dagblog - Comments for "And the answer is...."

Sorry for not responding

Emma Zahn — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:35:31 +0000

Sorry for not responding sooner. I got caught up in the Katrina spectacle.

I very much believe in religious freedom. I don't want to lose it but one of the surest ways to do so is to disrespect the religion of a significant majority of the country.

I believe in minority rights but not minority tyrannny. Challenging the majority of a community's prayers before their own public events and displays in their own jurisdiction of religous symbols that are offered primarily in good will is politically stupid, a term I got from this article by Irving Kristol.

What is happening now is a backlash against minority or even individual rights pushed too far. This has provoked extremists at the other end of the spectrum and now we all stand to lose a some of the openness and good will that once existed in both the greater religious and scientific communities.

Having made my own peace with the conflicting creation myths of Genesis and evolution long ago, I think other people should have as well.

I do object to teaching either theory, evolution or intelligent design, in grade school. There's simply no good reason for it.

...

If it were up to me, anyone

Dave Adams — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:44:59 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

If it were up to me, anyone who wants "Intelligent Design" taught as part of a science curriculum would be forced to live without the benefits of moderns science dating from... oh, I don't know, the time of Copernicus...

I happen to disagree with

JayAckroyd — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:48:23 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

I happen to disagree with Michael as well, but there is a question in this survey that favors his position:

Many Think Scientists Disagree about Evolution

There is no public consensus about how scientists view evolution. Opinions about what scientists believe are strongly associated with one's own beliefs on the subject. Most Americans (54%) think that there is general agreement among scientists that evolution has taken place, but a substantial minority (33%) says that no such scientific consensus exists. By an 82%-13% margin, those who accept natural selection theory see a scientific consensus on this issue. Among those who take a creationist position, a 46% plurality thinks the scientific community is divided over the evolution question.

Fully a third thinks there is disagreement among scientists on this subject. The goal of the ID folks is to convey a sense of controversy to justify teaching "all sides." It may be worthwhile to make it clear, somehow, that there are no sides. How you do that without feeding the idea of debate seems tricky to me. I still like the Flying Spaghetti Monster approach, but if you did believe that scientists were not unanimous, then you might well want to know why all views couldn't be taught.

Emma, the question, "Is it

Gary Sugar — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:18:58 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

Emma, the question, "Is it time to take on Intelligent Design?" presumes that Democrats have a choice about the timing for this debate. We do not have a choice.

We have the right policy now. We don't teach religion in public schools here. The rightist lunatics who want to teach religion in our public schools have decided for us that now is the time to have this debate.

You don't say whether you care very much about religious freedom, or whether the spending issues you mention are more or less important to you personally than religious freedom.

I'll tell you my priorities. Though I do favor the spending policies you mentioned, I can't be sure exactly how much social welfare spending America can afford. No one can be sure what the right amount is. But I can be sure, and absolutely sure, that religion should not be taught in public schools. Without freedom of religion, there is not freedom of thought. Nothing is more important than that.

You are quite right that

Emma Zahn — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:12:24 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

You are quite right that polls are useful tools and simply reflect current perceptions -- perceptions which can instantly reverse when presented with newer perceptions or just differently worded questions.

And I will admit to being biased in my conclusion. I find the discussions of which creation myth should be taught in public schools both irritating and tiresome. My answer is neither. Certainly not beginning at grade 4 as some curriculums do.

No one yet knows or can prove the origin of life. And just because animals and plants can be shown to change by adapting to their environment or by mutation doesn't disprove the existence of God.

This whole issue is a distraction. Note in my post that I predicted that the the healthcare and poverty results would be ignored in favor of discussing evolution, religion and flag-burning.

...

One of the impacts of the

rdf — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:05:56 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

One of the impacts of the Intelligent Design movement is to make the US less able to compete in the world market.

No other advanced country believes in substituting mythology for science. As a consequence their scientists get the type of support they need for new research. In addition their students are better educated. They don't waste part of their schooling on scientific nonsense.

Better trained and better educated, you can expect them to take the lead in biomedical research. So in a few years the US will lose it lead in this area as it already is in semi-conductor technology and related fields.

Suppose some country develops something that enhances the quality of life is some important aspect, say a cure for cancer. That country will then have a competitive advantage. There is no guarantee that they will be willing to share this with others, even at any price.

Look at how the US has tried to control nuclear technology for the past 50 years as an example of how this works.

We are in danger of mythologizing ourselves into a second-rate economic power.

Alas. What a sad state of

Michael Stickings — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:48:52 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

Alas. What a sad state of affairs. I agree with one of the other commenters that polls oughtn't to be taken too seriously, but it makes sense that one of the great obstacles to the triumph of science in America would be a huge bulk of the American people themselves.

I don't consider myself to be a scientific absolutist, and I'm not against the teaching of creationism. IN RELIGION CLASSES. This is what amazes me. Sure, let's consider various alternatives. Let's even teach our children that there are faiths that do not accept much of, say, the theory of evolution. But don't pollute science classes with what belongs in religion classes.

Physics in physics classes, metaphysics in metaphysics classes. It should be that simple. The problem is that the IDers are taking the fight directly to science, and this is why science needs to respond.

The next Pew survey needs to

Bryan Nelson — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:27:33 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

The next Pew survey needs to ask the following questions:

Which of the many 'creation' stories found in cultures around the world are you interested in having taught in your public school?

Because the government cannot promote one religion over another, will you oppose teaching all of the creationist stories found through the cultures?

If creationism becomes a part of the science curriculum, do you agree that the tennents of creationism should be put under the same scientific rigors of exploration by the students as other science topics?

Thanks for linking. I

Emma Zahn — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:59:20 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

Thanks for linking. I thought my post would probably get lost in the all the news about Katrina but the results of the Pew survey were too significant to ignore, particularly the margins, and I hadn't seen anyone else mention it.

The Reason article you linked to was a great read. Thanks.

...

"At least from a political

Nightprowlkitty — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:14:20 +0000

In reply to And the answer is....

"At least from a political perspective" it is not time to "take on" Intelligent Design? Because of a poll? Oh yeesh.

Polls are very useful tools. But that is all they are -- tools. If you are a politician and feel strongly about "taking on" the Intelligent Design issue, then this poll is a good tool on how to do so -- first you have to directly address the perception that liberals are not religious, have too much control over the Democratic party and want to keep religion out of schools and government. You don't just give up on the issue, for Pete's sake!

As a liberal, it doesn't bother me at all to read the results of the Pew poll. It's good to know how people feel and it certainly isn't surprising that they feel this way given the propaganda from the Bush base on religion in general and ID in particular. But these perceptions are not impossible to address and a good politician should certainly not let the Pew results stop him or her from putting forth their arguments if this issue is one they feel strongly about.