Carnival of the Liberals #79
The 79th Carnival of the Liberals has been annexed onto Capitol Annex. There are a few articles I want you to especially note.
Happy Spirochete at Ideas are Dangerous has an article about the Pledge of Allegiance. He writes:
What’s the point of a “pledge of allegiance” anyway?… If I’m not a soldier or government official, why should I or any member of my family be compelled to recite some nationalistic, theocratic claptrap?
The other two articles are about creationism in the schools. Kathlyn Stone of Flesh and Stone writes about the Louisiana Science Education Act, one of the so-called “academic freedom” laws that are all the rage in creationism circle jerks these days. This legislation has already been passed and signed into law.
Vince Leibowitz at Capitol Annex tells us that the proposed science standards for Texas schools have been watered down to allow the teaching of creationism.
I propose that if these states insist on destroying their public schools, that educational institutions in the enlightened states should not recognize the diplomas granted by Louisiana and Texas high schools.
After all, a high school diploma has a certain meaning. It says that the bearer has attained a certain level of knowledge and understanding of a broad set of subjects. However, that would not be the case with Louisiana and Texas high schools. Those students would not only have an inadequate understanding of biology, but they would actually possess a misunderstanding of the science. Not having met the minimum standards for acceptance, every single one of these students should be categorically denied entrance.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Here’s another idea. Maybe those students should be required to take (and pass) lower level science courses before they are allowed to move on to science courses that actually go towards a degree. Students who do not have a sufficient grasp of English, as determined by standardized tests, are required to take and pass “Bonehead” English courses before they can go on to regular English classes. Only the standard English courses (1A, 1B, etc.) count towards their degree. The others are just pre-requisites that allow them to go on.
That way, the students wouldn’t be as penalized by the idiots who ruined their education.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:12 am
I respond with an emphatic NO! What we need here is tough love to force those states back into compliance with 21st century education standards.
Those high school diplomas have not been earned, so the students must not be allowed into college. Only when the retarded parents who insisted on these laws see that Johnny and Janie aren’t getting into college with their worthless Texas diplomas will the law be changed. Otherwise, it is out of sight, out of mind.
If you allow the kids into college but let them take bonehead science, all the parents will see is that the kids got into college. Besides, it does nothing to remedy the education of the great majority who don’t go on to college. They will be laboring for the rest of their lives under the mistaken notions that they have been taught.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Johnny and Janie will probably have to be the ones to change the law because dear old mom and dad won’t have an incentive. Their kids are out of high school. As far as they are concerned, if they even realize their mistake, it is too late for their kids. So, why should they worry or care about it? If they were stupid enough to vote for the law then they may not even care if Johnny and Janie go to college. Or they will send them to colleges that also teach bad science. And the cycle will continue to spiral downhill. A lot of parents only seem to care what is going on in the school curriculum if they have kids in school (or will have soon), or are running for office.
Now, maybe, the parents of elementary school students will see what is happening to the high school kids and work to make changes before their kids hit High School. That would be good, but I wouldn’t count on it. A lot of parents of elementary school aged kids are so busy with work, after school activities, homework and making ends meet that they don’t even think about what is going on in high school until it’s time to enroll the kids, the summer before classes start. Then it’s too late.
I am worried about the poor kids who really had no choice in the matter. What do they do? Do they move to another (enlightened) state, as adults, to get the high school education that they missed so that they can go to college?
It’s a shame, and really unfair, that the kids will be the ones to suffer from the huge mistake of their parents. What is even sadder is that the kids, of parents who tried to DEFEAT the stupid laws, will also suffer. The only recourse these parents may have would be to move, which may not be all that easy from a financial point of view.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:05 am
I think it is a fairly rash and stupid thing to suggest that the diplomas of students from Texas and Louisiana should be considered invalid in other states where religious dogma isn’t part of the curriculum. That sort of policy would only further insulate those misguided states and deepen the culture of superstitious thinking and xenophobic mistrust towards intellectuals and “liberals.” Shutting the door on those states would not help them to succumb to reason, but would drive them from it, all while proving the ever present paranoia that Christians are discriminated against in this country.
Indoctrination into creationism doesn’t take place at school; religious brainwashing comes from parents and the churches parents force their children to attend.
It’s truly maddening that some students have to suffer through hogwash and superstition in their biology class, but fortunately I feel the danger it stands to cause is somewhat overstated in this article.
Having witnessed Texas public high school biology firsthand I can tell you that the creationism part was very brief. I’m sure this differs from teacher to teacher, but in my case it came as a preface to evolution stating simply that some people oppose the theory of evolution and choose the believe the ideas of their religion, despite complete lack of scientific support. Creationism was never mentioned again.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:23 am
George:
What you experienced was under the old system, not the proposed system. If all they wanted to do was read a brief statement, they wouldn’t have needed to make as many changes as they have.
Colleges have standards. E.g., you have to have completed two years of a foreign language. You have to have completed calculus. You are denied entry unless you meet those minimums. Requiring a completed biology course is no different.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:35 am
That’s an intriguing idea for a solution. It might take hold in a more enlightned time.
But the current leadership, with LA Gov. Jindahl (himself a biology major) at the helm, is intent on destroying Louisiana kids’ future for personal gain.
Prior to passage of the law, the American Institute of Biological Sciences and seven other societies and scientific organizations appealed to the governor to consider Louisiana’s economic future: “The future educational, employment, and economic growth of Louisiana and the United States depends upon a scientifically literate workforce and a population capable of making informed decisions. A strong foundation in science that includes an understanding of evolution is required to fuel the advances in research, development, and innovation that will help Louisiana increase economic growth from new jobs and opportunities arising from science and technology.”
But Jindahl and other right-wingers know that controlling the population through religion works. That way they can attend to wars, imperialism and corporate takeovers unimpeded!
December 7th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Wow, more lies from liberals who pretend to be on the side of science so that they can fight their culture war with the ammunition of righteousness:
Happy Lying Spirochete says:
“Vince Leibowitz at Capitol Annex tells us that the proposed science standards for Texas schools have been watered down to allow the teaching of creationism.”
No, that is a bogus LIE, and you losers expect us agnostics in the “wobbly middle” to believe the rest of your hype when YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THEM.
Losers.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Wow, Island. Thanks for contributing so much to the conversation. Instead of flinging around baseless accusations, why don’t you back them up? If I’m wrong, tell me why. Otherwise, you’re no better than what you claim I am.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Kay… well, for starters, I quoted Vince Leibowitz, but I temporarily lost my mind and wrote down that I’d quoted “Happy Spirochete”, but okay, I’ll entertain this joke of a notion that creationism can legally be taught in school.
The academic freedom law, which works in strict conjunction with the science standards, strictly prohibits the teaching of religion, creationism, “creation science”, “creation facts” and ID
Not to mention the separation laws creationism or “ID”… cannot LEGALLY be taught under any circumstances and any attempt to violate the law will put teachers and/or schools in jeopardy of prosecution, so all of the necessary mechanisms to prevent this from happening are soundly in place.
You guys automatically over-react to assume that the DI has simply repackaged their game, rather than to change it’s tactics, but this has NOT been established, and is NOT what the law allows, so your bogus assertions are based solely on your paranoid fear of stuff that happened in Dover and your knowledge of the agenda that’s behind ID.
That’s NOT how science, (or the law), works.
Georges Lemaître had an “agenda” when he discovered the Big Bang, because he thought that it was proof of the literal interpretation of Genesis.
So the agenda doesn’t matter to science, (it’s really about the integrity of interpretations of the evidence), while creationism and ID are strictly prohibited by the separation laws, so it doesn’t matter what the agenda is, since they will be in violation of the high court and/or the court ruling in Dover if they try to teach creationism or ID in school.
The Discovery Institute and ID could be effectively wiped off the map if they tried to push either ID or creationism in school, unless they are certain that they can win a Supreme Court ruling. They would be stupid beyond belief to try that after Dover, so the odds are that they want to put certain aspects of Darwin’s Theory in the spotlight.
NOBODY that isn’t ONLY interested in fighting an ideologically motivated culture war is going to try to stop them from hanging themselves once and for all, forever and ever, ahMan. Nobody in their right mind would try to stop them from hanging themselves if they were only interested in the integrity of science.
These lies, embellishments, and convenient distortions of *both* sides make it politics as usual, since the creationists agenda does not matter to science or the kids, because creationism and ID CANNOT be LEGALLY taught, no matter what creationists might *want* to do, so the claim that “teaching the controversy” should be shot down on the basis that it will “invite costly lawsuits” something that is assumed in the face of any evidence, since nobody is pushing creationist’s materials like they did in Dover.
“Teaching the controversy” involves assumptions and interpretations of some of the less-well defined mechanisms of evolutionary theory that creationists claim are being dishonestly biased by politics in science, and there is some historical precedence for this, so their method is possibly justified if science benefits because this non-scientific tendency has hurt science in the past.
I don’t know much about the philosopher, Thomas Nagel, and don’t necessarily share his general position, but I do agree that this makes for a very accurate and true statement:
http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/papa_132.pdf
“The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory….”
This equally absurd over-reactionary tendency or “anticentrist dogma”, has plagued science since Copernicus removed us from the the center of the Universe. Personally, I see this as being much more destructive to plausible science than anything that the DI and the IDists have done to date, because it comes from the side that is supposed to be on the side of science.
And I commonly demolish the bogus pretense that politics isn’t a factor:
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle/
December 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Island:
First of all, thank you for providing one of the most detailed rebuttals I’ve ever received. I actually like it when people disagree with me, but they have to be able to say why.
“Academic freedom” laws are designed to weaken the teaching of biology. The known facts of evolution contradict all young-Earth and most old-Earth creationism. If evolution is taught, then those flavors of Christianity are debunked. This obviously is quite distressing to fundamentalists. By forcing the whole “teach the controversy” thing into the schools, they leave enough doubt in students’ minds for fundamentalism to exist. That might be fine if there really were a controversy. However, there is none. Not at the level of biology that is being taught in high school. That science is rock solid. It is only at the edges of evolutionary theory where scientists are still working out the mechanisms. By teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, the schools end up not teaching the principle tenet of biology, which is that evolution happened. Biology is only understandable in that context. If you doubt evolution, you are incapable of truly understanding how life works.
Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. They’re only overturned when somebody with standing is willing and able to file suit. Then the case has to work its way through the courts, often being tossed out on technicalities, so the process has to start all over again. By the time the Supreme Court rules on it, if it ever does, 20 years could have easily passed. In the meantime, that unconstitutional law is on the books and doing its damage. Furthermore, the courts are unreliable. The Reagan and Bush 1&2 administrations put a lot of extremely conservative judges in the courts. The Supreme Court is on the edge of falling over the conservative cliff. The Constitution is only as valid as the people who uphold it. The time to stop unconstitutional laws is at the time they are proposed.
You have not demonstrated any falsehoods on the pro-science side.
As I just said above, yes they can. Something is legal if it is in compliance with the law. The law may be unconstitutional, but until it is ruled so by the courts, the law stands and the activity is legal.
As I said above, this is absolutely not true at the level of biology that is being taught in high school.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
As I just said above, yes they can. Something is legal if it is in compliance with the law. The law may be unconstitutional, but until it is ruled so by the courts, the law stands and the activity is legal.
No, you willfully ignored the part that says:
The academic freedom law, which works in strict conjunction with the science standards, strictly prohibits the teaching of religion, creationism, “creation science”, “creation facts” and ID.
Not to mention the OTHER separation laws, since this is effectively the same thing.
You have proven nothing, and NOBODY has passed any laws that are unconstitutional, much to the contrary of your claim otherwise.
They’re only overturned when somebody with standing is willing and able to file suit.
What a freaking joke it is to imply that “somebody” wouldn’t jump at the throats of creationists give this opportunity, were it actually an opportunity… but it is not.
You have not demonstrated any falsehoods on the pro-science side
Yes, I have.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Island:
No. It is you who are ignoring facts. You might want to start by reading Vince Leibowitz’s article. The new law says, in part:
In other words, teach the “strength and weaknesses” of evolution.
Again, you ignore the reality of how things work in this country. Why did it take until 1963 to get prayer removed from the public schools? Why is “under God” still in the Pledge of Allegiance? These things take many years, if ever, to get resolved. What a freaking joke your “proofs” are.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
No, you still willfully ignore the fact that the law does not “allow the teaching of creationism”… no matter how hard you deny it without proof.
‘Analyzing and evaluating the strengths and limitations of scientific explanations including those based on accepted scientific data’ is not creationism, so your unfounded leap of unproven faith is as fantastic as the rest of the bogus non-establish-able assumptions of paranoid freaks who have no proof of their assertions.
Again, you ignore the reality of how things work in this country. Why did it take until 1963 to get prayer removed from the public schools? Why is “under God” still in the Pledge of Allegiance? These things take many years, if ever, to get resolved. What a freaking joke your “proofs” are.
How long did it take you to stop them in Dover when you ACTUALLY had proof that’s what they intended?
OOOPS!
What a willfully ignorant fanatic you are.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Dover was an aberration. There were no legal challenges to the suit itself, and the defendants chose not to appeal. Had any of those occurred, we wouldn’t see the end of it until sometime in the next decade.
We could go back and forth like this all day. You’re playing a game of attrition, and I’ve decided you should stop playing that. Also your tone is becoming increasingly hostile and fanatical. This violates the comment policy of this website. If you had kept it civil, I would have considered letting you get away with the attrition game. Two strikes, though. You’re out.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Sometimes “middle roaders” who (attempt to) see both sides (aka, straddle the fence and never take a stand) on every issue really get annoying.
Anyway, back to an earlier point, Ron. I also disagree with ignoring the high school diplomas, even with flawed biology teaching. Several reasons…
1. Many high school students who pass what we consider today “competent” biology courses still do not understand evolution any better than the average fundie. I cannot count the number of otherwise perfectly intelligent people who think evolution is on some predetermined path (next step in our evolution!) or think that animals just decided they wanted a new attribute, so they just went ahead and grew it!
2. Biology is only one of many things a child should learn before entering college. If you are not going into the sciences, the whole thing is a moot point. Okay, not really, because ignorance is bad no matter what your chosen field is, but I mean as far as college entrance is concerned with respect to your future chosen career.
3. In college, you usually (for any discipline) have to take a variety of sciences in lower division, including biology. If you can’t pass that course due to lousy science education in high school, then it has the same net effect as denying them outright, but without the “the libruls are suppressing us!”
4. It’s punishing the kids. Sure, you can say it’s tough love, and I understand the argument. But I really think it’s a bad idea to punish the kids for the parents’ mistakes.
Now don’t take what I am saying here as my approval for just doing whatever with high school standards. That’s not the case. There should be federal minimum standards that prevent something as stupid as this from happened in any state. Citizens of these states also should simply not stand for watered down science in any form. I just think locking out admissions to college does more harm than good.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
On the other hand, it’s sometimes nice to see people recognize that there is an other side.
Not in the evolution/ID debate, of course. I’ve just had and/or heard too many arguments that simply refuse to recognize that the other side has any merit at all.
Of course, I have an English degree so what do I know about biology….
December 9th, 2008 at 6:37 am
OtherRob – Good point. I’m not saying seeing the other side of an argument and compromising is bad. I’m just saying that there’s been this fetishing in America of the “middle” like it is some nirvana of political thought and anybody on the left or right side of middle are morons for having an actual strong opinion on a subject.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Well, PL, I do tend to think that the “truth” is often in the middle of the extremes. I think one problem you’re having with it is that the IDers are using the pretense of being in the middle — of saying it’s only fair to teach “both sides” — of one of the most fundamental aspects of biology — of science — when, of course, there is no middle in the evolution/ID debate.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Parrotlover:
I knew the idea would meet resistance. I thought I’d throw it against the wall to see if it would stick. I still think the idea has merit. Somebody needs to stand up against this demolition of academic standards.
You can thank the fundies for that. They’ve made evolution so controversial that the schools ghettoize evolution into one unit that they only spend a week or two on. It needs to be woven throughout the entire course. Knowing the “what” and the “how” aren’t enough. Evolution is the “why” of biology. Why do things works the way they do? All sciences need the “why”. If you don’t have that, you don’t have a science.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:17 am
I may disagree with you about the acceptance of diplomas, but I 100% agree with you about that.
Hopefully, with the new Congress and President, failed policies like No Child Left Behind get scrapped and some decent educational standards are implemented. Of course, even more importantly, we also need more funding.