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.

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.

I also disagree with ignoring the high school diplomas, even with flawed biology teaching.

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.

Many high school students who pass what we consider today “competent” biology courses still do not understand evolution any better than the average fundie.

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.

Sometimes “middle roaders” who (attempt to) see both sides (aka, straddle the fence and never take a stand) on every issue really get annoying.

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

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.

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:

analyze and evaluate strengths and limitations of scientific explanations including those based on accepted scientific data

In other words, teach the “strength and weaknesses” of evolution.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These lies, embellishments, and convenient distortions of *both* sides make it politics as usual…

You have not demonstrated any falsehoods on the pro-science side.

…because creationism and ID CANNOT be LEGALLY taught

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.

“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.

As I said above, this is absolutely not true at the level of biology that is being taught in high 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/