Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Massimo Pigliucci | September 1st 2008 01:35 PM | 73 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Rationally Speaking articles

All

About Massimo Pigliucci

Massimo Pigliucci is Professor in the Departments of Ecology & Evolution and of Philosophy at Stony Brook University, NY.

His research is on the evolution of genotype-environment interactions


... Full Bio

Sarah Palin, John McCain’s choice for Vice President should he win the November elections, is a worrisome character from the point of view of science education. It is hard to tell whether Palin herself is a creationist or not and, frankly, that’s far less important than the policy positions she holds in the matter. (Though, of course, having a Vice President who is deluded about basic aspects of reality would not be exactly reassuring. Oh, right, we already have had something along those lines for the past eight years, though Dick Cheney’s most dangerous delusions were not about who created the world.)

An article in the Anchorage Daily News dating back to when Palin was running for governor of that state (hmm, a mere two years ago, talk about experience and being fit to be commander in chief), reports her response to a question during a debate about teaching creationism. Here is the full quote:

“Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

Now this is disingenuous at best. Education is not about having “kids debate both sides,” since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you. b) We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny.

According to criterion (a), “teaching both” isn’t going to cut it, because creationism is simply not even in the ballpark of the best ideas ever produced by humanity. On the contrary, it is superstitious nonsense that harks back to an earlier era of ignorance about how the world works. But things aren't much rosier for creationists under criterion (b) either, despite all the talk about “teaching the controversy.” Learning critical thinking is not a matter of being exposed to a “fair and balanced” view of everything and be told “you decide.” Rather, it proceeds through learning about logic, about assessing evidence, and about the many ways in which human senses and reasoning abilities can fail us if we are not on guard. If students really do assimilate all of that, just one look at creationist claims would make it painfully clear that they don’t need to be further entertained.
Unlike Mike Huckabee (who is also now campaigning for McCain), Palin was at least smart enough not to outright claim that she does not accept evolution. The former governor of Arkansas plainly stated that “I believe god created the heavens and the earth,” and that he “wasn’t there when he did it, so how he did it, I don’t know.” These are lines straight out of the Institute for Creation Research talk book, which explains why “Left Behind” author Tim LaHaye said during the Republican primaries that Huckabee was “the most electable candidate who shares our commitment.”

And therein lies the problem: exactly what are Republicans committed to when it comes to science and education? To raise a nation of ignorant bigots whose understanding of the world is no better than that of a tribe of ancient middle eastern people wandering around the desert thousands of years ago? To allow individual states to decide just how misinformed about science their citizens can be? That way if you are from Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi or a variety of other places along the Ignorance Belt you can keep falling behind in quality of life and ability to compete in a world where science plays an increasingly central role in our lives. Now, there’s a platform worthy of LaHaye and his readers.

These are questions that Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain have to answer to voters before the November election. But considering that they disagree about some of those answers, perhaps the two should first get better acquainted and straighten things out a bit. They’ve got two months to do it.

Comments

outsidethebox's picture
All I can say is you better hope they are not elected. Mccain age 72, 4 x cancer isn't the poster child of health, Palin minimal experience creationist views likely to inherit the office of the president. It's the modern dark ages for education, science, and free thought. It's sad that's the best the Republican Party can do. The Democratic party's much better, Obama wants to work with scientists to solve problems. In Obama we have a mixed race person who I am hoping can put the skin color prejudices behind us. I have been a Democrat and a Republican and have even voted Independent. In my middle age I was a Republican, I owned business's, company's and newspapers, I wore a 3 piece suit every day for a decade. In my youth I was a Democrat and actually change some things and defended citizens rights. Now in my older age 50 years I am retired from working for anyone else and work for myself our country and world. I try to see both sides and also get different perspectives. I continue to learn every day. The masses are so ignorant, and it is evident in our politics. We can have a better world and country if we just had some conservative scientists and few radical ones thrown in for abstract ideas running the show. As a scientist most politics don't directly effect me or my work. It's the ignorance of the masses that I have to deal with when I come down off the mountain. If education is going to suffer, we all will suffer by more ignorant people. There are so many problems in the world and this country that we could solve if the masses wanted the solutions and voted in politicians that wanted the same, and then worked with the scientists to solve the problems. Russell Ade Simple Solutions for Complex Problems
To raise a nation of ignorant bigots whose understanding of the world is no better than that of a tribe of ancient middle eastern people wandering around the desert thousands of years ago?

You accuse ignorance and bigotry because someone does not support your position. Your action is the very definition of bigotry. Then you show astounding ignorance of the understanding of others.

ROFL

bigot-- One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Jerry, I'd say the author was right on target. Palin is a bigot.

What a snarky piece! I’d like to know what the scientific criteria is for determining who is a creationist. Who decides? Is it someone who goes to church? Someone who prays? Someone who believes in a god? Someone who thinks there is something more than the material world? Is there a scientific test or an fMRI that can determine who has a creationist brain?
I would love to see public education engage the students’ natural curiosity by exposing them to the frontiers of science. There are plenty of questions out there but science is taught by sleep inducing power point slides and out of date textbooks. Of course students need the basics, but expose them to the mysteries and puzzles and get their minds engaged and quit obsessing over whether they believe in a god or are a dreaded “creationist.” Getting the students excited about science is a bigger problem in my mind that worrying over their personal beliefs. We already have laws to keep religious instruction out of the science classroom anyway.
As to the first commenter who wrote:
“The masses are so ignorant, and it is evident in our politics. We can have a better world and country if we just had some conservative scientists and few radical ones thrown in for abstract ideas running the show.”
I have much more confidence in the democratic republic and the “masses” than you do. I certainly don’t want any one group “running the show.” For all of their intellect many scientists seem to lack common sense and discretion. I cannot believe someone would write the arrogant piece above and expect it to resonate with a broad audience but maybe it was only directed at like-minded fellow scientists.

What kind of person are you Massimo Pigliucci oh I can see I dont think you should be at any university stick to your technical papers because you are not human nor American you are the BIGOT HERE this paper you wrote dos not belong here.

Please base your point?

I'm not sure you wrote this article with an open and fair stance. In fact, I think you wrote it purely from you political stance. I am an engineer and a very scientific person by nature. I have faith in my religion and able to allow both perspectives into my life. She was right on with her position, kids should not be taught one position without the other. I think it's very important to allow children to explore their curiosity and religious freedom along with the facts that science has developed.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Learning critical thinking is not a matter of being exposed to a “fair and balanced” view of everything and be told “you decide.” Rather, it proceeds through learning about logic, about assessing evidence, and about the many ways in which human senses and reasoning abilities can fail us if we are not on guard.

Well put! I'm going to have to steal that quote (with attribution, of course).

That's the meat of the meat of the matter.

It's evident from the other comments that people don't understand that this issue of teaching creationism is not about making room in your life for both religion and science. It's about teaching only science in science class.

Even if we did teach critical thinking well, deliberately pitting religion against science in a public school science class is not really a great idea.

Mike

Hank's picture
I think that because of his sometimes inflammatory verbage, and people's general sensitivity on the matter, they are reading 'creationism' and 'religion' in Massimo's piece interchangeably. He's an active atheist so clearly doesn't think much of religion either but that isn't what his article is about.

Of course, you (Mike) and I have discussed whether or not it's a Republican issue or a convenience/tolerance issue. Both parties have created their own 'coalition of the oppressed' umbrella contingents and whether or not people believe America is going to hell (or Hell, if I must) because of Republicans or because of Democrats can almost certainly be correlated to who they will vote for in the fall.

For someone like me, it's trickier. Would someone who is a devout PETA member, for example, not vote for Obama if he supports the cattle industry? I bet they wouldn't. There is a scale and it has weights.

Palin being misguided (or perhaps catering to the crowd) on exactly what a science class is designed to do wouldn't cause me to not vote for her any more than Joe Biden's plagiarism would cause me not to vote for Obama. It's a talking point, and has to be considered, but not a veto issue.

Biden cost himself a Democratic nomination so he learned a lesson. I am betting Palin can learn too.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Clearly everyone has their pet issues that help determine who they're voting for. However, I see this problem with the Republicans in a slightly more disconcerting light. It appears that the Republican party is being slowly made over into the "Religious" party, by evangelical groups that are using every conceivable wedge issue to divide people. This results in people feeling compelled to make a choice between their religious views and all other viewpoints. In other words, instead of dealing with the political issues of running a country, the debate shifts to belief issues that ultimately have little to do with governing. My concern is that these groups are attempting to make political views and religious views mutually exclusive. I don't believe that evolution versus creationism is a topic that is of concern to the average person, however I see it as an issue that can be used to polarize people along their religious lines and as such it is a dangerous political tool.
Hank's picture
Well, it depends on the prism you look through. If someone religious or Republican comments here, they may say that they see Democrats becoming the 'atheist' party or maybe that they already are.

We try (consciously) to be politically/ideologically neutral here, but evolution is the one area where there can't be real neutrality and still be science. We can't let the opposing side speak because it invariably falls outside the realm of science.

But on this Republicans/Democrats stuff, people can say whatever they want because it's all basically made up. No one knows what they think so we can project virtually anything. Obama said in an article 3 years ago he was a proponent of evolution but in the ScienceDebate2008 questionaire no one asked him about one of the most important science topics today - namely should creationism be allowed in a science class. Palin said 2 years ago she was okay with the 'debate.'

If I ran ScienceDebate, I would have asked them that as my number 3 question (funding and political interference being 1 and 2) for one simple reason - there is zero chance two months before an election that Obama or McCain will come out publicly and say creationism should not be in schools.

So it more concerns me that people think it is just a Republican issue. But again, that just tells us how people will vote. They are choosing not to see a problem on both sides.

Gerhard Adam's picture

If someone religious or Republican comments here, they may say that they see Democrats becoming the 'atheist' party or maybe that they already are.

The difference is that the democrats are not actively against religious beliefs, while the republicans are clearly courting the evangelical vote. It is this latter issue that clouds the debate. I agree that both sides will pander to whoever they think will turn in a vote, but the republican-evangelical relationship seems to be growing more than simple vote-pandering would account for. There is no question that the religious test of office is becoming increasingly acceptable to people which is extremely disconcerting. For some reason people have gotten the idea that their personal views should be elevated and supported in the public domain. As a result we see this false sense of persecution by religious groups that have taken it upon themselves to be offended at every perceived slight. In general I see this as a dangerous trend for the country and it is not reassuring to see how willing people are to go down this path.
adaptivecomplexity's picture
there is zero chance two months before an election that Obama or McCain will come out publicly and say creationism should not be in schools.

I understand your point that everyone has different veto issues. To me, the creationist stance says something about people's approach to intellectual problems in general.

But I'm not arguing that it should be a veto issue for everyone. I'm expressing concern that, inevitably, whenever it comes to actually pushing creationism in public schools in this day and age (Yes, William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat, as someone pointed out, but that was before the South went Republican), it's always a Republican legislator or school board member.

So Obama may not come out and explicitly condemn creationism again in the next 2 months (although I don't understand why you think he wouldn't if explicitly asked - most committed creationists aren't voting for him anyway), but members of his party aren't the ones that are trying to push creationism in the schools.

Mike

Hank's picture
I guess we all need to worry less. Much like I am completely confident predicting no prominent Democrat is going to defend teaching evolution in schools yet that will be overlooked by everyone in this thread but me, I am equally confident no Republican is getting elected in November.

Plus, even if they do, it's not like school directors will suddenly start claiming that dinosaurs helped build the Pyramids.

Oh wait, some already do say that.

P.S. Leave it to Massimo to seagull in here with this non-science article, get it syndicated on Livescience to boot, and then never bother to respond to any comments.

Gerhard Adam's picture

I have faith in my religion and able to allow both perspectives into my life. She was right on with her position, kids should not be taught one position without the other. I think it's very important to allow children to explore their curiosity and religious freedom along with the facts that science has developed.

This isn't possible when the religion is being presented as science. It's absolutely true that people have their personal beliefs and those are not being challenged, but when they are used as a bludgeon to bring science into submission with those beliefs there is a problem. An earlier question asked:

I’d like to know what the scientific criteria is for determining who is a creationist.

That's simple. The individual declares it as such because those are the views they're espousing. This isn't about whether one has religious beliefs but whether they feel compelled to elevate them to science. That is a huge difference. As stated in the article, science isn't about allowing students to debate. It's about establishing what the current thinking is about a subject. If someone disagrees then it is incumbent on them to engage in research and produce evidence and introduce an explanation which builds on the current evidence. It isn't about engaging in a debate and simply letting people decide for themselves. Bear in mind that it is science which is under attack and not religion. Individual religious beliefs would not be discussed if it were not for the insistence that they be viewed on an equal footing with science.
aaanouel's picture
I basically agree with the article contents and concern about it... but let me tell you something (and I'm NOT a republican at all)... As an old architect, grown up immersed a engineering and scientific thinking family, and been living abroad my whole life, my perspective about what is convenient to United States and the World gets somehow a global priorities perspective. The way I see it is that, right in this moment, international situation is not for diplomatic actitudes and America have to keep the leadership of the world and as the main defender of democracy and the analytic way to resolve the problems. America has to do what have to be done. As with creationists, you can not reason with fanatics, terrorists or people who have not democratic thinking or understanding (like Pyongyang, Hugo Chavez or Putin) and you can't either give a 3 or 10 million people country the same weight than a 400 millions one: it wouldn't be a truly democratic practice. Creationist stupidity is an important matter, OK...!!! ... but please, make a wider analysis, Americans should put the thing in the correct priorities perspective and give the proper weight to the all the matters, analyze the whole package and then, make the decision, otherwise.... Creationism could be the smallest of our problems...!!!
There is no place for anti-science bigotry on the Presidential ticket. Creationism and intelligent design can be a (very brief) section in a religion or philosophy or current events class, but must be kept out of science classes because they're not science. Period. Anyone who believes otherwise seeks to undermine American scientific competence and endangers our standing in the world.

outsidethebox's picture
Most of the Hell on earth is brought on by the religious and political groups. Look at all the Christian Wars oh we didn't kill enough non-believers. I really don't think Christ would recognize a Christian in the bunch. You all seem to forget all the commandments. Let's start with though shalt not kill. Yet how many of you support all the wars kill em all. If you believe in this your all going to hell because you let it happen. I follow Christ instead of these different cult leaders whatever they want to call their, (new in the last 200 years) religions. Most of these religions would persecute Christ in a heartbeat, or anyone that acted like him. He would be to poor for them to make money off of, and would expose their whoring around and worse, he wouldn't be to popular. Now do I believe the earth was created in 6 days? No. The bible was written by a bunch of screwed up Jews. Yes they needed the ten commandments and laws because the Jews were lawless and shameful to put it mildly kind of like some of the preachers and deacons today only they really let it hang out. Did they have the knowledge we have today? No. If they did they would have written the bible differently. Any Religion that professes to be of the truth must accept the truth or should be held accountable to their God or God's. And these issues with God everyone has a different God. If you believe that, all I can say is, your really ignorant. I believe in God my god is the Alpha and Omega. My God is greater than any lesser gods. My God is all the knowledge of the universe and beyond, and encompasses all time and space and beyond infinity. The big kahuna the one. The God of truth. I am good with God and God is good with me. The Bible is the good book. Are there errors in it? Yes. Should we teach science theory that is 2,000+ years old, when they thought the earth was flat, and Eve came from a rib, the way she acted it wasn't any prime rib? No. I pray everyday I have a simple prayer, (Thank you God for my blessings I am truly grateful) this gives me a well being. Everyday I walk this earth I am living in paradise. When I die I will go back to God that's better than any human idea of heaven. I don't think this makes me a religious fanatic if we were to talk about religion I would say be free don't follow religions and men, follow God and be a spiritual person. I think the religions are failing terribly to create anything like a heaven on earth. Russell Ade Scientist Simple Solutions for Complex Problems
aaanouel's picture
Good for you...!!! Everybody has to set up their own believing in order to live as happy as possible and avoid useless confrontations with reality and their own way of being and feeling. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind. So, good for you... simple solutions are practical ones. You seem to be a clear person and surely a good person, that all you need to be happy.
As a scientist I find this article offensive and bigoted. There is no place in science or science education for personal attacks or political ideology. If you were a true academic or decent human being, you would be more concerned about your students and academic discipline. As a true scientist I am not threatened by the public debate over creationism. Why are you so juvenile and insecure over political ideology? Don't you realize that you represent the real threat to free speech and unfettered dialog? Are you so blinded by your own political and religious bigotry that you fail to comprehend that human socialization and its religious component have a firm basis in human genetics and evolution? Are you so insure about your own belief in science that you feel threatened by the discussion of alternate or opposing views? You disgust me, and I am ashamed that people like you are even given the opportunity to make a living off real Americans who practice freedom of religion and speech without the fear of retribution. Natural selection can't move quick enough to drive people like you into extinction. D R Ripley
Gerhard Adam's picture
Since when did creationism become a "free speech" issue? People are certainly free to discuss whatever opinions they want to, but when politics is leaning towards dictating what gets taught as science, it has moved well beyond such simple interpretations. Freedom of religion and speech have nothing to do with creationism and these freedoms most certainly do not entitle anyone to a free pass to make claims as being "scientific" because of those beliefs. When there are active legislative efforts to make such opinions into law, then it should be a concern of everyone. People are entitled to freedom of religion and speech, but they are not entitled to legislation to advance their ideologies. I can't even imagine how you can entertain the notion that creationism and evolution represent a debate of any stripe. Should every opinion be given equal time in our schools so that there is an "unfettered" dialogue? You know that's nonsense, since it simply leads to chaos. Unfortunately despite your heated rhetoric about freedom of speech, it appears that you fail to recognize it when you see it. It is the height of hypocrisy to threaten someone regarding "free speech' for exercising free speech.
This isn't about academia or how impressed you are to see you own comments in writing. When teachers use political ideology to justify the brutalization or distortion of an individual’s belief we have a problem in America - and don’t use science as an excuse. My response was intended to remind "scientists" that this is a forum for scientific exchange, not personal diatribes. Fortunately, this is not Europe and Gerhard I hope you grasp the concept that science begins with facts, not distortion or frivolous rhetoric. If you think the debate over "intelligent design" and evolution do not pertain to free speech you have "been in the field" far too long. Unlike you, I respect everyone’s right to speak. But with this right comes a responsibility. You fail to see the abuse of this right and the abuse of this forum. If I wanted to indulge myself in political discussion I would join a "political forum." Last time I looked this is a science-based forum not a platform for ideologies that are not based on facts. D R Ripley
Gerhard Adam's picture
I think perhaps you need to pay a bit more attention. The scientific exchange that would occur here is perpetually "haunted" by creationists that are intent on either ridiculing or challenging scientific discussions without the slimmest of desires to offer counter evidence. Whether you like it or not, politics and religion have inserted themselves into the scientific debate, not the other way around. Science never went looking to bash people's beliefs, but when they hold them out there for public debate, then they need to be prepared to have them challenged. When a personal belief is offered up as scientific evidence or proof, then you'd better believe it will be examined. If you don't like having such views challenged, then perhaps it would be best to keep them to yourself. This is precisely the "free pass" that creationists and other religious individuals believe they're entitled to when they want to argue about evolution and I, for one, have no problem challenging their assertions.

Unlike you, I respect everyone’s right to speak. But with this right comes a responsibility.

Get off your high horse. Before your diatribe, no one was challenging anyone's right to express an opinion, including the original author. The only one that is telling people to be quiet is you.
outsidethebox's picture
I think you nail it on the head. Ideologies are not science and that would include creationism and intelligent design. Russell Ade Scientist Simple Solutions for Complex Problems
Palin has not pushed creation science as governor

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

By DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writer

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

Hey Gerhard; when the truth hurts it is the ambivalent people who need to insult someone. If you were clear thinking and less emotional you would stop taking things so personally and realize that I wasn't telling anyone to be quiet. I was imploring the original author of this politically motivated article to take his ideology elsewhere. If you want the discussion over science to become intertwined with social ideologies perhaps you and Mr. Pigliucci should find a more appropriate platform for your rubbish. D R Ripley
Gerhard Adam's picture

If you want the discussion over science to become intertwined with social ideologies perhaps you and Mr. Pigliucci should find a more appropriate platform for your rubbish.

That may be so, but on my planet that issue has already surfaced. In case you've been away, the reason for this discussion is precisely because there are political idealogues and religious groups that have already intertwined their beliefs into the legal system and want to use it as a lever to dictate the course of science education. As for being emotional, I think you need to review your postings to see who has been insulting, and who has been ranting. You seem to be fond of espousing the "freedom of speech" issue, so let's look at it. Science and teachers are free to teach science, and religious leaders are free to teach their beliefs. However, the latter have taken it upon themselves to propose that their beliefs should now be elevated to the level of science. So teachers are being deprived of their "freedom of speech' by having politicians determine what can or can't be mentioned in the classroom. In addition, it seems that if evolution is to be taught, there is a political push for equal time to a belief system. It seems that your concern for "freedom of speech" applies only to those that are already abusing it. You might have a case if you showed that scientists were telling churches what to preach, but that isn't happening is it? So in case you haven't been paying attention, when science is told what to teach by political leaders, it's well beyond any philosophical "freedom of speech" issue because that right will have been twisted beyond meaning.
You're persistent, but off point. If my insistence that academia needs to stop interjecting political ideology into "scientific discussion" (or curriculum) is "ranting" then I accept the label. It's just my opinion, but I believe these issues should be discussed in a "Public Policy" forum. I don't obsess or write biased articles over the perceived encroachment of government doctrine in the scientific arena. I am annoyed and put-off by these types of articles written by an ideologue parading in the robes of a scholar. Why don't you waste your time attacking the author for making a mockery of your vocation? I'm the one who raised the flag and objected. It's people like Mr. Pigliucci that lure policy makers into the science debate. I feel just as strongly about churches engaging in the political process – it’s wrong. In many ways scientists like Mr. Pigliucci do, by proxy, dictate to churches by attacking the students (and the parents of these students) who attend their churches, synagogues or mosques. You make my point quit well. D R Ripley
Gerhard Adam's picture

I don't obsess or write biased articles over the perceived encroachment of government doctrine in the scientific arena. I am annoyed and put-off by these types of articles written by an ideologue parading in the robes of a scholar. Why don't you waste your time attacking the author for making a mockery of your vocation?

First, I fail to see how the article was biased. It was certainly written as an opinion, but that isn't bias. In addition, government encroachment by religious groups isn't a "perception", it is real and it is happening. I'm not sure why you are so insistent that a scientist isn't allowed to have or express an opinion on political matters that directly affect their work. There is a great concern in this country that at a time when we should be looking for better ways to teach science and mathematics and to encourage more students to enter these fields, we are engaged in a pseudo-debate over religious beliefs. You may feel that this article was too politically slanted to be included in this forum and, as you indicated, more suitable for a public policy discussion. However, let me remind you of the original quotes:

Why are you so juvenile and insecure over political ideology? Don't you realize that you represent the real threat to free speech and unfettered dialog?

You disgust me, and I am ashamed that people like you are even given the opportunity to make a living off real Americans who practice freedom of religion and speech without the fear of retribution. Natural selection can't move quick enough to drive people like you into extinction.

Does this sound like a rational response to an article you feel was simply in an improper forum?
Ripley:

If the non-scientists are trespassing on scientific turf to get a political advantage, aren't scientists permitted to fight back?

These people have made US science the worst laughing stock since Soviet-era Lysenko. Our national prestige has been seriously damaged by creationists. Doesn't that upset you?

Rob: You can waste your time "fighting back," but not in this forum. Taking cheap shots at politicians is a sure way to invite them into your life and into your curriculum. I disagree that "these people" have made the US into a country marked for derision. Personally, I believe the root cause is social failure and the collapse of the home and personal ethics. Our government reflects this change. Notwithstanding this headwind, this country still sits on the cutting edge. If you recall, it was only recently that the government announced its commitment to colonize the moon and make an attempt at Mars. This is a massive investment by government in science. The robotic space program has been an inspiration for many young minds. Growing up in the sixties, the new commitment to human exploration will do more to inspire our youth than teachers who alienate half of their classroom with the dangers of ideology. My point is simple: why are scientists going out of their way to insult those who believe differently? It makes no sense to level untrue accusations or insult those who are elected to public office. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, but this goes both ways. A teacher in a state-funded school can’t immerse themselves in one-sided political rhetoric. My “subtle” point in this ongoing exchange is to ask people who call themselves scientists to stop dragging politics into the dialog of science. If they are angry and disenfranchised with the political landscape don’t dilute the beauty of scientific dialog by cluttering it with political rhetoric. I come to this site to read interesting ideas and opinions on scientific topics. The last thing I want to read is an Italian taking cheap shots at American politics. D R Ripley
Gerhard Adam's picture

Growing up in the sixties, the new commitment to human exploration will do more to inspire our youth than teachers who alienate half of their classroom with the dangers of ideology. My point is simple: why are scientists going out of their way to insult those who believe differently?

Insult those that believe differently? Are you really not listening? A creationist doesn't merely have a difference of opinion. Their viewpoint is that virtually EVERYTHING that science represents is wrong and can be overturned without the minimal requirement of presenting evidence. Besides attacking Biology (evolution), there is an attack on almost every other discipline through the "young earth" view. Yet, the scientist isn't supposed to feel insulted. Instead these interlopers, into a discipline they don't understand, are supposed to have immunity from criticism because the origins of their viewpoint are a belief system? We see the same kind of politicized behavior around "climate change". There is no discussion about the science or whether the models are accurate or not. Instead we get blanket pronouncements from politicians or layperson's that, not only is climate change wrong, but that its actually a scientific liberal conspiracy. Against this kind of idiocy, one hopes that scientists will speak out and not remain quiet. There won't be any "inspired" youth in these programs if they are taught that science is wrong and their religious views are what counts. There is no basis for physics in a "young earth" viewpoint. This isn't a matter of debate but science that requires hard work and not simply a layperson's opinion. A student that is "taught" both sides of these debates is not getting an education and they are even served worse when it comes time to follow in the curriculum necessary to pursue these scientific endeavors. As for insulting people ... well that wouldn't happen if they didn't advance their beliefs into the debate and demand they be listened to and automatically achieve credence. I don't have the time or inclination to concern myself with every psychic, ESP buff, and UFO abductee that is "insulted" by my lack of belief. If religion wants to focus on the spiritual and well-being of the human experience on earth, then there is no problem. However, when they insist on moving into the scientific realm then they join the former list and had better be prepared to be rebuffed.
Ripley:

You don't think that creationism trashes America's scientific reputation. You somehow think that fringe Moral Majority values are more important for America's scientific reputation than science. And you tell me that advocacy of science doesn't belong on a science website.

Anonymous; Please don't put words in my mouth. If you are incapable of understanding this debate then I feel sorry for you. The advocacy of science belongs on science websites, but ideological submissions dressed up as "science" is insulting. If you think Mr. Pigliucci's article is a work of science and not a political soapbox you’re sadly misled. I don't think people who hold a creationists view trash America. I am not ashamed of America’s achievements. We are not all perfect, nor will we be. Not all people are educated beyond their own intelligence. It takes all kinds to make this "planet" the world it has become. You, Mr. Anonymous, seem to be on the fringe of political science (now there's an oxymoron). D R Ripley
outsidethebox's picture
What is exciting about science and mathematics is the truth. It is pretty much black and white. If there is a gray area, scientists sort it out white particle by black particle, and it becomes black and white. Then we move ahead to the next problem so we end up with a system built on truth by analysis and experimentation. Religions are envious of science because of the truth. Religions know they are full of superstitions, legends, and half truths. How they keep their power over their flocks is to lie, deny the truth and mislead. If they accepted the truth the holes in their doctrines would be evident and create doubt among their flocks, who would realized they had been deceived. What's worse being continually lied to? Or admitting mistakes and moving forward? That's where religions are right now. They need a lot of gray to cloud the truth. They may bring down their flocks, but there is always someone else to take over fleecing of the flock. Shepards are not cheap these days, they need mansions and fine things. That could explain why science is hundreds of years ahead of religion. Truth verses lies. The only way for religion to ever catch up to science is to embrace the truth. But the truth can be painful especially if your religion is based on lies. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I am just glad I am not in religions shoes. Russell Ade Scientist Simple Solutions for Complex Problems
Russel, I couldn't agree more. When I think of Galileo or Newton I can help but admire their personal intellect and commitment to learning the truth. They didn't whine or wring their hands in rapt suspense over the personal beliefs of others. On the contrary, like loyal soldiers these men marched forward in the knowledge of certain persecution. Even this didn't dissuade them from their love of science. Politics, in all its forms, is the language of religion. Math is the language of science. Clearly, gaining a complete understanding of matter, energy and forces is a goal that drives humanity forward. I remember when biology was a "messy" science; steeped in mystery and intrigue. I find it extraordinary that biology and genetics’ are now a digital science. Mathematics is repeatedly redeemed by the simple search for truth. D R Ripley
As a biochemist with a deep understanding of the theory of evolution, including the RNA World hypothesis, I would like to express my personal apology to Louise and other like-minded people for Massimo Pigliucci's outrageously non-scientific and arrogant devaluation of human values and his disregard for religious taxpayers who fund his work, and most of the work of other scientists in the U.S.

Massimo Pigliucci should be on a list of self-declared scientists who wish to return tax payer's money. Below is a link that documents the amount of money that Massimo Pigliucci received from the National Science Foundation alone: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/piSearch.do;jsessionid=94103AC8C920CFD4F9...

aaanouel's picture
With all my respect, it's not something to be embarrassed to achieve the sufficient merits to receive such money for investigation from an Institution like the National Science Fundation. Good for him. You'd surely like to be in his place. What surely is embarrassing, is trying to disqualify opinions of someone in surreptitious manners that only sound like envy to my ears. Please try any other way to do it, this one has nothing to do with the proposed theme. You are "Out of order".
Gerhard Adam's picture

I would like to express my personal apology to Louise and other like-minded people for Massimo Pigliucci's outrageously non-scientific and arrogant devaluation of human values and his disregard for religious taxpayers who fund his work, and most of the work of other scientists in the U.S.

While you can apologize to whomever you like, enough is enough. This article was never presented as a scientific article. There was no devaluation of anyone's values except those individuals that insist on foisting them on someone else. Those that are offended by this, need to examine how tolerant they are to other's with different views, especially those that don't share their beliefs at all. You'll find no such tolerance from that quarter. Let's also remember that religious organizations are tax-exempt, so they benefit from such work without contributing anything to it. While you may feel the need to be apologetic in this respect, but I am personally offended at the notion that any professed belief is accorded tax-exempt status because of the separation of church and state, while the rest of us have to shoulder the burden. If you don't think this is a problem, just bear in mind that one can become "ordained" in as little as three days and be awarded an honorary doctorate degree for the trouble. That's apparently how important these beliefs are. Religious leaders feel free to engage in all manner of political debates and seek legislation to advance their agendas, the whole time not paying a dime to the government they want to exploit. I've had enough of this self-righteous drivel and the apologists that think they are owed something for their beliefs.
As an historical archaeologist in America, I have encountered regional, local, and national diversity which is why "creationism" or any "ism" should not be taught in my opinion. A "Campus Crusade" for anything is disruptive and divisive I think and detracts from the pursuit and the aims of education, learning and the review of ideas and experiments. "Social experiments" of a religious nature should be relegated to their appropriate facilities and institutions. The choice to practice a religious ritual is often personal and is what the framers of the US Constitution wanted protected, and so should we, by keeping it a private choice.

I like that Palin is a Creationist. I home skool my kids because I don;t want all them science turning them into queers. I hope she makes all American kids as smart as us'ins.

I'm an Atheist. And a Republican I dunno it's cool with me. We have organized people running are round the streets claiming to be Anarchist. Which their order defeating the purpose of their title. And how come they did not show up at the other? Anarchist would disagree with all three sides! It's a sad day for Anarchy in America. I mean Obama even wants to invade Iran like John McCain. Both sides have been eying it for a while. o.o Hippies were liberals and Liberals are democrats and JFK was a democrat JFK started Vietnam essentially and that cannot be argued. So Hippie really hate themselves. That's all I am saying. No offense to them or nothing. I just don't understand so logic. And Even though I am a Republican I don't vote for people. Because they all hate me... I know its just business and all to most people but I just don't like it. Limit the Senators and Representatives to one term limit no re-election. President one too. Shoot!! They only get stuff good done in the second term. For Looks. So might as well just make their second their first and cut the crap out. O.o; Goodnight All You

Oh yeah but that lady she's cool with me if she wants to go to the White House. I heard she fired off this M4 Assault Rifle come on What's Joe Biden got on that? And we all know it's tougher in Alaska!!! Shoot!! I'd rather vote for her to be president!! XD

All I am going to say is first get facts straight Sara Palin did say we should teach both in school for a healthy discussion like you said school is to learn and learn how to have critical thinking skills and analysis but yet you want to say to open the debate for kids is not teaching. By the way underestimating students to say they would believe the world to be flat does that include you seeing how you have been a student once. Also Sara Palin said that she would not force this issue into the schools in Alaska but that it should not be prohibited from being debated if brought up in class. As far as your comment on her experience of only 2 years ago being elected governer of a state to me that is experience at least more than any obama supporter can say that their candidate has oh wait he is a community organizer

Gerhard Adam's picture

Also Sara Palin said that she would not force this issue into the schools in Alaska but that it should not be prohibited from being debated if brought up in class.

For all you people that think this topic should be "debated". Are you really prepared for what that means? Consider that creationism starts off too far downstream to be anything but an opinion. If it were to be scientific the first thing that would need to be proven is the plausibility of a creator (and why that should be considered a legitimate "first cause"). In addition, the bible must also be examined to determine if it is a credible document with respect to scientific principles because it also cannot be "assumed" to be correct simply by assertion. At this point, chaos ensues, because to even raise the question would be considered challenging an individual's religious belief. However, the point remains that when a belief is raised to this level it has to be challenged if it is to be considered a viable replacement explanation for science. The point is that this would rapidly become a debate about religion and not science because in the end, creationism is simply one segment of one religion's view about how things occurred. I'm also incredulous that people would even suggest that such a debate occur, since science isn't about debating opinions, but rather about gathering evidence in support of a position. Even if one feels that a current theory doesn't provide adequate explanation, it hardly entitled someone to come in with alternate explanations that offer even less. In addition, to engage in such a debate would require expertise far beyond the student's ability to truly understand all the evidence and will simply serve to create the illusion that it is an open topic. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they like and it is their private matter. However, when such a belief is being offered up as "evidence" for a scientific viewpoint, then it must be subject to scrutiny and criticism. At this point, most creationists believe they are entitled to a free pass because such scrutiny is considered bad form, but that isn't a legitimate position. Believe what you want, but when you propose it as a scientific theory then be prepared to have it poked and prodded. If you're offended by such scrutiny then keep your beliefs private.

As far as your comment on her experience of only 2 years ago being elected governer of a state to me that is experience at least more than any obama supporter can say that their candidate has oh wait he is a community organizer

I heard the same sound bite all over the media, so that is a pretty good indication that it didn't originate with any analysis you've done. However it illustrates precisely how "debate" has degenerated into name-calling, sarcasm, and entitlement. Instead of considering the merits, it becomes "my guy" at all costs. The other side isn't simply wrong, but they're considered evil. This is the heart of the problem .... people feel entitled to elevate their opinions to truth regardless of how little of it they may possess. We all have opinions, and we may be right or we may be wrong. In truth, we're all be more likely to be partially right and partially wrong. But that kind of consideration isn't allowed these days. Just like the creationist argument, the point isn't to offer an alternative explanation, but it is ultimately to offer the only explanation. Since their principles are considered above challenge (because they're religious), the assertions of truth are apparently supposed to be accepted on their word alone.
adaptivecomplexity's picture
As far as your comment on her experience of only 2 years ago being elected governer of a state to me that is experience at least more than any obama supporter can say that their candidate has oh wait he is a community organizer

Are you serious? Do you happen to know what the guy's job is now? (Here's a hint).

Mike

SURE LETS TEACH BOTH! But why stop there? It lets also teach them about Aztec creationism how Kuluto the great giant pig God dug us all outta the ground. And if they misbehave we can warn about the lump of coal they'll be receiving from SANTA CLAUS. Do you see where im going with this or do I have to keep on going?

Tell ya what, lets let the scientists decide what to teach in a SCIENCE class and we'll let the crazy nut-job fanatics decide what to teach in crazy nut-job fanatic school (aka Bob Jones University and Fox News). Most of you need to go to a school that'll remind you that McSane is as old as dirt(his words), will kick the bucket while in office and leave us with someone less experienced than the guy McCains been making fun of since July for being inexperienced. Yeah cuz let me tell thats just what we need, another 4 years of a right wing radical nincompoop

Jeeze and you wonder why everyone is always laughing at us Americans

I recommend to everyone The Lysenko Affair by David Joravsky. It's a great book about how Stalin used junk science to purge academe of political opponents. At the same time, he put an incompetent political lacky in charge of an important agricultural apparatus, and the resultant junk biology caused famine, and tainted Russian scientific prestige for a generation. Soviet agriculture was a laughing stock, because they intentionally denied Darwinian evolution, and this creationism/id crap is even worse, because it denies evolution altogether.

There are two people commenting under the name Louise on this thread. I am the first one, I said what I wanted to say about the tone of the piece on September 1, and have not commented again until now. I have high regard for all ongoing scientific research and enjoy reading about it. Just give the science please when you add politics in it opens such a can of worms.

O.o Never use a persons name to describe another person it's rude because no two people are alike. o.o; TY ^^

rholley's picture
re Galileo: Ripley60, have you read "Great Feuds in Science: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever" by Hal Hellman (Paperback ISBN 0471350664)? The first chapter is on Urban VIII vs Galileo.

It was the first time I ever understood the issues involved. Scientifically, it shows that Galileo's work on mechanics is of much more profound significance than his personal espousal of the Copernican theory. On the debate site, I wonder why Galileo called the advocate for the traditional Aristotelian view "Simplicio". The readers would have known that Simplicius was a late Aristotelian philosopher, but the choice of his name was, de facto, suggesting that the Pope was a clothhead.

Robert H. Olley
Physics Department
University of Reading
England

I believe that the world was created by a donkey named Gerald who lives in the sun. Unlike Huckabee, I know precisely how he did it - with lasers and space dust. However, my very valid theory STILL is not being taught as an alternative to the traditional Creationist theories. WHY NOT?

Why aren't individual theories thought in schools? Because an individual is not a majority who decides what is to be thought. Tax payers are the majority.

With regard to the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, it is the individuals who pay taxes and vote, not organizations who decide elected officials. Lets get the facts in order, please.

D R Ripley above got it right: Massimo Pigliucci is an "ideologue parading in the robes of a scholar". Scientific theories and political ideologies don't mix, unless one wants to repeat failed history of other counties (for example see The Lysenko Affair above; many other examples are too extreme to be considered but relevant).

Scientists should understand their limits: our resources are primarily derived from the TAX PAYERS. As a scientist, I have no interest to fight any democratic system - there are more tax payers than scientists.

As a scientist, I think that Massimo Pigliucci should apologize, or return his Government-derived funding to the tax payers.

Gerhard Adam's picture

Why aren't individual theories thought in schools? Because an individual is not a majority who decides what is to be thought. Tax payers are the majority.

That sentiment is wrong at so many levels I hardly know where to begin. "Majority thought?" ... what an absolute absurdity. NOTE: Just in case that is a typo and you meant "taught", its still absurd to suggest that that is a majority based decision. Large numbers of people do not convey credibility to information. They can be and largely are usually wrong.
Of course "taught" - my mistake on the spelling - teaching knowledge requires consensus on accuracy of knowledge (at least in a democratic system). While the majority can be "wrong", it is not possible to teach every thought. What is taught is politically decided by a majority.

The main point is that scientists are paid, for the most part by the tax payers, and therefore accountable to the tax payers. If one believes that he/she can continue to receive Government-subsidized grant support without tax payers, then such a person does not acknowledge reality.

Moreover, the reality is that Massimo Pigliucci is out of line and he should either apologize, or return his Government-derived funding to the tax payers. Any rational scientist could ask for no less in self interest.

Gerhard Adam's picture

What is taught is politically decided by a majority. The main point is that scientists are paid, for the most part by the tax payers, and therefore accountable to the tax payers.

What is taught is NOT politically decided by a majority of people. You might confine that to a general subject, but content is certainly not up for debate. If you're dealing with topics that are subjective then it would be a different matter, but science isn't in that category. Contrary to popular mythology science isn't simply the act of having an opinion, but rather that of having a "qualified" opinion. While some people might bristle at that remark, they need to get over it. Every opinion is not created equal and simply having an one doesn't entitle anyone to an audience (majority or not). Also, you are incorrect in asserting that the scientists are accountable to the taxpayers. Politicians are accountable to taxpayers, and scientists are accountable to the organizations that provide them funds. There is nothing implicit or explicit in such a financial arrangement that allows someone to dictate the terms of what happens. If people are insulted or put out by what happens, then once again, that's the way the game is played. I'm not given a say in how the government spends my tax dollars except through my vote. Beyond that I have no mechanism to gain a right of accountability. Trust me when I say that General Patreus doesn't call me on weekends to give me status reports and I already know I can't demand a tax refund based on the job I think the administration is doing. To suggest that scientists are held to a different standard for receiving funds as compared to the politicians who have taken them is patently absurd. As I stated previously, if people want to maintain their beliefs privately then there is no issue, but when they venture into the public domain then they are subject to criticism and scrutiny as is everyone else. In addition, scientists have as much right as any other citizen of expressing opinions as well. If people are insulted by that well .... "If you can't run with the big dogs, you have to stay on the porch"
Mr. Olley; I haven't read the book you referenced, but I will try to find a copy. I have read many other books about Galileo and found his unique relationship with the Pope fasinating. What is clear are the human motives of the church; power, money and political control of the uneducated masses. Thanks for the reference and best wishes to the Physics Department at the University of Reading. D R Ripley
Whether Sarah Palin is genuinely a creationist or not, I personally am not convinced. What I am, however, convinced of is that she is a politian currently competing in a glorified popularity contest; and she wants to win. That means she has to try to get as many people on-side while putting as few ass possible off-side. Hence, I personally wonder if she has a specific agenda with regard to creationism in schools or whether it's little more than the usual political rhetoric.
That being said, I personally believe Mr. Pigliucci is right to be concerned. While Riply has made a valid point that it is articles such as this that may in fact be prompting political iedealogues into scientific debate, one also has to consider the notion that it may very well be needed. The live and let live philosophy is on the surface, a fine idea. In our present day and age, on the other hand, with our level of technology and the impact our species has on the entire planet, we simply cannot allow the ignorance to continue unabated. Those who would treat our plannet as an interim holiday home to be consumed and forgotten about once the hereafter pops around, need to be stopped. Creationism is the backbone of the fundamentalist christian world view and I personally believe that combating it is all a part of the invaluable social reform the world (and particularly the United States) desperately needs.
So to you Riply, before you attack a scientist for discussing a political issue with regard to a scientific subject he has studied extensively, perhaps you should consider why we even have scientists. One who is either not willing to share their understanding of the natural world, or is content to see their findings brushed aside in deference to the bablings of a few ancient cultists, is simply not worth having. You treat his statements as though he has over-stepped his mark. I say he's doing his job the way it ought to be done.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Pigliucci.

Mr. Pigliucci did over-step his mark, as does any scientist who wishes to pick a fight with the majority: the TAX payers who pay for the science.

You must not be a scientist, or one who does not appreciate the second law of thermodynamics - there is no free lunch.

One can't expect to receive continued financial support for science from the tax base if one slaps the people in the face. I am a scientist who appreciates the financial support of the tax payers for my research.

Scientific theories and political ideologies don't mix.

Gerhard Adam's picture

One can't expect to receive continued financial support for science from the tax base if one slaps the people in the face. I am a scientist who appreciates the financial support of the tax payers for my research.

I'm sorry but that is simply baloney. Unless you're running a website that solicits and collects funds, the taxpayers don't even know you exist. I want to add something else, but I also want to ensure you that I sincerely do not mean any insult to you personally, so please don't take it that way. One of the biggest problems between science and public perception is the notion that scientists are beholden to whoever is paying the bills. The fewer scientists speak out, the greater the public perception that they are simply "doing what they are told". This is becoming bad enough that it has given rise to the idea that science can be expressed simply as a personal opinion because the trust-factor with scientists has become so diminished that for every controversial topic there's the allegation that they are being paid to give the opinion they are. I, for one, am glad to hear a scientist express a viewpoint, especially one that may not necessarily be favorable to public perception. It's about time the public got a dose of reality and stopped expecting miracles and began understanding that science is hard work and not the same thing as puttering around in one's garage on a weekend.
To Gerhard Adam:

After you call someone's opinion "baloney", please don't expect them to give you the benefit of a doubt when you say that "I sincerely do not mean any insult to you personally, so please don't take it that way".

You clearly doesn't understand that you can't have it both ways with others, irrespective of your own inconsistencies.

Gerhard Adam's picture
It wasn't an inconsistency. My sentiment was expressed for your opinion. My comment about not wanting to insult you was to question your motivation.
To Gerhard Adam:

Now you have come full circle. Your suggestion that you can evaluate my motives is at best pseudoscientific, as is the theory about the origin of life (not the process of evolution). Also, if you believe that scientists are not accountable to the tax payers then you are clearly inconsistent.

To Scott:

Please inform yourself first about the catastrophic history of mixing scientific theories and political ideology to be able to express an opinion on the subject. For the record, my field of research includes the theory of evolution (the RNA World hypothesis).

Gerhard Adam's picture
You've either chosen to misunderstand or I haven't made myself clear. My statement regarding "not insulting you" was precisely to inform you that the following statements I was making were not intended to reflect on you or your motives, precisely because I can't possibly know what they are. Your opinions are fair game, but your motives are not. I'm sorry but any accountability you feel towards the taxpayer may be a noble thought and a legitimate concern, but you can't be accountable to someone that doesn't know you exist, nor has the authority to do anything about your funding. Even if I were to be 110% behind your research I can no more decide to grant you money, nor can I take it away. While you could arguably state that you are indirectly accountable (or maybe through your own conscientousness), but beyond that it simply isn't true. I also can't figure out what the "origin of life" question has to do with anything being discussed.
To Gerhard Adam:

You are mistaken, or naive if you believe that scientists are not accountable to the taxpayers. Even Nobel Laureates acknowledge the financial support of the tax payers in their acceptance speeches.

You really don't see the relationship between the theory of evolution and the debate about the origins of life in the discussion about Sara Palin's position? I find that hard to believe.

To assume that you can evaluate someone's motives is extreme. It is a good thing you are not a politician in power, or else Orwellian reality would be upon us, scientists and all.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I don't know if you're intentionally NOT reading my posts, or simply arguing for the sake of it. Since when does "acknowledgment" equate to "accountable"? There is NO relationship between the theory of evolution and the origins of life. While certain ideas and principles may certainly overlap, there are not in the same category regarding scientific evidence. I don't know how many different ways I can say it, but my original point was that I COULD NOT EVALUATE YOUR MOTIVES. I can't understand why that point in several of my posts keeps evading you.
To Gerhard Adam:

Now you have come full circle. Your suggestion that you can evaluate my motives is at best pseudoscientific, as is the theory about the origin of life (not the process of evolution). Also, if you believe that scientists are not accountable to the tax payers then you are clearly inconsistent.

To Scott:

Please inform yourself first about the catastrophic history of mixing scientific theories and political ideology to be able to express an opinion on the subject. For the record, my field of research includes the theory of evolution (the RNA World hypothesis).

To say that scientific theories and political ideologies don't mix strikes me as a little narrow-minded. What is the scientists duty to those tax payers you mentioned if not to provide informed oppinions on specialised subjects? An evolutionary biologist has every right to speak out against the derision of their work in being compared to ancient second-hand mythology.
Whatver your specific field may be; if a polotician were to suggest your work was potentially reduntant due to the contrary scriblings of a long-dead madman, I would say you are doing those that fund your work a grave injustice if you said nothing to refute them.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Sarah Palin said evolution and creationism should both be taught in public schools, but after the debate she said in an interview:

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

***
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
====================================================
Teaching Evolution - Is There a Better Way?
http://www.creationmoments.net/articles/article.php?a=21

Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html

Teaching Origins in Public Schools
by David Menton
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/teach.htm
===================================================
David Menton bio:

* Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in the Department of Dermatology (1960-62)
* Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
* Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)
===================================================
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html

[snip]

Dr. David N. Menton is a former Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, now retired. In his September 1995 address ("Evolution: Is a scientific critique possible?") at the Abbey Arts Centre in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Menton commented:

"What I'm suggesting in the classroom is: not teaching creation. What I'm suggesting you consider in the classroom is: teach evolution the way your Minister of Education says you ought to--teach the curriculum the way they say you ought to. I believe in obeying the laws. I didn't come here to tell you to get yourself thrown out of a job or anything like that...Do what you're asked to do."

"But there isn't anyone that's going to stop you from presenting critical evidence against evolution. No one."

"I eagerly look forward to the first test case in court, where they drag a teacher kicking and screaming into the courts who has done the job they're supposed to do. They've taught evolution--they've covered the curriculum--they've covered the points in the book--but they also presented scientific evidence that is critical of these evolutionary views--evidence generated by other evolutionists themselves. I'm waiting for the court case when they take that person in the school and say: 'You have no right presenting scientific evidence from evolutionists critical of evolution.'"

"I'll tell you--the approach that is being taken here guarantees one thing...you're guaranteeing this course is going to be boring--you're going to teach evolution as a 'Just So Story'. Anyone with dissenting points of view is going to get crushed. They're either going to go along with the evolutionary paradigm, or be told that they can't speak out; they're not going to win that round, and neither will you. You're going to bore your kids silly."

[snip]
=========================================================
The following suggested Origins of Life policy, which first appeared in the Buckna/Laidlaw article, "Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?"(http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=411) is a realistic, practical and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with regard to evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:

"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet."

I'd like Mr. Pigliucci to explain exactly how all of creation came into existence and then back it up with his definitive, scientific "proof". Interesting thing is, he can't, because it does not exist. All origin "science" is based on observation of the world as it is today and then making an infinite number of assumptions about something that happened with no eye witness and cannot be reproduced by any experiment. So the conclusions made are based on faith and not measurable, repeatable scientific testing, which makes evolution and other origin sciences equivalent to religion. He proves my point by claiming that this is "a basic aspect of reality". How can something that has not and cannot be "scientifically proven" be "a basic aspect of reality"? Well, it can't outside of faith.

Personally, I'd rather place my faith in the Creator and not the created. How about you?

Many conservatives like Sarah Palin want public schools to indoctrinate students into intelligent design. But it is not science. Why is she so anti-science and anti-intellectualism..

Hank's picture
This is a ridiculous statement and basically lacking in any data.   Barack Obama thinks vaccines cause autism so can we say "Many liberals like Barack Obama are anti-science and anti-intellectualism"?

"Though, of course, having a Vice President who is deluded about basic aspects of reality would not be exactly reassuring." Even if one accepts all of science, one remains deluded because science is fundimentally incomplete. The people who consern me most are those who think that they have avoided delusion.

" Palin herself is a creationist or not and, frankly, that’s far less important than the policy positions she holds in the matter." In this I would agree, her policy position is much more important than her internal beliefs. I would also suggest that her view, the same as that of George Bush, is much more reasonable than that of Mike Huckabee. I would suggest that her view is more reasonable, in fact, than yours is. The person I am most conserned for is the kid who has grown up being taught creationism, who enters the highschool science classroom. If the "science only" crowd has its way, this kid cannot present his current position for discussion without committing a criminal act. At a minimum the free speech rights of every student must be dilligently protected.

"Education is not about having “kids debate both sides,” since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). "

Here you make an incredible point -- for your opposition. While it is true that sensory evidence is overwhelming in favor of a flat-earth system, it is hard to find anyone who holds to the view. The few that do seem to do so sarcastically. Why is this? Because the case made for a round earth is great enough to overwhelm the sensory evidence. If the case for neo-Darwinian evolution were made with the clarity that the case for a spherical earth has been made, then the debate would be over, dispite the sensory evidence. I have studied and debated the darwin/ID equation for a few years now, and I have yet to see an overwhelming case for neo-Darwinism. I have seen an overwhelming case for an old earth. I have seen an overwhelming case for the existance of a common ancestor between chimp and human. I have seen a strong (albiet not overwhelming to me) case for universal common descent. I have seen an overwhelming case that both mutation and natural selection play a fundimental role in the tapestry of life. But I have not seen an overwhelming case that environment + mutation + selection can produce true novelty. I have certainly not seen an overwhelming case that unguided causes can produce first life. I have, however, also seen an overwhelming case (albiet not in the science classroom, but in the school of hard knocks) for the existance of providence that goes far beyond what would be expected by an unguided nature.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.