Burnt Orange Report

It's GREAT that it's the students who are taking the lead in the fight against pseudo-science and superstition.
So-called "creationism" belongs on the scrap heap of bad science along with Lysenkoism, astrology, and alchemy.

• Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
--Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Tim Z,

Of course, if we had school vouchers, everyone who wants to send their children to a school that teaches creationism or intelligent design could do so, everyone who objects could also do so, and we wouldn't have any political conflicts over the issue at all. But when you force (or at least make it prohibitively expensive to do otherwise) people to attend government run schools, then the content of the curriculum becomes a legitimate public issue. Hence this, hence the fight over school prayer, and abstinence vs condoms in sex ed classes, and phonics vs. whole language.

Mock creationists all you want (for what it is worth, I am a "long day" Christian, I have no problem with the earth being formed over billions of years, although I am fairly sympathetic towards I.D. theories) but if they have to send their children to schools that teach curriculums that violate their core beliefs, you can expect them to fight back, and they are right to do so. It would be nicer all around, even aside from all the arguments about economic efficiency of competition, if we did have vouchers so these conflicts wouldn't arise.

Or are you claiming that we need to prevent creationism or ID from being taught to anyone, that it isn't enough that the government doesn't teach it to your children in the public schools (if you have kids) but liberals must use the power of the state to prevent anyone else from learning it either?

Cordially,

Sherk

Pseudo-science is pseudo-science no matter what spin you put on it.

Joseph Stalin took a liking to the crackpot theories of Trofim Lysenko because Uncle Joe thought they provided some scientific justification for communism, a crackpot theory in its own right.
As a result of Stalin's patronage of Lysenko, Soviet biology was set back two generations. The Russians still haven't recovered.
By contrast, Soviet physics and aerospace engineering were not debased by ideological pressures and thus the USSR gave the US a run for its money in these areas into the 1970s.

If some parents want to indoctrinate their kids with some dodgy ideology which is at variance with accepted scientific thinking, then those parents must pay for it out of their own pockets and have it done at a facility which is not supported by public money. Since all schools get some state or federal money, no taxpayer should be forced to give a penny to support what is not only a religious viewpoint, but one which weakens America by undermining our science.
Along similar lines, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and health services in the military should not spend taxpayer money on quack medical practices.

People can believe what they want, but they shouldn't expect taxpayers to fund those beliefs --- especially if the beliefs have no basis in science.

Yeah Sherk, I want my tax money going to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to poison kids with their version of world events and science. Wouldn't you love your neighbor's kids going to Bin Laden's Finishing School? How is your voucher program going to stop that? (Go visit almost any charter school and get a free preview of what would happen with vouchers. Don't just look at stats, go to the schools - ask for a statement on the charter's superintendent's salary while you're at it.) The debate over curriculum is healthy. What we need to teach is how to debate these topics in a civil manner instead of running into holes and caves where only "right thinking folk" surround us. That's a recipe for disaster in a democracy.

Tim Z, Dunbar,

Issues of religious intolerance aside, the issue here isn't simply that other peoples tax dollars are supporting public schools. So are the dissenting parents, and forcing them to pay for private schooling amounts to forcing them to pay twice, first for the public schools they so vehemently oppose, and then again for private schools. If they were exempt from paying for public school educations for their children, I would be more inclined to agree with you that they would have no justification for asking for a separate voucher, but they aren't. What about a tax credit equal in value to the portion of their taxes paid that went to support their local public schools? Then no one would be subsidizing anyones religious education, but parents wouldn't have to pay twice if they wanted to send their children somewhere other than the government schools. Somehow, I doubt you'll agree.

James

For the record, I went to Catholic schools K through 12. My parents realized that if I was to get a "Catholic education" it was up to them and other Catholics to provide it. Unlike the American Catholic hierarchy, they were never big on vouchers. It seemed like an imposition to make our Lutheran, Jewish, Baptist, and Orthodox neighbors pay to teach Catholicism.

Due to my unique geographic circumstances and the particular schools involved, the Catholic high school I attended was more liberal than the public high school I would have gone to. While there was more emphasis on personal discipline, there was also more academic freedom for both students and teachers.
And importantly, at no time was there any attempt to distort the sciences to conform to Catholic dogma. Indeed, in sophomore biology we probably learned more about evolution than the kids at the public school in my old neighborhood which was under pressure from far right activists.

Sherk,
You're making two separate arguments. If you want to be exempted from paying taxes to schools while your own children attend a private institution, I'm open to that. I think it's sad, but I'm open to that. But I am totally against you using my tax money to send your child to a private institution, because I have no say what so ever about what is taught.
When all of our children exit high school, we should both pay taxes to make sure the children of this country have an education. And that education should be public, because, again, we both can make a case through our school boards and elected officials what is to be taught in the public school. And we should debate what is taught in that curriculum. That's healthy. I reiterate that it is a dangerous proposition for people to withdraw from public discourse about what should be taught to children just because their views don't "win out" all of the time.

Dunbar,

Well, my point is first, that it is unfair to require parents who are unhappy w/public schools to pay twice for their children's education if they want them to attend private schools.

Second, there is no reason to have a public debate over what is taught in that curriculum. Don't individual parents know what is best for their child? Why does it have to be a "public" decision?

Besides, the "I find it offensive" argument cuts both ways. Why should my tax dollars go to support Sex Ed courses that promote an immoral lifestyle? Or elementary classes that practically preach environmentalism, etc etc. Let the parents decide, and we don't have to have fights over the issue in the public sphere.

Sherk

Sherk,
It sounds like to me you are afraid of a free exchange of ideas. Why do you live here in a democracy? How can we teach our kids to be part of a democracy if they are not exposed to divergent thinking? You live in fear.

21st Century Science: Objective and Unbiased
By Curtis Brickley

Many, if not the majority of Americans are under the impression that modern science is an objective, unbiased search for truth, but is it really?

Let’s begin by looking closely at some of the recent statements made by Univ. of Montana scientists and quoted in our local papers. First, let’s look at the words of Fred Allendorf, University of Montana Professor of Biological Sciences, who writes, “As soon as you posit a supernatural creator...you move outside the realm of science”. This statement is clearly not based in science but rather in philosophy. Mr. Allendorf is basing his definition of what is or is not science, not on observable data, objectively interpreted, but on a metaphysical assumption that cannot be falsified, tested or observed.

Mr. Allendorf’s science, at its foundation, is in error because his observations are subject to the bias of his philosophy. His science is jaded by a philosophical presupposition that “natural” or “material” causes are all that exist within his narrow definition of science. His scientific methods, regardless of how rigorous or precise from that point forward, can only lead to flawed or at least unreliable results.

If a scientist’s observations are subject to his bias and evidence is gathered and filtered through the same philosophically biased lens then the conclusions drawn will inevitably reflect the same bias, therefore, all conclusions drawn must logically be void of any possibility of the supernatural. As a result we are left not with a “true” search for the truth, but with a modified search, limited within the context of the scientist’s definition of truth or within his system of beliefs or philosophy (i.e. naturalism or no supernatural)

Take wildfires for example, a tragedy Montanans are all too familiar with. Our state has been the recipient of fires started from both natural causes (i.e. lightening strikes) and other than natural causes (man made or designed). If any responsible arson investigator began his search for the “true” cause of the fire with the working assumption that there can only be “natural” causes for the fire, he would inevitably conclude that the fire was from “natural” causes and not an intentional act of arson. No rational person, except possibly the arsonist, would conclude that this investigation was reliable because the investigator’s version of “truth” was established before the investigation even began.

Another example, the Missoulian quoted Don Christian, Associate Dean of Biological Sciences at the University of Montana as saying, “intelligent design may exist...I have no basis to say that it doesn’t”. This is an honest statement. However, how, from a scientific standpoint can he then say that it (ID) is “philosophy” and not science? Science cannot be an objective search for “truth” on the one hand and on the other, acknowledge design may exist but cannot be science. If in fact, design is “true”, which he freely admits is possible, then one of these two choices must also be true; 1) Science is not an objective search for truth therefore design could never be true or 2) science is an objective search for truth therefore design could be science.

The irony is that the same arguments against design being science can be applied equally to many aspects of evolutionary theory. In the final analysis of many of the extravagant claims of evolution, scientists are left with large leaps of faith and assumptions that are not “scientific”; they are not observable, repeatable or falsifiable. These assumptions are philosophical, being grounded in the metaphysical.

This, I believe, is what evolutionist and Nobel Laureate Harlod C. Urey was saying, “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an ‘article of faith’ that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.”

Science, apparently, does allow for “miracles” but only within the context of naturalistic definitions! This point is confusing because a “natural-miracle” is an oxymoron. Well known evolutionist Francis Crick acknowledges this idea of natural miracles, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now [1982], could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be ‘almost a miracle’, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Neither Urey or Crick are making statements that are rooted in science, evidence and observation, rather their statements are of faith or expectation. Similarly, Don Christian was quoted in the Missoula Independent as saying, “that some irreducibly complex structures haven’t been studied thoroughly enough for evolution to explain, ‘but the answers are out there’ and still coming in.” The faith of this sentiment echoes that of a theologian saying, “the irreducibly complex nature of God has not been studied thoroughly enough for theologians to explain, ’but the answers are out there’ and still coming in.”

Still more inconsistency, Professor George D. Stanley, UM Department of Biology writes, “intelligent design ideology is not science” and in his next paragraph states, “it (ID) is indeed ‘poor science’”. So is it science or just a minority viewpoint within science, a particular viewpoint that doesn’t agree with his own?

This is the debate at its foundations, science vs. science, an unbiased search for truth. There are obviously many scientists that are willing to accept an “almost miracle” and astronomical odds of life emerging by purely natural processes like Carl Sagan’s and Francis Crick’s 1 in 10 to the two billionth power, as long as you don’t acknowledge an intellect greater than man’s. This too reflects a double standard and lack of consistency that continues to be exposed within the scientific community.

The state of Ohio recently acknowledged this bias and changed it’s definition of science accordingly, rejecting a proposed definition that stated, “recognize that scientific knowledge is ‘limited to natural explanations’ for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions.”

Instead they adopted a more objective definition, “recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” This definition is true to science and the scientific method and not grounded in metaphysical suppositions that lie outside of sciences ability to prove or disprove.

Ohio also added a standards benchmark, “describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory”; this is consistent with our objective origins proposal in Darby.

As a Christian, I believe that any “objective” search for the truth will inevitably lead to a God Creator. However, I also believe that the way of reconciliation to that God can only come by grace through faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. This, I agree, is not the job for science teachers but is the responsibility of Christian parents, Pastors, laypersons, in fact, for all believers.

Now, if “true” objective science does lead to a “designer”, which would be consistent with some if not many religions, the scientific evidence can not be considered unconstitutional or a violation of the First Amendment so long as the evidence is not used in the classroom to the end of “establishing” one particular religion or non-religion. To the contrary, to suppress any such scientific evidence would reveal an unconstitutional bias in favor of non-religion.

Any school district choosing to lead students to believe “naturalistic answers” that promote
non-theistic beliefs and that denigrate theistic beliefs by showing them only the strengths and not the weaknesses of this naturalistic “theory” is a direct and significant infringement of the religious freedom of parents and students who are theists. (John Calvert, Esq.)

The Darby policy, recognizing this difficulty, provides a scientifically objective approach that is neutral in effect. This converts evolution into a scientific theory rather than an ideology, and produces not only good science, but also religious neutrality that respects the religious rights of both parents and students.

As we consider the question of biological origins and the controversy between the longstanding paradigm of Darwinism and the currently emerging scientific challenges to its supremacy, we should not shrink from the numerous discoveries of 21st century science.

The scientific search for truth should and must be, “objective”, based on facts, unbiased, and void of philosophical prejudice, even if the evidence is found to be antagonistic to “chance occurrence” and consistent with “purposeful design”, thereby, consistent with the tenets of some or all religions.

After all, the Montana Constitution does not shrink away from such a possibility, but rather is established on such, as can be clearly seen in its Preamble:

“We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.” [Preamble: The Constitution of the State of Montana (As of July 1, 2003)]

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Curtis L. Brickley