Replies

A momentary lapse on my part. It is interesting that the subject of the "propaganda teaching" was physics, not biology. A rather clear demonstration that biology should not be singled out for lessons in critical thinking.

I posted this article because it demonstrates my contention that those who are upset about evolution are, in fact, opposed to all of science, and all of the methods and assumptions of science.

If you read the whole article you will note that the author regrets that there isn't time in any science class to build the conceptual framework and assemble all the facts necessary to prove current scientific ideas from the ground up. Education necessarily requires trust.

I took a little heat from "my side" for admitting that I was rebellious in school. I think most conservatives have had a few times when they didn't accept or trust what was being taught in school. I think, however, that the issues being discussed on the crevo threads go far deeper than whether teachers are liberal or whether a curriculum is biased toward some political objective.

The ideas being argued here are whether there is any point in studying the world and trusting our senses. Most FReepers are pretty much on record as finding the "will of Allah" school of thought ludicrous. Most of us believe that our actions have real effects in the world, and that what we see and touch and hear is real. Most of us believe it is our responsibility to feed and clothe our children, and not treat them as lilies of the field. Most of us believe in medicine, and believe that we should use our minds to protect and maintain our bodies.

These things may seem terribly elementary and obvious, but they are in fact hotly contested by lots of people. Historically, there have been people of all faiths who objected to medicine because it attempted to bypass the will of god. There is a rather large segment of Americans who actively promote this belief.

On a rather more narrow point, there was for many years, an objection to allowing women to have anesthesia during childbirth, specifically because the Bible declared that women should suffer in childbirth.

I mention all these things because they are all of the same fabric. They assert that there is some higher view that has priority over knowledge acquired by mucking about in mere dirt. This higher view asserts that discoveries in all sciences must be subordinate to a literal interpretation of a religious text.

The immediate issue that starts these discussions is generally the topic of evolution, but that is just the skin of the onion. Evolution is intertwined with physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and every other physical science. They all interlock in their methodologies and assumptions. There is no special exemption in biology for evolution. There are no get out of jail free cards issued to those who study evolution. It's all part of the same reasoning process that exists in all of science.

Which is why we continue to get absurd arguments about the age of the earth, the speed of light, and so forth. You can't limit the debate to whether you are a monkey's nephew. You accept science or you don't

It would be lovely if everyone could spend their whole life accumulating the entire database of science, every detail of every observation and every experiment. But this is ridiculous. You either trust the accumulated authority of hundreds of years, or you don't. You either teach science as it is or you don't teach science.