to lead our nation’s education would be akin to overlooking a child serial murder’s past to appoint him as summer camp director simply because he had written some books […]

[Jennings] has his agenda and that is to force his views on others, starting with the very young. He is, in fact, developing a “cult” by trying to indoctrinate his beliefs in these youths.

Get this crap out of the schools and actually teach these kids reading writing and arithmetic! Why is that so difficult to understand? How’s that for enlightenment?

This poster seems to be so worked up in a frenzied, frothing rage that he creates all kinds of demons to attack. Promoting lifestyles? Teaching children how to fist? Perverted and dangerous? Justifying lifestyles? Cult recruitment events? Deviant sexual practices? Being gay is like being a child serial murderer? Forcing his views on others?

There’s so much misinformed bigotry and hatred here that I’m not sure where (or how) to start. I was actually surprised that a comparison to Hitler didn’t pop up because it seemed that’s where Mr. Froth was headed.

Evidently, Mr. Froth seems to think that teaching Christian principles is not allowed. In public schools, religious dogma cannot be taught, but it certainly can be taught in private schools, in churches, at seminaries, at conventions and at any other private events. He also seems to overlook the fact that Jennings did not teach at the mentioned workshop, nor was this information being taught in public schools.

And then the workshop in question becomes “these workshops” and are likened to cult recruitment events which are designed to increase membership… in the gay community? It’s an absurd notion and, with every word he writes, he displays an astronomical amount of ignorance and clouded thinking.

Another poster, like Mr. Froth, seems to think that the “fistgate” conference was taught in a public school as part of the curriculum.

[Jennings] has supposedly run programs about bullying; do his efforts to make schools safe from bullying include the bullying from the left and from the gay rights activists? I feel pretty bullied when the president appoints someone this divisive to such a powerful position over the education of children.

Please let me make myself clear, my objection to the man has nothing to do with his personal sexual choices.

[Children] are being taught by the popular culture to disdain the leadership and advice of their own parents […]. We are now politicizing the sexual and moral education of children.

I read things like that and wonder whether the religious right creates such clouded thinking or if such clouded thinking leads people down the path to the religious right. Here, an attempt is made to play the victim card… it’s not the gays that are bullied. It’s the straight people who hate the gays. Then to say that a presidential appointment is akin to bullying? That shows a complete lack of understanding and empathy for the victims of bullying.

Again, there is the claim of not objecting to the man’s personal sexual choices… while showing exactly the opposite. The claim of “it’s all about the children” only goes so far to cover up the homophobia and disgust.

There’s so much more of this type of talk that went on in the discussion. It ranged pretty far off topic from the original appointment of Mr. Jennings, but tended to focus on sex. It’s funny how the religious right tends to focus so much of their attention and talk on sex while claiming that they don’t care what people do in their own bedrooms.

Mr. Froth and the others have gotten the notion in their heads that there is some “gay agenda” that is being forced into the public school curriculum which isn’t fair since “Christian values” cannot be taught there. It shows an astronomical amount of ignorance on their part. I suppose they think that gays are trying to recruit more people as gays.

The objections raised by Poster Alpha to the appointment of Mr. Jennings are petty and irrelevant. They all stem from a basic feeling of homophobia and a desire to keep children from knowing about “alternative lifestyles,” as if they might somehow become victims of a gay plot to rule the world.

With all the accolades and awards Mr. Jennings has achieved in his career, it seems to me that he’s a fine choice.

Judging theories on their merits

Jun 8th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Darwin's Tree of Life DrawingIn Friday’s The Daily News Online in Batavia, NY, John Cantillion wrote a letter to the editor in response to a piece by Reverend Fred Jensen a few days before. I didn’t read the original piece, but the reply by Mr. Cantillion was just so awash with misinformation and theological chest thumping that it was virtually screaming for a response.

The original topic by Reverend Jensen was “Science and religion should cooperate as well as co-exist.” Jerry Coyne and Chris Mooney are currently having their own debate, but I come down pretty squarely in Coyne’s camp. However, they’re both scientists and (I think) atheists, so they’re not that far apart generally. Cantillion, however, seems to have wandered off into the “science and religion go hand in hand and compliment each other” field, one that I don’t believe Coyne or Mooney endorse.

Cantillion starts off with a bang in the first paragraph, claiming biblical scientific credentials because the book of Job describes the water cycle, something he says was not “scientifically” described until the mid 1500’s. For those of you who are biblically challenged, here are the verses in question from Job chapter 36 (NSRV).

27 For he draws up the drops of water; he distils his mist in rain,
28 which the skies pour down and drop upon mortals abundantly.
29 Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion?

I’m pretty sure those verses don’t qualify as being “scientifically” described, either, but that’s Cantillion’s first bit of evidence for biblical science. More quoting from Job, this time from chapter 26, verse 7.

He stretches out Zaphon [or the north] over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

This passage, he states, is “an apt description of the earth in space.”

I’m pretty sure it’s not.

After his first paragraph of proselytizing, Cantillion continues…

There is a legitimate case for fear when a portion of science is eliminated because it does not agree with the worldview of those in power. Science looks at all the views, and based on empirical evidence, chooses the best one. Declaring one theory to be illegitimate and then forcing all evidence to fit the theory that has been declared to be legitimate is not science.

I wholeheartedly agree with that entire paragraph (as long as it remains out of the context of the rest of his letter). Science should be based on empirical evidence and should not be twisted to suit the political agenda of the day. It should be based on observable facts, should be testable, and should be peer reviewed.

What’s the problem with Cantillion’s view, then? The problem is that, after that one paragraph, the rest of his letter is mind-numbingly anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-rationality.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, not scientific fact. It has strengths and weaknesses.
[…]
Creation science is a theory just as evolution is. Let it stand or fall based on its merits, or lack thereof, as demonstrated through empirical evidence, not prejudice.

Here’s where things take a turn into creationist-land. The “just a theory” line is a classic creationist talking point and shows a complete lack of understanding of what a scientific “theory” actually is. When the statement is used in conjunction with evolution, not only does it show a lack of understanding of the definition of the word, but it shows an even greater lack in understanding of evolution… what the theory states, and what the evidence is. When that line is trotted out, it’s a pretty safe bet that it will be followed up with Ray Comfort’esque ramblings… which in this case, is excruciatingly true.

Creation science is not “a theory just as evolution is.” Creation “science” isn’t even “science.” If it was to stand or fall based on its merits, it would have fallen decades ago, as it has with reputable scientists, but that’s not what creationists really want. What they want is for creationism to be what is taught in schools. They want creationism to be taught as fact. They want creationism to be exempt from any sort of real scientific scrutiny so that they can claim it as true.

Cantillion continues with this

If evolution is really so superior to creating, why is every effort being made to eliminate the theory of creation from public awareness so that only the theory of evolution is known and believed? If the theory of evolution is truly so superior over creation, then put them side by side and let evolution destroy creation once and for all.

First, nobody is trying to eliminate the biblical account of creation from public awareness. What rational people are doing is removing it from (or rather keeping it out of) the science curriculum, where it has no business. The science curriculum should be teaching science, a branch of which is biology, a part of which is evolution… by natural selection. Evolution is not a matter of “belief” or “faith.” It’s a matter of scientific evidence processed using the scientific method.

As for the second part, evolution and creationism have been put side by side and evolution has destroyed creationism. Sadly, it hasn’t been “once and for all” because the creationists won’t accept anything but the overwhelming victory of their biblical (or Koranic) version of creation over any scientific, evidence-based alternative. So no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how much “proof” is piled up and presented to a creationist, it makes not a lick of difference because it doesn’t match their beliefs, to which they desparately cling despite the contradictions between the facts and their beliefs.

Cantillion asks…

The strategy being used [to support evolution] is not science, but politics. Why is politics needed to prove and establish the theory of evolution, unless it cannot be established by empirical evidence?

I find Cantillion’s statement strange because what’s actually happening is the exact opposite of what he claims. Evolution is completely supported by science. Creationism is what is desparately seeking political support because that’s the only support it can possibly muster in a scientific world. Cantillion doesn’t seem to get the dependencies correct. Evolution depends on science. Creationism depends on politics.

He goes on to criticize Reverend Jensen for what he seems to think are poorly chosen examples of God’s hand in creation and then really goes off the deep end.

Everyone has a religious faith of some sort. Even an atheist has religious faith. An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist. Therefore, it takes at least as much faith for an atheist to believe that there is no God as it does for a religious person to believe that there is a God. So then, not mentioning God and not praying is not being neutral regarding religion but is, in fact, promoting atheism. All religious faiths do not get us to the same place, unless atheism is true. Then everyone just winds up dead. Atheism, not science, is at the root of evolution.

I find it difficult to not use profanity here. Lack of a belief in a god is not, in any way, shape, or form, religious faith. It’s true that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist. However, most atheists do not make an irrefutable claim of absolute knowledge regarding the existence of God (as Creationists do), so no proof is necessary. As an atheist, I’m not stating that a god does not exist. I’m stating that I have no evidence for the existence of a god… any god. So, no… it takes no faith to be an atheist.

So, contrary to the absurd conclusion at which Cantillion arrives, not mentioning God and not praying is definitely neutral regarding religion. Leaving out religious actions is neutral to religion. Praying, reading bible verses, singing hymns, and teaching creationism are all actions that are most assuredly not religion-neutral.

As for the last sentence, the claim is just absurd. Evolution is based on evidence… factual, observable, testable evidence. Again, Cantillion gets his cart before the horse. Atheism is not the root of evolution. Evolution is, however, quite a gaping hole in the creationists’ claims.

Cantillion goes off on Reverend Jensen again at this point in his letter, but starts his criticism with this bit.

All the religions of the world cannot be held in equal esteem. Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and other great spiritual leaders are not equal and are in contradiction with one another.

I have to agree that great spiritual leaders contradict one another. I’m not sure what point Cantillion was trying to make here, but he inadvertently (I assume) brought up one of the main arguments atheists use regarding the truth of religion. There are so many religions, all of which claim to be true, that it’s not difficult to conclude that the most likely answer is that none of them are.

Cantillion finished with this…

Jesus claimed to be God. It is Jesus who causes the lame to walk and the blind to see, not religion and not science. Science proves what God has already established.

Unsurprisingly, Cantillion is wrong again. Science has long ago created prosthetic devices allowing the “lame” to walk and, just recently, the blind to see.

Go figure

A Dubious Win in Texas

Mar 31st, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

DNS StrandThe Texas Board of Education managed to squeak a vote through that shot down the addition of anti-evolution language into their education standards which would have specified the standard nonsense about evaluating the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. However, in a series of equally nonsensical ammendments, the anti-science creationists and IDers added all kinds of detrimental (and somewhat incoherent) language to try to bolster their untenable position.

Don McLeroy didn’t win his big desired change (the “strengths and weaknesses” language), but he was probably reveling in the little jabs that were inflicted by all the amendments. McLeroy displayed a gross misunderstanding of both science and evolution in the now infamous Youtube video. In the ars technica article linked above, John Timmer says…

[In the Youtube video] McLeroy urges the board to join a crusade against the scientific community. “Somebody has to stand up to these experts,” he said, while expressing incredulity about their opposition, stating, “I don’t know why they’re doing it.” Elsewhere, he argued that evolution isn’t science, saying, “it’s an ideology” and “evolution goes back to someone who came up with a philosophical speculation.”

I’m almost speechless… but not quite. How do people like this gain a position that has influence over the education of our children? On one hand, he admits that he’s not an expert, yet he then continues to essentially say that the experts are wrong and that he knows better. I’m not sure where he gets his definition of “expert” but it’s seemingly not from anywhere in this reality.

Timmer also comments:

So, instead of “strengths and weaknesses,” the new standards call for students to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations” based in part on “examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific experiments.” Not only is the grammar fractured, but scientific experiments are usually notable for not supporting “all sides” of an argument.

As might be expected, the age of the universe came in for some questioning. A standard that mentioned the universe was roughly 14 billion years old was amended to require students to evaluate “current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.” Elsewhere, students are instructed to consider how the data “reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.” Apparently, the board was unaware that our estimates of the age of the universe have narrowed considerably in the last few decades.

The creationists seem to be attacking science on all fronts now, but we seem to be missing the evolution-specific attacks that are so common from them.

Oh, wait… here they are.

Students are expected to consider the “sudden appearance” of lineages in the fossil record, which the creationist literature argues is an indication that these lineages were instantaneously created.

[…]

[The Board] added a new standard, directing students to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.”

[…]

Teachers now have to ensure that students can “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.”

Wow. So much for science in Texas. Fortunately, high school science teachers tend to ignore this type of language and teach evolution the best they can in the tiny amount of time granted for the topic… sometimes as little as three days, from what I’ve read (can’t find the link anymore. Sorry).

Even so, the addition of language of this nature does nothing to enhance science education… or education in general. Creationists spend so much effort coming up with twisted, devious ways to push their mythical ideas into the agendas of otherwise rational education standards that one would have to begin to question their premise.

If their ideas were so scientific and plausible, why have to be so obscure about their intentions? Furthermore, where is the evidence to support their ideas? Where is the grounded thinking and scientific explanation for even a single one of their postulates?

Nowhere.

They’ve got nothing to go on. I’ve said it before. The only thing they have to work with is an infantile attempt to attack the scientifically supported theory of evolution. They prey upon the uneducated with blatantly false propaganda, knowing that anyone who doesn’t understand real science or the actual theory of evolution might, perhaps, think that their position is tenable. Then they’ll get the “Why not teach both sides?” reactions from people and their battle is halfway done.

The solution is education. Real education… based on real facts and real evidence and real logical thinking. The more our educational system descends into this anti-intellecual, anti-science, irrational way of thinking, the more this country will fall behind in this world, not only intellectually, but influentially. Texas seems to be leading the way into the pit.

Way to go, McLeroy.

When will it end?

Mar 27th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

As if the inanity in Texas wasn’t enough, Senator Steve Wise in Jacksonville, Florida had to go and file more legislation in an attempt to dilute the teaching of evolution. It seems these anti-science, anti-education cretins won’t give up until schools are teaching kids that science equals magic. They aren’t even being intellectually honest about their intent, which just makes it even more aggravating.

Next up, Astrology!

Clueless in Texas

Mar 27th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
6 comments

TiktaalikWith the Texas Board of Education narrowly voting yesterday to keep the creationists from adding bogus language to their education standards, the religious conservative frenzy is at a peak. Not only were outrageous (and blatantly untrue) statements made during the school board’s meeting, but creationism-supporting commentators were out in force… and they just keep coming, each one showing just how well they can ignore evidence and misunderstand issues.

The example I ran across today is from Don McDonald, a guest columnist at the Waco Tribune-Herald. His editorial, titled Evolution crowd is censoring science, claims that by disallowing the proposed “strengths and weaknesses” language, the school board is squelching academic freedom and censoring science.

It is heartening to see that in January, the State Board of Education upheld academic freedom when learning evolution by crafting science standards that require students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for evolution, and asking students to consider “the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Two things come immediately to mind here. First, as Kenneth Miller enthusiastically and eloquently points out, everything in science should be critically examined. That’s what science is all about. Scientific theories change, live, and die by the examination of new evidence. It’s one of the things that makes the scientific method so wonderfully effective at explaining the natural world.

Second, given that all science should be critically examined, why was the proposed language focusing only on evolution? What about astronomy? What about chemistry? What about geology? The reason, of course, is that the language is specifically focused on evolution because it’s being used as a creationist weapon. There is no reason, other than religious zealotry, to use that kind of language focused solely on evolution.

By supporting these amendments, the board supported developing critical thinking skills among students. Anything less than analysis, evaluation, and free discussion of arguments for and against any theory amounts to censorship, and censorship never serves the advancement of science.

The first sentence is bogus for the reasons I already mentioned. The second sentence is almost perfect. The phrase “free discussion of arguments” is far too open to be of any use. Perhaps the “free discussion of evidence” might be better? McDonald is trying to make the point that any alternative ideas to evolution should be given discussion time, regardless of their scientific merit (ie… creationism). However, allowing discussion time for any alternative ideas will only serve to confuse students as to what real science is, and would completely waste valueable and preciously-limited time for real science education.

Objectors to the proposed language in the science standards commonly express fear of “creationism creeping into the classrooms.” But the amendments say nothing of creationism or intelligent design. They are about exploring and discovering science.

The amendments really don’t say anything specifically about creationism or intelligent design. However, what other purpose could there be to focusing solely on evolution? Given the history of the creationism and intelligent design “movement,” it’s blatantly evident that the goal of the language is to target evolution and attempt to cast doubt on a theory that has been tested and challenged for more than 150 years… yet has held up under such intense scrutiny without scarcely a blemish. Details about evolution have changed over the years due to additional evidence and study, but the basic premise has remained intact since its inception.

The creationist attempts to throw doubt on evolution and to introduce supernatural explanations for life’s progression are becoming more and more transparent and pathetic… yet they continue, nonetheless. The phrases “teach the controversy” and “only a theory” have become dogmatic mantras of the unscientific and uneducated. The same long-since-debunked issues come up repeatedly (bacterial flagellum, blood clotting proteins, etc) as “proof” that evolution is not valid. The same tired rhetoric is used over and over, ad nauseum, in an attempt to disguise the religious intent of creationism and ID supporters.

Yet, with all the effort put forth by these anti-intellectual snake-oil salesmen, one thing is glaringly missing.

Evidence.

They have none. There is no evidence to support intelligent design. There is no evidence to support creationism. Not a single piece of evidence exists. Their sole strategy is to attempt to discredit evolution so that they can claim “God did it” as the “obvious” alternative. That’s all they have and that’s all they will ever have. It’s called the “God of the gaps” argument… if we can’t explain it, it must be God.

If they want to believe that, they are free to do so. They can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. They can believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together. They can believe in talking snakes and virgin births and resurrections as devoutly as they want. They can believe that life was created by an “intelligent designer” and raise their hands to the heavens in tribute.

But do not try to pass it off as science.

The Pope Seems Pro-HIV

Mar 17th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Today, Pope Benedict XVI stated, while en route to Africa to address the continent’s “grave problems and painful wounds”, that condoms do not help stem the spread of HIV, but actually make it worse.

Here’s the quote.

You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.

In another related quote, he said,

[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.

The Catholic Church promotes “abstinence education” and opposes methods of birth control, including condoms. Perhaps the Pope was using statistics such as the ones in this article which state that even though the number of condoms has increased, so has the number of people infected with HIV.

[Edward Green] wrote Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning From Successes in Developing Countries and reported that, between 1989 and 2001, the average number of condoms per male ages 15 to 49 in African countries skyrocketed. So did the number of those infected with HIV. South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe had the world’s highest levels of condom availability per man. They also had the world’s highest HIV rates.

At first glance, that sounds bad for proponents of condom usage for AIDS prevention. However, it says nothing about condom usage, only condom availability. The hardest part about promoting condom usage in places like South Africa, Botswana, and Zimbabwe is overcoming the social aversion to condom usage. Education is key, and with church representatives like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo running around saying things like this…

The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom. […] These margins of uncertainty… should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger.

…educating people is a nearly insurmountable struggle against a increasing rise of deliberately orchestrated ignorance and misinformation. The Catholic Church, because of its adherence to faith-based dogma, is working directly against efforts that are proven, when given the chance, to reduce the spread of HIV.

According to the World Health Organization (information from the same article above), “consistent and correct” condom usage reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. Given that the WHO bases their statements on science and research, I’d say that they’re at least a little more reliable regarding medical issues than an organization that bases its beliefs on a 2,000 year old holy book.

The Pope’s statements are irresponsible and ethically bankrupt at best.

Newer Posts →