From time to time in our checkered past rulers have decreed that knowledge is worth having, and they undertook large-scale projects aimed at the preservation of literature.
To counter this there has been the occassional brisk bout of zealots and fanatics, usually religious and always blindingly conservative, that revel in good ol’ fashioned book burnings.
Knowledge ebbs and flows. The Aztecs, Sumerians and the builders of Stonehenge all had extensive science and technology to track the passage of time. Written languages flourished. That knowledge was lost, sometimes forever, often through violent purge.
It seems strange that a race should be so curious yet paradoxically so terrified of knowledge. Maybe it’s not fear of knowledge that drives us to destroy the secrets of the universe. The destroyers are historically the ignorant but what drives them to it?
There is currently a conservative rush to prevent the teaching of contemporary scientific theory in classrooms. Evolution is being challenged as unsound postulation by those that champion creationism as… more valid? This is happening in a country where many districts practice “Leave No Child Behind”, where no matter how resistant to education your kid is he will still graduate with his peers into a society that will eat him alive as a defenseless statistic of political blundering. If you cannot read a roadmap you will get lost. The end.
Before I go any further I would like to know how one goes about teaching creationism in a public classroom. I can’t help imagining, “… and on the sixth day God added some nice fountains and some greenery around the edges.” How does one present this alongside the simple cool logic of evolution? If A is better suited to its environment than B, A generally outlives B. If a particular shade of green makes for better camouflage, those perfectly green animals will fill a given niche better than the other animals, who are squeezed out. This process can take thousands of years as tiny differences in makeup make for tiny advantage.
The simple fact that certain genes can be dominant over others is all the proof I need.
Nevertheless, the ignorant are a subversive and cunning lot. Never let it be said that brains will always overcome sheer blind stupidity. While the US government has grudgingly declared that creationism doesn’t belong in public schools there are still widespread pockets of dumb.
Enter Arkansas.
Educators are actually in fear for their jobs for supporting the E-word. This is treatment we expect more from the pages of the Inquisition than 21st century America, but nonetheless there it is: the suppression of stable scientific theory in the name of religious dogma.
I have never wanted to destroy anyone’s faith. If they find comfort where I see only refuge in mysticism it’s not my place to take that away from them. Whatever gets you through the night, I figure. But when that mysticism becomes justification for violent action there’s a part of me that really would love to throw them to the lions. Because seriously, what possible contribution are these idiots making?
More insidious, however, is the non-violent act: the willful propagation of misinformation. The suppression of contravening opinion. The quiet and malignant growth of ignorance disguised as religion. The worst part is that they believe they are doing The Right Thing. They really believe it.
The irony is, of course, hilarious: a country founded on the principle of religious freedom for all should now try to re-draft that proclamation to freedom of religion for all who agree with me.
Countless times we have heard moderate America saying those religious nuts don’t speak for the majority. Why, then, doesn’t the majority tell them to shut the hell up? Is it preserving freedom to let them take yours away?
It seems so simple to me that religious freedom means, first and foremost, you will not force me to practice your faith. That means there can be no religion in public schools. That’s it. No question. No debate. No problem.
If you want your kids to learn alternatives then send them to Sunday School. Or, perish the thought, do it yourself.
No violent action unless, of course, they are defending their religion from mean people writing cartoons about them. In which case, you totally understand why they are angry and actively defend their violent actions????? Oh boy, i’m trying to make sense of the nonsensical again.
COMMENT:
I’m not sure I agree with what you’re saying here, but I need to think on it more. It seems to me though, that there are a lot of people out there, peaceful people, who believe in creationism, teach it to their children, only to have their children told they are wrong in their beliefs when they go to school. I think this isn’t so black and white. I believe that both sides should be equally represented, taught, and the ultimate decision be that of the student. I do not think only one should be taught, that would be like trying to say the other doesn’t exist, or is invalid, which is just wrong. I would not dare tell you your beliefs are wrong, as I would not stand being told I was wrong in my beliefs. Shutting one or they other out completely is wrong.
HA! I suck at spelling, so I use google. I know that seems weird, but I just type in the way I think a word is spelled, and if I’m wrong it corrects me. I always have a hard time with the whole i before e thing, so I typed in “believe” and http://www.reasons.org came up first, this is what they have to say … “The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies.” I just wanted share, cuz I thought it was pretty funny.
Buddy – If I advocated violence I would have been in prison decades ago. As the Texas defence goes, there are a lot of people need killin’.
But I don’t. I think violence begets violence and really doesn’t solve much.
That said, you’re refering to this article where you somehow got the impression I condone the riots over the caricatures of Mohamed. You obviously need to give that another read.
To sum up: if you poke a lion you can’t be surprised if it eats you.
Krista – public school has a responsibility under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to let parents raise their kids. Educators are expressly forbidden to introduce religious doctrine into the classroom for the specific and paramount reason that an educator’s beliefs may not mirror those of the parents. You tell me, Krista: how do you teach the Christian mythos of God’s Creation when half the class is told something else at home? Would you want your children force-fed Brahma?
Teaching Christian mythology in public school is wrong for the simple reason that Canada is multi-cultural. Why people don’t get that is beyond me.
Yep, you’re right. I thought of that after I posted. But I did have the very unfortunate experience of sitting in a classroom where a teacher called a 16 year old girl all kinds of nasty things because she refused to believe, or spout back things she did not believe, in the manner he wanted. She was willing to write that “modern science believes”, but would not state it as fact. I think it’s a sensitive subject, and religion should be left out of the classroom, but it shouldn’t be disrespected in the school either.
Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Muslim mythology, Buddhist mythology, Hindu mythology and yes, Christian mythology. Not one single one carries any more weight than any other. If you prefer I use the term religion, then you must accept a Norse religion, complete with thunder god and fertility goddess. Any evidence you reference also points to them.
As for “modern science believes”… that’s exactly like saying we believe 1 + 1 = 2. Overwhelming physical, tangible, cross-referencing evidence indicates that this is true. Modern science does NOT believe. Modern science ruthlessly studies and searches for proof upon proof. That’s the whole point. Establishing, tearing apart, and finally proving theories, only to refine and re-examine them once again as new evidence presents itself.
The very day an immortal pan-dimensional being steps up in front of me and says, “hey, it was me, I did it all, and how about that wacky son of mine getting himself nailed to a cross?” I will bow down and offer you my most sincere apologies.
Until that day…
Well, until that day I will continue giving everyone even odds.
Speaking of disrespect, I know you don’t believe in Christianity, but it is a religion. I think that by refering to it as mythology, you are trying to purposefully be disrespectful. I know it’s your blog, and I’m not saying you need to change how or what you write here, but you have said you have no problem with people having different beliefs, yet you seem to want to belittle them just the same.
WRONG!
You simply CANNOT make the comparison of modern science to a mathematical equation. People get this confused all the time, but it is simply not the case.
1+1=2 is true… not because science tells us it is… it simply is true by virtue of being true. It’s like saying all triangles have three sides. This is true not because we have studied all triangles, come up with a theory that all triangles have three sides, tested it against reality, found no obvious reason not to believe our theory to be true, THEN decided on it’s truth. It is just simply TRUE! There is no evidence or arguement that needs to be made for it. All triangles have three sides is true BY DEFINITION because a triangle is an object that has three sides, just as the addition of one and one is 2 (1+1=2) is true by virtue of the definition of its terms. Don’t worry, it’s a common mistake that pretty much everone makes.
Science is NOT true by definition. It’s truth is based on axioms and theories backed up with evidence and it must be repeatable BUT it also MUST be refutable. Otherwise it is not science.
Modern science attempts to explain reality by using these theories and evidence, in combination with repeatable testing to provide an very convincing argument for truth… BUT IT MUST BE REFUTABLE (ie, disprovable)
A common example: All swans are white. That is statement that has a truth value. While it is not true, modern science said it was not that long ago. The argument goes like this (more or less):
Premise 1: If we only ever observe one type of a thing, it usually means that there is only that one type of a thing.
Premise 2: Every swan we’ve seen so far has been white.
Conclussion: All swans are white.
This is science in all it’s glory (and I strongly believe in its principles and value at establishing truth). It arrives at a conclussion by way of a sound argument. And being a reasonable person, one would have to assert the truth of the conclussion. However, this argument is also disprovable… why, becasue we can simply find a swan that isn’t white, and the argument disproved. That is science (more or less).
Science is NOT the statement of definitive facts for which no other explaination can possibly exist. Just as there could not be a triangle with 4 sides… it just simply doesn’t happen, it is not science.
Hmmmmmm. Sounds like you have your own belief system, religion if you will, DJ. Open your mind and you might begin to understand why many people find that Science alone isn’t enough to fulfill them.
Buddy – read it again.
Jonathan – I refined my definition in the very same paragraph: Modern science ruthlessly studies and searches for proof upon proof. That’s the whole point. Establishing, tearing apart, and finally proving theories, only to refine and re-examine them once again as new evidence presents itself. So I think we’re saying the same thing, even though my example and your counter both depend on not discovering that the curvature of time/space does indeed cause 1+1 to equal 3.
But you are argueing against what Krista says, namely that science does not believe. Science believes in the truth given the evidence. NOT absolute truth.
You have to have faith that the evidence is true, otherwise you assert truth based on nothing. Just a guess? Opinion? Science certainly is not opinion or consensus (though that’s a whole other rant all together).
As you said it… establishing, tearing apart, and finally proving theories… so we’ve proved something… found it to be true. But you are saying that you don’t believe it is true… it just is true. BUT then you say that it will be re-examined and refined (possibly altering truth) as new evidence presents itself? If you think that new evidence might possibly come along, then your assertion of the truth is just a belief. You cannot say “it is the truth… abosuletly” and also acknowledge the possibility of refutability (as you are doing). Truth, in the face of possible refutability, is merely “most likely true”, “probably is true” or something to that effect. Going as far as saying it “IS TRUE” requires belief.
I argue for science, but we are not saying the same thing. I think you need to re-look at your assumptions about science and understand that it requires belief or faith or whatever you want to call it.
And no, we will never discover that 1+1=3. Just as we will never discover a triangle with 4 sides. You don’t seem to get the principles here. It’s true by definition and does not require belief.
So when you say it ridiculous to say we “believe” that 1+1=2, you are right… but not because it is scientifically proven.
Also, I’d like to correct myself above… I said It arrives at a conclussion by way of a sound argument. It should read: cogent argument.
How about this: “evidence to date suggests…”
The point being that Science (insert Thomas Dolby voice) relies on examination of available physical evidence, whereas religion relies on faith to the exclusion of physical evidence insofar as we consider the age of the universe and the evolution of species.
That’s it. Keeping it simple and sound-bitey. Avoiding all comparisons to arithmetic or geometry.
Therefore teaching creation myths in class, while culturally valuable from a perspective of comparison, is irresponsible as a substitute for discussion of evolution or deep time.
So… you are giving a cop out? The evidence suggests something… so what do you conclude about it? That the evidence merely suggests it? Saying the evidence suggests something is not the same as stating that that something is true. Evidence suggests evolution is true… is that as far as you go? Essentially that’s as far as the evidence takes you… merely suggesting it. The next step is to aserting that Evolution is in fact true… something that requires the belief in the evidence and the process by which the argument was constructed. Or do you stop short of actually making any claim other than “the evidence to date suggests”… which really isn’t stating anything.
Science relies on the examination AND interpretation of the available evidence admitting some basic pressumptions (causal reality, etc).
Cop out? Where? Read it again, pilgrem. All I did was refine my statement. Scientific conclusions are True only insofar as the current evidence supports them. That’s a given. No idea why you’re up in arms here.
I’m not in arms, I appreciate a good debate. Now read my last post again (#14)..
And just so I’m clear, as I clearly don’t understand.
Are you saying “Evolution is true” (end of story) or “Evolution is true, only insofar as the current evidence supports it”
Uhh… thank you, but I’m not sure you get my point.
You’ve basically just stated what you stated in comment #8. That believing scientific theory is the same as believing math. In a sense, you are redefining your definition of belief to make the theory of evolution appear as strong as a mathematic truth.
Again, re-read what I’ve wrote before… 1+1 will, as you say, always be 2. You can believe all you want, or not… but it is just true. No ifs, ands, or buts. It’s an abstract concept that IS true. And its true because it is true by definition.
Now I’m being nitpicky… but I’m just trying to help you understand.
A valid point. While I personally *believe* the current theory of evolution and the overwhelming landslide of evidence supporting it, that is only my belief, just as I believe that 1+1 will always equal 2 and the colour I perceive as red looks the same to me as it does to just about everyone else.
A philosopher once wrote a book claiming that the entire universe was just a figment of his imagination. Critics asked why he wrote the book.
Let’s skip the math then, and move on.
It is my perception that 1+1 always has & always will equal 2. I take this as a universal and incotrovertable truth.
But as soon as I define my perception as reality all hell breaks loose. Read on.
Or then there’s the recent news item, here, about quantum computers solving equations without actually running the algorithm.
So when I say 1+1=2, I am commenting somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I freely grant you the point you are trying to make, but you also have to grant me that no matter how much we would like to believe in a universal truth there just isn’t any such thing. Reality is always subjective, and nothing is certain beyond all philosophical debate. Ever.
So. I choose not to place any more faith in Christianity than I do in any other mono-, poly- or pantheonic mythos, because the evidence for each is just as strong. Science, at least, looks a little harder for cause & effect.
I’ll jump in the Fray for a second here, and put my 2 cents in. Basically the, you choose to place your faith in the mythos of science, as opposed to the mythos of religion. Makes perfect sense to me!
Subjective reality?!?! That’s the principle behind the post-modern “disease” that is infecting society. I tell these people, try jumping off a roof. You’ll fall.
If you say reality is always subjective, then you don’t really believe anything. You CANNOT claim to be a believer in science and say that reality is completely subjective. You are at arms with yourself.
Here is where you are right:
1+1=2… always… a universal and incotrovertable truth
AND
Science looks a little harder for cause and effect. Well, yes, but it actually requires it.
If you take the stance that reality is subjective, then yes… there are no universal truths… Gravity doesn’t really exist, evolution didn’t really happen, red is actually blue (or not). A subjective reality gets you absolutely nowhere.
So while you grant me my point (something I’m still not convinced you really get), I cannot grant you that there are no universal truths, as that would require admission of subjective reality and exclussion of abstract thought (which is where 1+1=2 and triangles lie).
But now this has degraded far far far from your original posting which basically said what you’ve just stated “So. I choose not to place any more faith in Christianity than I do in any other mono-, poly- or pantheonic mythos, because the evidence for each is just as strong. Science, at least, looks a little harder for cause & effect.“
Broch: there are no myths in research except perhaps as starting points.
Jonathan: we’re getting caught up now in the definition of reality, which is a philosophical debate, and in fact my point- philosophically nothing is certain. The perspective has extremely valuable uses and shouldn’t be dismissed as a post-modern disease. Doing so invites tunnel vision, and then you might as well worship a guy nailed to a cross.
If your point is that just about everybody will agree putting one rock next to another rock puts two rocks in plain sight then I concur. But there are legions of people out there who see evidence of God in those same two rocks, planted there by Him only twelve thousand years ago when the universe was created.
Their reality is every bit as real as yours, and can be even more exclusionary. I choose to keep an open mind and re-examine my beliefs as new evidence submits itself to the ever-simpler, ever more complex story of how we got here. Call me non-commital, for me it’s nothing more than pragmatic.
Ok, now I have to jump in because this is fun. I started writing this before Mischiff posted his last comment, so it kind of coincides. Anyway:
What if you both are absolutely right? Isn’t the conflict over the scale you’re both using?
Jon, aren’t you using physical truths and universal laws created and rooted in the world of objects greater than atoms and molecules to make your arguements? And the points in your side of the debate are also rooted in that larger object scale: If a human jumps off a roof, he/she is an object of scale large enough so as to be affected by the law of gravity. It’s truth in the slice of the pie you’re referring to, absolutely. But don’t the very formulas and equations that govern the math that you assert as evidence of “truth” break down on a
quantum level? (Or at least, behave not as expected). If you conitinue on your journey down the physical scale, the equations inverse into infinate possibility and subjective reality where the mere act of observation creates, and changes experiments.
If you approach the topic of religious beliefs, in a mindset rooted in these larger object physical truths, it’s easy to discount arguements and truths created by people whose mindset is processing, or using as reference, truths rooted and established on a different level of the scale. Likewise, it’s contradicting to folks who believe in various mythology- Many times they are relegated to rely on “blind faith” to explain their convictions because the religions they follow were founded when societies were on a far different place on the scale. As societies shift on the scale, through culture wars, religious wars, moral wars, reformations, and renaissance new truths are established along with new programmes, laws, accepted cultural norms and dynasties. Does this natural change and vibrance of life and society discount the era that proceded it? Make the norms or truths less true or valid. At that point in time, within the scope and bounds of what was mutually accepted as truth, on a specific level of the physical plane, everyone exsited and interacted with a world that was exactly what they needed it to be.
Could there be unviersal truths we haven’t discovered yet nested in the universal truths humans have observed that explain why quantum physics theories exist in the same world as Newtonian Physics? Could everybody be right based on the slice of the pie they’re looking at and the scale and scope they define either conciously or
subconciously? Wouldn’t that allow us to have universal 1+1=2 truths alongside subjective reality? And allow us to explain the logical and factually based occurances in our lives alongside the “miracles”?
Or is all of what I said a post-modernish mindtrap? I don’t think it is, because post-modernism criticizes absolute truths. What I’m suggesting is that absolute truths exist, nested in their hierarchy and place on a scale alongside everything else in some big universal topology.
I’d like to get both your opinions on it…
Also, have either of you read about spiral dynamics? I find it a fascinating theory you can read more about here:
http://www.spiraldynamics.org/learning/faq.htm#typology:
From the site: Spiral Dynamics® (SD) is a way of looking at different ways people think and then building systems which better match who we are and who we are likely to become, as individuals, organizations, and even societies. It is applicable in personal growth and coaching, organization development and management/leadership training,
strategy and culture studies, social transformation, and in many other domains and scales. Also called Levels of Existence theory, this point of view rooted in the psychology of human development seeks to differentiate how people think and value, then to connect them better with organization forms, educational methods,
leadership models, governance approaches, and motivational packages which are congruent with who they are and will be. It addresses how people think about matters both physical and metaphysical, and suggests how different worldviews (weltanschauungen) impact on our perceptions and the decisions derived from them.
Before I swing over to that link I’ll just say that I’m trying to philosphically allow for that whole pie, rather than focussing on the slices. That’s what gives me the mindset capable of scepticism regarding religion and a Creator-based universe while maintaining room for that very possibility against an otherwise evidence-based subjective reality. In other words I admit I don’t have all the answers. My mind remains flexible lest I discombobulate.
[…] A few days ago we wandered from a conversation about religion in public schools into a debate on just what reality is, anyway. […]