A Letter to the Editor
by MikeGeneWe Europeans know that many threats come from America. Our kids get fat because of fast food, and urban myths say that swallowing chewing gum may hurt your stomach "“ to give a few examples. Today some Europeans see a threat coming from the United States that is even more serious than fast food and chewing gum: creationism. Creationism "was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon," according to a 2007 report by the Council of Europe, but "today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe." Intelligent design is, according to the committee report, a "form of creationism." As such it could become a "threat to human rights." This sounds really terrifying.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Please read my comment on this report.
Comment by Ulrich Mohrhoff — October 2, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:07 am
The article seems to make the point very well that intelligent design is not creationism. However, the whole concept that creationism is a threat to human rights is such an unbelievable farce it truly boggles the mind.
Historically, does any group have a better record on human rights than creationists? Does it need repeating that it was primarily creationists who discovered human rights and delivered to humanity the first institutions that could protect them? Do the Europeans think that William Wilberforce was anything other than a creationist? Do they prefer the human rights records of those stalwart Darwinists like Stalin and CeauÅŸescu?
Are the Europeans really that morally stupid? If so, how on earth did they survive the 20th century? Oh … ya … nevermind.
Comment by Jehu — October 3, 2007 @ 1:07 am
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 am
I would not stereotype 'the Europeans.' What you have here is a group of bureaucrats who are engaged in Bush-envy. The Council of Europe is engaged in its own preemptive war. It can write 11,000 words defending science against an imaginary threat, but it not a paragraph defending science against the real threat of the animal rights terrorists that plague them.
Comment by MikeGene — October 3, 2007 @ 7:44 am
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
I agree with Mike. I'm a European, and I don't exactly agree with everything the Council of Europe has to say.
Comment by Krauze — October 3, 2007 @ 8:59 am
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I have European friends and none of them fit a stereotype. Still, the council of Europe must be catering to some base of sufficient electoral support.
Comment by Jehu — October 3, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Ulrich Mohrhoff - Thanks for the link to your site. I found your take on the issues very refreshing. In particular, these paragraphs:
[Bolding added by me] This has always been one of my primary problems with the mindset of authoritarian materialism that infects science these days. The anomalous happens. Get them aside and almost any scientist or doctor will admit so. Why the monumental lie?
You'd have thought they would have learned their lesson after the Royal Society declared in one loud voice "Stones Do Not Fall From The Sky!", only to have the building that housed the Royal Society promptly bombarded by a 'freak' meteor shower that punched holes in the roof and broke out dozens of leaded windows.
Maybe they can't learn. That would be a shame for which we can all feel pity toward European science education being really, really bad, and it helps to explain why Europeans rate so poorly on scientific literacy. Science education in the U.S. is on the whole much better. Kids here are usually taught about the 'FAPP' job description of science and the non-absolute nature of theoretics.
It appears to me that no actual scientists, philosophers of science, or science educators were included in the drafting of this resolution. Because had there been at any point along the way the participation of actual scientists, this ridiculous mangling of the definition would never have found its way into the resolution.
One would hope these people don't get PAID to come up with silliness like this. If I were a European scientist, I'd be very embarrassed. Hopefully, most European scientists *are* duly embarrassed and this resolution will die the ignoble death it so richly deserves.
Comment by Joy — October 3, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Joy:
Is that so? Then how do you explain this, from this week's Science:
In fact, in the 1995 US students ranked at the very bottom for physics and next to last in maths.
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Here is an update on the math and science rankings.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
And here's some more from that Science piece:
What a joke. The NCES cannot afford $5-10 million. Roughly what the US spends per 15 minutes in Iraq.
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Raevmo, why are you persisting in citing data from 1995? We are in the latter part of 2007.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I'm citing an article from this week's Science magazine (a US magazine I might add). Is that not recent enough for you?
The article says that 1995 was the last year high school seniors participated in the test. It seems to me that the performance of seniors is more important than that of juniors. And way back in 1995, the performance of the former wasn't so good, worse than that of their counterparts in a bunch of European countries with their supposedly lousy science education. Is their any reason to suppose that the situation many many years later in 2007 is any different? Leaders in the math community think not apparently.
Can we agree that Joy's negative portrayal of European science education was perhaps a little over the top?
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Raevmo:
A recent article citing outdated information.
There is reason to believe the situation has changed. I linked to a site, that is known to critique all sides of the political world. It shows clear impovement in math and science since the mid-90s.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I give up Bradford. You just don't have it in you to admit you're wrong.
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Raevmo, I was referring to the subject toward which this resolution was aimed - evolution and subjects related to evolution. Those would be biology and genetics, in which the American public in general (not just high school juniors and seniors) outscores Canada and almost all of Europe. As cited in a couple of busy threads earlier this year I can't lay my hands on right now [Mike - can you call 'em up?].
The issue in those threads was that while Americans generally know more about evolutionary biology and genetics than Canadians and Europeans (required courses here for decades, every graduate passes 'the test'), there is less belief-in evolution per NDS theoretics here than in Canada and Europe.
Perhaps it's because American students are taught more science in general from an early age, and this instruction includes a smidgeon of reality per what science's job description really is and what science's metaphysical limitations are. Who knows? Whatever it is, Americans in general test better than the rest of the 'First World' on questions of evolution, reflecting that they took the course and know what the expected answers are. There is less support for the theoretics as some kind of "absolute, scientific truth" than in other countries, because Americans know science isn't about absolute truths - or even about "assumed to be absolutely true until falsified."
Because that's simply not how science works. Did they neglect to teach you that in school? Or did they teach you the lie and make you believe it?
Comment by Joy — October 3, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Joy:
Oh I see. Why didn't you say so? When you wrote
I assumed you meant science education on the whole. My bad.
Is that so? And you honestly think that American disbelieve in evolution (per whatever) is because of superior science education rather than religious brainwashing? Color me skeptical.
That must have been a very thorough test of the students' ideas about the nature of scientific inquiry. Could you provide a link?
As far as I can recall they didn't teach me much about the philosophy of science in highschool. Probably because there wasn't a single "unified" science curriculum, but rather separate subjects like chemistry, physics, biology and maths. Too bad actually. But that didn't stop me from becoming a scientist though. I had good teachers that instilled a fascination for science without resorting to "lies".
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Wow. I refer to some recent data showing clear improvement in the education of American kids and you want to haggle about 1995 and an article about it with a distinct political edge. I'll let the jury decide who it is that cannot admit to being wrong.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Raevmo:
When I was young I was taught that life arose in a prebiotic soup like setting and I believed it. Then I learned some real biochemistry and became increasingly more skeptical. That's what education can do.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Good for you. Are you sure it was just the biochemistry education that made you skeptical, or could it be that other factors, like, say for example, your religious believe had anything to do with that? You know, like the believe that life was created by God?
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
There are three reasons you can know it was not my belief in God. First, I believed in God prior to learning biochemistry. Second, life can be causally traced to God in the absence of weak evidence for abiogenesis. "Scientific" refutations of God are in reality just metaphysical arguments. Third, a solid education in all aspects of cellular biology does indeed illustrate the far fetched nature of OOL theories.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
How do you figure that?
So what? So are affirmations of God (aka the Designer).
Don't tell me you had a solid education in all aspects of cellular biology. I find that hard to believe.
At least OOL theories provide mechanistic details of how life might have arisen (admittedly very incomplete at the moment), unlike ID theories like "front-loading" (FL) that provide no testable specifics at all about how the FL might have occurred.
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Just keep looking for the non-existent OOL mechanism. Pretend that the natural miracle awaits discovery. You can keep testing with failing grades forever but what does it matter when you have faith in naturalism?
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Raevmo:
I don't know how Americans at large test on physics or chemistry or earth science. I was referring to survey results about evolution and genetics. For all I know we may indeed be better at all other scientific subjects.
I never got any religious brainwashing. So I can't speak to that. What the statistics show is that Americans know more about evolution and genetics than Canadians and Europeans. They just don't believe it as readily as Canadians and Europeans do. It doesn't look to me like Canadians and Europeans have much to brag about on this, but I do expect you to brag about it anyway.
I had good teachers too. There were no separate subjects until junior high and high school, but I did well in all of those. I do recall the bizarre situation when I transferred to Oklahoma from New York in the middle of the 7th grade (we moved). In New York I'd been learning all about Steady State, which was utterly silly to me because my Dad (who was working with NASA on contract at the time for the space program) was a Big Banger.
When we got to Oklahoma, the teacher had a new textbook that actually taught Big Bang. It was 1964, the Year The World Changed, per what was being taught to kids. Just an opportunity to see how that works, since I'd been taught at home ever since I could remember that the universe had a beginning. That was General Relativity, not religion.
Maybe it's because I grew up in a scientific home. Maybe it's because my sister and I were blowing up the basement before any of our friends ever heard about home chemistry sets. Maybe it's because I have an affinity for nature, and was forever studying everything around me. I don't know. I would not suggest that I am your "average American," but I don't have to suggest that. The surveys show that Americans know more about the relevant science than Europeans do, and also know more about the metaphysical limitations of this form of knowledge gathering.
What I am saying is that this represents a more rational view of science than Blind Faith does. You'd love to abuse us for our Blind Faith in religion as REASON why we don't think it's absolute, but that just makes *you* wrong. Science isn't about absolutes. If that is what you were taught (per the allusions in this topic's resolution), you might consider suing your brainwashers. They were wrong.
Comment by Joy — October 3, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I'd rather keep looking for an existent OOL mechanism, if it's all the same to you.
You apparently keep hoping that a plausible OOL mechanism won't be discovered because it would shatter your fragile unfounded beliefs. I'm glad I don't have to live with that kind of fear.
At least we keep on testing. Every failed test teaches us something new. Unlike your approach of giving up and saying the Unspecified Designer dunnit. That teaches us nothing and promotes ignorance. Your kind of faith is an insult to the spirit of progress. How un-American.
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Hi Joy, you claim:
So you say, but where's the evidence? Give us a link or a reference will you?
But you're just making up this view out of whole cloth. Where are the test results that show that American students have such a view, and European students don't?
Unlike quite a few Europeans, I love America and its spirit of freedom and free enterprise. Hell, I even love Texas, as long as it's in Austin. The American attitude promotes creativity, which is the driving force of progress. However, religious dogmas tend to counteract this force for good, and I'd hate to see that happen.
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
The return on investment in OOL is trivial.
The term giving up is revealing. Why would persistent failures to identify chemical pathways to encoded genomes be taken as a surrender unless your goal has great non-scientific significance for you? Science should be focused on the truth revealed by data not on some endless treadmill.
Ignorance is promoted every time someone pretends that ordered sequence patterns needed for minimally functional genomes "emerge" through unspecified and unknown prebiotic pathways.
Real scientific progress is made every day and almost 100% of it has nothing to do with research focused on life's origins. The spirit of progress is not adversely affected by the faith of individuals. It is adversely affected by scientific dogma.
Spoken like a true anti-American.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Alright, Bradford. Let's agree to disagree, no hard feelings. I am off to bed. Goodnight.
Comment by Raevmo — October 3, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
As a quick aside.
Considering that I've seen at least one (possibly more) serious attempt at using Many Worlds as a way to force-accept RNA World OOL, I'd say dangers of a person's metaphysics shutting down or hampering research goes far beyond the religious or theistic. Then again, just from the history of steady state, QM, and otherwise, that much seems obvious.
Joy, if you happen across that survey again, I would like to see it. I know the one you're citing, and I'd just love to be able to show it off. It was an interesting surprise.
Comment by nullasalus — October 3, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Interesting factoid:
Something is making American students less proficient in science, that's for sure. It doesn't appear to be creationism, though.
Comment by Krauze — October 4, 2007 @ 10:57 am
October 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
nullasalus:
It was way back in February when bipod reported that a Michigan State University researcher had found that Americans are more 'scientifically literate' than both Japanese and Europeans.
That study is here, but there was a thread more recently that linked research that was more particular to biology and genetics. In which Americans also did better than Canadians and Europeans (don't recall if it mentioned Japanese). My search terms are wrong because it's not coming up, and my dial-up is operating at a mere 4800 bps today so I can't idly go searching. Perhaps you can find it…
Now, every time they do this kind of survey and Americans demonstrate they know more than other countries' citizens, the reports are always couched in the frame that we must have MORE scientific literacy, we're still scientifically stupid, etc., etc. Mostly (from what I can gather) because Americans aren't automatically prone to believe everything scientists say about anything, despite knowing what they're saying. Your basic sour grapes from wannabe mind-tyrants who don't think they're being worshipped enough by lesser beings.
It's the same sort of grousing you get from the usual suspects whenever it comes to their attention that despite the fact that all high school graduates were taught about NDS for a semester and passed the test, a majority go on in their lives to reject it as sufficient explanation for life and evolution. It's not the American people's fault that NDS isn't very convincing. And it's not scientists' business what people choose to believe or disbelieve about their weak theories and constantly changing explanations.
Science isn't about absolutes. Most non-scientists know that. Perhaps they should be testing scientists' scientific literacy instead of the public's. The problem might reside there.
Comment by Joy — October 4, 2007 @ 11:24 am