Lying to Advance a Cause
by BradfordWhy teaching evolution is dangerous is the title of an unheroic blog entry. From the blog:
Ed Darrell points out the competitive advantage this gives the rest of the world and how local the problem of Creationism is.
I rarely label a statement as a lie even though I might believe it is and rarely use the term liar but will make an exception in this case. Many have peddled the lie linking increasing adherents to Intelligent Design to a loss of competitive advantage for America vis a vis the rest of the world- in the educational, scientific and economic spheres. In the past I've gently corrected these misapprehensions by pointing out some simple facts.
Michael Behe's landmark book Darwin's Black Box was published in 1996. The Dover PA case took place after the twentieth century was history. Most papers published, which argue for intelligent design, were published within the last decade. The decline in objective test scores among American students began decades ago. The relative academic and economic performance of the United States was much higher in the middle of the 20th century than it became during the final half of that century. If you're into spin you can try to link those believing in Intelligent Design to a decline. But you have to rely on the ignorance of readers to do so. That leads me to another option- stupidity. Perhaps it is not really mendacity but stupidity and ignorance which embolden people to link a relatively obscure belief system, that has come about within the last few years, to a long term decline in America's academic and economic standing. It naturally couldn't have anything to do with the alarming rise of single parent families and the consequent poverty that often brings. And surely Obama and McCain and their considerably talented teams of analytical advisors would have noticed the link between Intelligent Design and America's woes and raised the political stakes accordingly. Readers beware. Your position on Intelligent Design- pro or con- does not really matter much to the larger world where impactful causes and effects are a concern.
And there are other quotes:
You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust.
In other words you have to manipulate others.
You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.
You not only manipulate, you must lie too.
If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don't you think?
What I think is that teaching integrity is more important than teaching biology or anything else for that matter. Short term lies have a tendency to backfire and surely do when students discover you are deliberately misleading them.
But there is one human trait where the two ideologies differ. That is Obedience. For conservatives, this is a positive human trait. For liberals, it is viewed quite negatively. Why?
Because the two ideologies view time and history differently.
Another self-indulgent fantasy. I can predict arguments and behavior of politicos with uncanny accuracy- both liberals and conservatives. It does not take much study. Most march lock-step with the prevailing ideological norms within their camps. They also obediantly make ideological adjustments when required. A brief review of history suffices to make the case.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
You could try to take it up with Coturnix on his own blog. Call him a liar in his face.
Some lies to kids are apparently OK. Like stories about Santa Claus. Or about cdesignproponentsists. Where should one draw the line?
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 11:59 am
August 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Raevmo said:
Are you seriously comparing teaching evolution with Santa Claus???
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — August 29, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Raevmo has a tendecy to trivialize issues that mitigate against his prejudices.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
If he were physically present before me I would not hesitate. I noticed years ago when I first started commenting in internet forums that there was a distinct difference betweeen them and personal communication. I almost never am on the receiving end of verbal abuse when the person I'm communicating with is right in front of me. Yet it is commonplace on the net.
As for lying, he acknowledges it as a tool to promote his goal. The end justifies the means for him.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Bradford:
It's uncanny! I predicted you would say that.
In addition to being brave, you must also be a rather scary guy. Praise the Lord for the Atlantic Ocean.
What did he really acknowledge?
Is that really so bad? We're talking about a country here where some teachers do not teach evolution out of fear.
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Yes. It's called lying. Why would the pro-science crowd endorse lying about science?
A grotesque exageration. Teach in a detached manner the technical aspects of evolution and stay away from gratuitous remarks about "creationists." It's a strategy that works.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
This is hilarious!
What the heck is "cdesignproponentsists"?! just typing it out makes me giggle. Is it one of them names like "IDiot"?
On a more serious note…
This is a more serious problem as the backfiring of the lies might lead the student to an extreme position which the teacher most certainly wants to avoid. When a student discovers that teachers had presented simplistic accounts of natural history with purposefully misleading presentations, he/she is more likely to go into an emotional state becoming susceptible to the arguments of "Creationists". And thus, more likely to become what Coturnix doesn't want him/her to become.
This is one of those curious phenomena of the interwebs I have seen time and time again. People are more polite and considerate in person. Some of the lashings of the "science" crowd in the 'nets leads me to suppose that it might be a stress release mechanism: to let go of inhibitions online.
Comment by samsen — August 29, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
samsen:
Close but I think it is more like the flying spaghetti monster in that ID critics use it to show how outragously clever they can be.
Exactly. The type of manipulative teaching methods he advocates incur the possibility of sending the students in an intended direction. That's the danger behind manipulation. If the one manipulated catches on to what is happening, resentment is sure to follow. Simple honesty is best.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I think you're wrong, Bradford. My parents taught me that perfectly honest people repeat lies because they don’t know they are lies. To be a lie it has to be knowingly told. You have to know it’s a lie. From your link its obvious that many of these individuals don’t know anything, so they can’t be knowingly telling a lie. You'd have a tough time convincing me, Bradford, that some of these people even have the imagination to come up with a lie!
To tell a lie you have to have some contact with reality, and anyone who believes that ID has had any impact on anything (positive or negative) is obviously out of touch with reality. LOL
Comment by Rock — August 29, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Rock:
You have a point Rock but I did mention the ignorance/stupidity alternative hypothesis.
Another good point but a sad one.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
"But there is one human trait where the two ideologies differ. That is Obedience. For conservatives, this is a positive human trait. For liberals, it is viewed quite negatively. Why?"
What a load of bull on so many levels - and coming from a teacher no less! Yes - teachers just hate obedience, don't they? They just love it when students correct them in class or tell them they're wrong, or generally react against them. Shows initiative!
Yes, liberals and teachers dislike obedience. Talk about delusions on par with believing in Santa Claus. Add in some cognitive dissonance, since the article expressly relies on the authority figure status of teachers to 'undo' students' religious and political leanings. Let me guess: It's not obedience when it's directed towards their views and authority. It's just, er, right and proper.
Anyway, I'll see Bradford's 'liar' and raise 'idiot' as well. Coturnix just handed everyone who disagrees with him on science, philosophy, religion and politics a bludgeon to knock him and others around with for the next few years. "Coturnix thinks it's okay to lie and mislead students - not just people in general, but students in his trust - so long as it gets them to come around to his point of view." "Coturnix thinks a science teacher's job isn't only to teach science, but to covertly attack religious and political views." "Coturnix thought it was a bright idea to post this idiocy on his public blog, apparently unaware that people who disagree with him have also mastered the fine art of getting online and reading blogs." And finally, "Coturnix just spelled out what many others have always suspected about 'pro-science' types anyway - that the 'science' is at best a distant second concern."
And I say this as someone who's fully at home with evolution. But hey, I'm thankful - I favor self-learning and a healthy distrust of authority figures in general, and Coturnix's smug little error just advanced both causes. What a guy!
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Bradford:
Aren't you on your high horse today. The author speaks of temporary inaccuracies. In my experience that applies to a lot of the stuff being taught to children. First they get told some simplified versions that are easy to understand, to be replaced later by more difficult and more accurate material. Wouldn't you say? Or give an example of a lie being taught that you find outrageous.
samsen:
http://cdesignproponentsists.c...
Talk about lying.
Bradford:
Oh yeah? So it's not true that some teachers who teach evolution and stay away from such gratuitous remarks are harassed by fundamentalist bullies?
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Cdesign proponentsists a very rare transitional fossil between creationism and “intelligent design”.
Here's a video concerning the discovery of the direct physical evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Yes. It's called lying. Why would the pro-science crowd endorse lying about science?
Oh no. The author phrased it "some inaccuracies temporarily" meaning lies were to be told for a limited period of time. The ether theory of the 19th century was a temporary inaccuracy. Replaced by a better scientific understanding. No, these are deliberate lies. Inaccuracies deliberately conveyed by those with knowledge of the truth and in a position of trust.
Don't confuse simplified with false. Mommy and daddy make babies may be simplified but it is not false.
Bradford:
A grotesque exageration. Teach in a detached manner the technical aspects of evolution and stay away from gratuitous remarks about "creationists." It's a strategy that works.
Some is not a broad sweeping depiction and calling your assertion an exageration is not lying.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Cotournix:
Oh, that's the biggest, stinkiest pile of excrement I've encountered in ages! Who *is* this bigot? Oh… online community manager for PLoS-ONE. Too bad. I've been very supportive of PLoS.
Bleeech!
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
nullasalus:
The whole blog entry is such BS. It is revealing that some critics not only cannot condemn it- they defend it.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
PLOS was a great idea. I hope he is not indicative of the quality of their employees.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Hey Zach and Raevmo,
Thanks for the info. I hope you realise that I did not know about that and my original question was due to ignorance. I don't know much about those trials. Seeing that word "cdesignproponentsists", the first thought that came to my mind was some ID critic might have made it up. But now I see.
Comment by samsen — August 29, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Bradford:
Oh no? How is "some inaccuracies temporarily" so different from "temporary inaccuracies"?
But the ether theory isn't taught in school as being accurate. We are taught that a compass points north, only later to be told that, more accurately, it actually points to the magnetic north pole. I suppose it's a terrible lie to teach children a compass points north.
What lies? Give an example.
By the way, my "talk about lying" didn't refer to your "grotesque exaggeration", but to the work of the cdesignproponentsists creators.
Finally, why was my question to nullasalus holed? Perhaps you assumed I was insultingly calling him Nobody Important, but that was in reference to a commenter by that name on Coturnix' blog.
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Raevmo:
One is an accurate quote and the other your paraphrase. The deliberate teaching of inaccuracies is lying.
The ether theory of the 19th century was a temporary inaccuracy. Replaced by a better scientific understanding.
The magnetic north pole is north. It is not teaching that it is south for the purpose of attacking creationists.
There were may commenters at that blog with uninsulting monikers. There are many possible identities of the one you singled out. What made you choose to link it to nullasalus?
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Bradford:
That is rubbish. Children are taught rough approximations to more accurate knowledge (and without them being told so) all the time. You are calling every teacher a liar.
Once again, please give an example of a lie being taught, one that you find especially appaling. I've asked this several times already. I wonder why you are so reluctant to answer.
Magnetic north and true north (along the axis of the earth' rotation) are not the same but inaccurately taught as the same. The rest of your comment is hard to understand. I thought the blog's point of being somewhat economical with accuracy (such as not mentioning human evolution for a while) was to NOT attack and offend creationists.
It was this remark:
Nullasalus said almost exactly the same to me once, and then he suddenly shows up on this thread. You do the math.
Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The deliberate teaching of inaccuracies is lying.
Your reaction is rubbish. The blog author advocated teaching inaccuracies, not rough approximations. His view not mine.
The request is stupid. The blogger advocates lying. It indicates a proposal or intent even if it exists only in the demented mind of the advocate. Nobody is claiming teachers are currently lying, only that the blogger wishes they were.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Raevmo, my words stuck in your craw for so long? Flattering. Too bad I hold you in such low esteem, or I'd bother with an answer. It sounds like you made up your mind anyway.
As for the lies Cortunix advocates:
"You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step."
So, let's see. He thinks NOMA is wrong, but who cares? Use it as a tool, offer it up as accurate so you can 'gain their trust' and 'bring them over to your side'. Rather qualifies as advocating lying and deception.
Science has sides? Disagreements, sure, but sides to the point where you need to not only be polite, but deceptive?
"Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in the case of Campbell's school, and many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture."
Oh, so, this isn't just about science. It's about culture, political and religious. So Cortunix doesn't see a science teacher's role as, well. Teaching science. It's about getting them in line philosophically, religiously, and politically. But you can't -tell- them that - makes it harder to gain their trust, you know.
Then there's that interesting slight about how the conservative golden age may be a number of times, including 1930s Germany. Yeah, that's subtle. Cortunix is worse than deceptive - he's bad at it, cringe-worthy to see in action. Like the guy with a completely unconvincing hairpiece thinking about how everyone around him is a fool - they don't know he's bald! Meanwhile, most people are just wincing, trying to be polite and not notice how he looks like a damn fool.
Anyway, the whole screed is a laugh. "Progress = What comes next", to quote CS Lewis. Liberals good, conservatives bad. Conservatives defend authority and obedience, liberals merely enjoy teaching people to believe the correct things and see agreement as positive development. Why, the two positions couldn't be further apart!
Ah well. He's useful, at least. I look forward to seeing this post referenced and quoted ad nausea as a mixed example of deception, smugness, and narrow-mindedness in academia. I see the DI hurried up and placed a link to it as quickly as possible.
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
You can't really blame him as this is not a new strategy.
http://telicthoughts.com/the-e...
Don't worry, with practice numbness of conscience will set in and you won't feel so badly about violating your integrity.
Besides which, even if it were accidental, the practice has a long and useful history, including misleading scientists:
Fear not Defenders, authors Doolittle and Bapteste mean to offer no comfort to dissenters with their toppling of the tree:
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
You're not really suggesting that the phylogenetic tree is a deception rather than an approximation? That would be like suggesting that teaching Newtonian physics is a deception.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The point is when deception is endorsed as a legitimate tool to "teach science" distrust is embedded in the system. That makes it more difficult to affirm legitimate scientific concepts.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Bradford,
Not only that, but really - this guy is only barely concerned with 'teaching science', judging by the content of his post. He obviously views teaching science as a means towards another end - getting people closer to the Right View on political, social, and religious topics. And it's worth wondering - if that's what's important to him, and he's already on record as seeing deception (telling them what they want to hear, just so he can gain their trust and get further with them, etc) as an a-okay means towards an end… what are the odds he's going to present an honest picture of science if he thinks it would harm his other aims?
Could it be that, for many people - and I'm not just talking about YECs here - this whole debate has never really been about the science at all?
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Hi Zach,
The remark about the numbing of the consciousness is a paraphrase from the first quote.
As you can see, when referencing the second quote, on ToL, I implied that the provision of inaccurate material is accidental. Depending upon your definition of "deception" the lack of intent might mitigate against its being the appropriate label. However, I don't think the tree metaphor can be called more of an approximation than misinformation anymore, considering that, given Doolittle's position, it is inapplicable, at best, to 2/3 of the earth's biomass and the majority of its geological time.
The greater point there is that Doolittle is saying the ToL has done its work, its gotten science on board, and now it can be abandoned.
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
nullasalus:
You're right. This is the anti-ID wedge strategy. The author and his defenders have a socio-political agenda and are not reluctant to use science as a cover to advance that agenda.
Good point. What concerns are driving a view of education witnessed here? Clearly they are not focused on a dispassionate overview of science. I recently posted on discoveries impacting our view of cosmology- more specifically the solar system formation. If a trend developed, making privilaged planet concepts much more strongly supported by scientific data, would this blogger be likely to support the objective teaching of such cosmological data or would he argue for its suppression to further socio-political aims? The latter looks more likely based on the blogger's admissions.
I became convinced of that years ago. Cortunix's blog is more evidence for the metaphysical sideshow which in reality is center stage for many.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Social agenda?
Weinberg already told us that destroying religious belief is the most important contribution that the teaching of science can make.
http://www.crossexamined.org/b...
If it's so important then a little mis-teaching of science couldn't hurt, either, if it forwards the agenda.
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:30 am
nullasalus:
That is too bad. Not that your esteem counts for much.
I don't read that as advocating lies. It seems to me Cortunix advocates a very careful and slow process of teaching children about evolution — children that have been brainwashed for years with creationist propaganda and that might get upset easily when confronted with the falsehood of their cherished anti-evolution beliefs.
And I still haven't seen a single example of a lie that Cortunix allegedly advocates. In contrast, I could offer many explicit examples of creationist lies and fabrication that children are spoon-fed. Adam walking with the dinosaurs, anyone? Where's the outrage about that? It smells here of hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Comment by Raevmo — August 30, 2008 @ 5:30 am
August 30th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Raevmo,
Of course you wouldn't, Raevmo. Because you're engaging in the kind of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics that would make Jack Chick look at you in awe and envy. The fact that Cortunix spends the vast amount of his article talking about how the purpose of education (science education, even!) isn't to learn and understand science, but to deprogram students - not only correct their views on evolution, but socially and politically as well - is lost to you. Or you're hoping that if you just refuse to accept it, it won't be true, in some weird Hitchhikers Guide tortured logic. No deception, no duplicity going on here, no sir! Cortunix says he thinks NOMA is a lie, but it's a useful tool and something he'll offer as truth in order to get at students - why, that's not a lie! It's just a method of educating! And he's not an authority figure either. He's your Big Brother.
And here's what you're reduced to. "Don't attack the guy I sympathize with! Attack people I dislike!" Stunning defense. You can practically taste the desperation.
Face it: Cortunix blew it, and wrote a stupid article that exposes him as being a pretty shallow individual and an untrustworthy authority figure (Yes, that's exactly what he is - he's not anti-authority, he's a competing authority.) Just suck it up, admit he made a mistake, and get on with being a good little atheist. I regularly point out when I think IDs, TEs, or otherwise make dumb or inexcusable moves. Clench your jaw, take a deep breath, and admit that even people you agree with can be wrong at times. It'll do you some good.
Comment by nullasalus — August 30, 2008 @ 6:52 am
August 30th, 2008 at 7:27 am
In my view, this is hyperbole, and does not tally with my reading of the article. Anyway, why don't you (and Bradford for that matter) take your concerns directly to Coturnix's blog? There does not seem to be any problem with posting comments there.
I will freely admit that people I generally disagree with can be right at times. Some of your comment at UD is to be commended for its independent thinking. You sometimes try harder than others to be open-minded. (You don't always succeed
)
Comment by Alan Fox — August 30, 2008 @ 7:27 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am
nullasalus, it's amusing to see you resort to insults and distortions of the facts. It tells me you know you have overplayed your hand.
That isn't lost to me, it simply isn't there. You want to see something that isn't there and presto, you see it.
Here's the quote that summarizes Cortunix approach best in my opinion:
I asked for an example of a lie advocated by Cortunix, and this is the best you could come up with:
Note that Cortunix doesn't say that NOMA is a lie. He says it is wrong, he disagrees with it. In other words, he seems to believe that science does disprove some religious beliefs (which it does. Adam walking with dinosaurs, anyone?) But he doesn't say that out loud in the classroom in order not to offend some students. You insist this is lying. At best a very inaccurate assessment of what was written, at worst a desperate lie.
Comment by Raevmo — August 30, 2008 @ 8:09 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Yes, I agree. We must give respect to the Earthling Overlords, the Bacteria. The phylogenetic tree only applies to oak trees, jellyfish, the male descendents of Genghis Khan, lions and tigers and bears, jalapeños, maiasaura, frogs, hominids, and ladybugs (not to mention many of the biological components of Bacteria). Hardly worth mentioning, but the Overlords think it's important to recognize the little peeps.
That would be contrary to the concept of "pattern pluralism". In any case, the phylogenetic tree applies to many of the taxa of primary interest to humans, such as, well, humans. Considering that life is an insignificant speck of the total matter in the universe, perhaps you would suggest that the study of biology should just be abandoned. But humans find humans interesting. Humans are funny that way.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 8:15 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Raevmo:
Why would we expect to find Coutunix citing specific lies to tell? His role is an advocate and in that role he clearly advocates manipulation and lying when used to neutallize conservative values. That should be a concern to anyone who values objective teaching of science. Of course if you are filled with hatred for people holding differing views then by all means become Nazi-like and follow a program laid out by Goebbels over half a century ago. Manipulate and lie to attain your ends.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:16 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Why would he even contemplate going there? Of course you don't say it aloud but that's simply because it is irrelevant to the teaching of biology. If you're talking about Adam instead of properties of DNA and mutations and other matters along these lines then you are going beyond your charge as a teacher.
When your best defense of someone is he does not think it is a lie but advocates using what he believes is wrong you are defending a manipulator and one who conceals his motives under the guise of science. Simply put, politics and religion are not concerns of biology teachers.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:20 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Cortunix devotes a good part of his blog to non-scientific issues like liberalism and conservatism and religion as well. Anyone who can't see that is either idelogically blinded or in need of remedial reading skills.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:24 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I've published my concerns about manipulative teaching methods here. The issue is bigger and more important than Coturnix. If your point is simply a matter of macho then internet exchanges are a poor forum to address that.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:40 am
August 30th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I've noticed that noone has supported the popular anti-ID meme that the decline of America's relative academic and economic competitiveness is attributable to ID. Who would contend that in the first place except one disinterested in facts that correlate two events and arrogant enough to think that educational and economic experts have missed such an "obvious linkage."
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 8:55 am
August 30th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Here is another quote indicating that the blog is more about socio-political issues than evolution:
A statement full of strawmen, stereotypes and inaccuracies. No conservatives of any standing cite Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany is symbols of a "Golden Age." State control of business is socialism in any case. Neither is there a desire to suppress women. Make them vice-presidents or presidents instead. There are the usual cherry picked facts though. Most women work not because they have some highly paid prestigious job that is preferable to caring for their kids. They work out of economic necessity. One bread winner was the norm in the USA in times past. That's not a myth. It is an unplesant reflection of where America has gone and is not analytically reducible to simplistic stereotyping like the type in evidence at the linked blog.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 9:14 am
August 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I assume the "lie" that Bradford is referring to relates to NOMA, not the phylogenetic tree. So let me address that issue.
NOMA is not just a philosophical position, but a political and scholastic position. Theology is down the hall. And the chapel is off the public school campus.
A teacher might discuss the flightpath of Santa Claus, and might direct students to watch on the official government NORAD Tracks Santa website. Is that a lie? Should a teacher be responsible for telling young children that Santa Claus does or does not exist? I thought that was already established in the affirmative by the New York Supreme Court.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 9:32 am
August 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Zachriel:
It has legal implications as well. Public school teachers are government employees. If they are responsible for teaching biology then let them do so without becoming entangled in political and religious matters. If it is illegal for the government to favor a religion it is also illegal to oppose religion or specific doctrines pertaining to it. You do not need to discuss Adam and Eve or Allah to teach students what DNA is or what mutations to DNA signify. You likewise do not need to endorse or debunk liberalism or conservatism. As a biology teacher all that is none of your business and meddling in those matters is not what you are paid to do.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 10:16 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Bradford:
Exactly, except for one quibble - theirs is the original wedge. The Fabian and Marxist movements have been working on this wedge for an entire century before the Discovery Institute Wedge document was written. If anything, the DI Wedge is the anti-wedge, a reactionary document declaring that the ground taken by the aforementioned subversive movements be reclaimed - a Reconquista, if you will.
Theirs is a Utopian vision that has undergone so many revisions that it now advocates Dystopia. Traditional Western society must be destroyed to make way for a new peaceful, "progressive" society.
The goal is peace.
To bring about peace, one must eliminate argument, one of the sources from which discord and strife originate. Arguments come from individuals thinking differently about what is right and what is wrong, what is the truth and what is not the truth. So "right", "wrong", and "truth" must be eliminated to bring about peace.
Strife also comes from the desire of individuals to possess things. So private ownership must be eliminated to bring about peace.
Conflict arises from jealousy as well. So all strong interpersonal relationships, particularly sexual relationships, must be diluted for jealousy to be eliminated. Celibacy is unnatural, so the only effective way to eliminate strong sexual bonds is to promote promiscuity, making sex as casual as shaking hands.
All of these things cannot be eliminated if most individuals are taught from their formative years that eliminating these things is unacceptable. So the three institutions responsible for educating children - family, religion, and school - must either be eliminated or seized.
So far, only one of these institutions is almost completely under control of the "progressives" - school. As you can read in the blogging professor's post (and other sources long before him), it is the instrument to undo the other two institutions.
That is why the current educational hegemony is scared as hell of the ID movement. It is an attack on their only stronghold.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 30, 2008 @ 11:29 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Here is another quote and a non-scientific one at that:
The reason each generation has an easier life is summed up in one word- technology. It is technological advances that have made life "better." When the larger picture is viewed we have not succeeded in eliminating wars, pestilance, violence or other behavioral ills that afflict humanity.
Why break with a prior worldview? Why not keep what works and discard what does not instead? The technological trend is not contingent on worldviews. The author's thinking is muddled.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 11:50 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Zach to Bradford:
What Cotournix said:
"You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust."
Surely this opinion by Cotournix bears some examination. How, exactly, does "truth" become a bludgeon, and why would it need the support of insults to any student's religion, parents or friends? This betrays a high degree of prejudice in the teacher, a ridiculous amount of disrespect for both his subject and his students, and a gross misconception by the teacher as to the difference between science and metaphysics.
It is clear (having spent some time in these debates) that borderline PDs, likely autistic spectrum cognitive disorders, narcissism, bigotry and serious metaphysical corruption are present in varying degrees in a lot of college level biology teachers. High school science teachers, on the other hand, are generally not specialists, generally don't hold Ph.D.s that could get them real work in the fields of science, and generally don't care more for the subject they're covering this year than for the speech or literature courses they taught last year. They've got approved textbooks and a lesson plan dictated from on high, and so long as they stick with what's on the test they'll still have a job next year.
Cotournix obviously doesn't know much about how the public education system in this country works. It is not the job of any public high school teacher to substitute his or her own metaphysics [religion] for the material his/her students must master in order to graduate. What he "bludgeons" his adult students with once they get to college is between him, his students, his department chair and the administration. Students are paying a lot of money for the privilege, so if they don't like being bludgeoned by a professor's religion and politics instead of the subject they've paid to be taught, they can lodge formal complaint.
NOMA isn't wrong. Metaphysics is not science, and science is not metaphysics. Looks like poor Cotournix had some very lousy brainwashers… er, teachers when he went to school if they never explained this to him. It's well past time he learned the truth, because he's corrupting the great advance that PLoS is and represents.
Seems to me that someone whose professional goal is to get his students to switch their loyalty and obedience responses from parents/society to himself - by means of deception - is just another wannabe mind-tyrant. He's not trying to 'free' anybody's mind, he's seeking converts to his religion. Thus in his own mind all dishonest tactics are justified.
Heck, I can see from his ridiculous exposition on liberalism that he has himself been brainwashed by someone who didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Maybe he's a recent immigrant. That would at least explain his abject ignorance of basic civics, sociopsychology and political science.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 11:50 am
August 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
angryoldfatman:
By linking evolution teaching strategies to social change the author has unwittingly reminded us of original wedges. But shhhh. Don't link them publicly. Conceal real intent behind a facade of concern for science.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 11:57 am
August 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Incidentally, using a man made symbol like Mickey Mouse to depict evolution really teaches a discerning student that intelligent input is linked to change. Is that the kind of message you want to send students Zachriel?
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi Joy,
As you know, I embrace NOMA and, therefore, disagree with Coturnix's opinion that it is wrong.
I am saddened that once again a thread about dueling metaphysics is more popular than threads about science. Unfortunately, it appears to be the way of things.
As for your question…
Simple facts can often be hurtful and insulting. People don't like to be reminded that 50% of them are below average. Teachers often use ""some inaccuracies temporarily" because the goal of teachers is to teach and promote self esteem in young minds.
If teachers were required to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth teaching gravity would be a very short "we don't know" or a very long and complicated discussion on curvature in four-dimensional space-time geometries. Attempting the latter would convince most adults they are stupid, much less middle-school children.
The insulting truth is that society promotes lying all the time for the greater good. Whether it is claiming a special status due to being "one nation, under God" or telling kids "Santa Claus is coming to town" the truth is intentionally rationalized or exaggerated.
The insulting truth is that it is obvious Bradford is more interested scoring Culture war points by complaining than trying to earnestly argue a point. An earnest argument would have, at a minimum, required inviting Coturnix to participate in the discussion of this thread.
The insulting truth is that people, myself included, tend to have more things to say in dueling metaphysics because opinions are like [vulgar part of buttocks], everyone has one.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
TP:
Bullshit. The subject is the teaching of high school biology in a mandatory, government controlled situation, not youthful self-esteem. Cotournix knows zip about teaching high school biology, but says it's perfectly okay to do that by means of deliberate deception to promote his political and metaphysical agenda. He also says it's fine if people go through the rest of their whole lives believing the lies they were taught, so long as they are "obedient" to the top-down authority of people who look and think a whole lot like him instead of believing anything he doesn't approve of or knowing what's true.
This is not someone out to promote independent thought, you know. This is someone who thinks science should be corrupted toward sociopolitical ends with lies, half-truths and other deceptive tactics to PREVENT them from thinking for themselves. No amount of lip service to "critical thinking" excuses deliberate deception.
Truth: He does not care that people believe falsehoods, he cares that they not believe what he personally doesn't want them to believe.
Given the sheer number of overgrown delinquents pretending to be scientists all over the internet spreading the simplistic, deceptive crap they were taught in high school as if it were Absolute Truth, I'd say Cotournix's game plan has had plenty of time to work its magic, and Americans still self-identify as religious rather than atheist 9-1. Obviously they don't believe the pablum and lies they were taught in high school, or simply reject it because it effects their lives not one whit.
Just another wannabe mind-tyrant who doesn't even understand the most basic of ideologies present in our system of government. If he wants to come here and explain himself he can. No one is stopping him. I expect he's smart enough to see that PZ gets the hits not for posts about science, but for posts railing on his personal offense that other people are free to believe what they choose to believe. Cotournix is bidding for the Culture War hits, he's not doing science. Yet here you are complaining about TT noticing. Go figure.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Why trivialize this with a reference to SC? What is the problem with teaching that DNA is part dioxyribose sugar, part phosphate group and part nitrogenous base? What is the problem with teaching that codons code for amino acids and that amino acids are the stuff of which proteins are composed? Why is it necessary to use deception to teach that changes we call mutations sometimes occur within DNA which alter proteins? Claiming that lies are needed is itself a lie. But it is a lie that is put forth by those claiming to represent scientific truth. Very sad indeed.
I'm earnestly arguing that the wedgies on your side of the fence de-link their classroom manipulations from their religious and political beliefs. I'm earnestly arguing that science be protected from those who would use it to introduce political Trojan Horses into classrooms. In short I'm pointing out that your failure to recognize the linked blog as a shot in the culture war indicates your own blindness.
He is as free as anyone to participate.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
In order to understand biology, you would have to discuss Common Descent, natural selection, divergence, adaptation, genetics, fossils, dinosaurs, millions of years, etc.
Some insist that Adam and Eve belong in biology classes. Some think you should discuss God. But these are not scientifically supported, so these discussions should be moved down the hall to the Theology or Philosophy departments.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Zachriel:
Right. Unfortunately Cotournix and others of his ilk would like to address those issues obliquely. Go with a counter-culture agenda thinly disguised as science. Smart biology teachers know how to teach biology without the culture war sideshow. I don't support bringing religion into classrooms. I'm hardly going to ignore those who bring anti-religious, politically loaded messages into classrooms.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hi Bradford and Joy,
I invited Coturnix to join the discussion.
Personally, I think it is more significant that our current president lied to get our nation into a preemptive war than the opinion of one controversial blogger who I didn't know existed before now.
No one worries about teaching "some inaccuracies temporarily" when it comes to gravity. OTOH, how evolution is taught in public schools is very much on a lot of people’s radar. Its not very likely extreme actions (in either direction) by biology teachers will go unnoticed for very long. I suggest that was a main point of Coturnix's thread titled Why teaching evolution is dangerous.
For the record, I'm not complaining about this thread. I am just saddened by its popularity. By all means, I hope you all enjoy the continuing discussion, especially if Coturnix decides to join in.
Meanwhile, I will try making more positive arguments in other TT threads.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Zach:
Public high schools don't have theology or philosophy departments. But that's okay, they don't need 'em. Adam, Eve and God aren't part of the mandated curriculum, and should not appear anywhere in the textbook. There was an issue with that some years ago, it's mostly been fixed by the textbook publishers excising entire theological arguments O-U-T.
So all a science teacher has to do is tell his students at the start of class that the US Constitution doesn't allow the teaching of religion in his classroom, so no theological discussions will be allowed. Here's the book, here's what you have to regurgitate to the test if you want to graduate. Now, let's get started…
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Why is it necessary to teach DNA and mutations inaccurately TP? What is the inaccurate BS all about?
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Simplifications are inevitable when teaching introductory genetics. A proper understanding of basic biology would also include Common Descent, natural selection, divergence, adaptation, fossils, dinosaurs, millions of years, etc.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Simplications and inaccuracies are not the same thing. I know. It's the spin.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Simplifications used in teaching are often inaccurate. For instance, two different weight stones dropped from the Tower of Pisa do not fall at the same rate, nor is the acceleration constant. Most of genetics doesn't work like Mendel's peas. Planets do not travel in elliptical orbits. And electrons are not like little planets circling the nucleus.
Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
FYI, I posted this on Coturnix's blog.
Hi Coturnix,
I am disappointed by not overly surprised you chose not to participate in an earnest discussion of your ideas. I notice Zachriel also told you about it. I suggest you would count him among the good guys. Your sweeping dismissal of debate tactics and what "they" will or won't do is inaccurate. While Telic Thoughts would generally be considered pro-ID, it isn't a safe haven for either side.
For example, my moniker is an announcement my agenda is to provoke independent thinking on both sides. I am a very vocal critic of the ID MOVEMENT yet I have a positive ID hypothesis fashioned after the Orch OR model of consciousness offered by Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Hameroff.
I am a frequent Telic Thoughts' contributer.
Since you won't come to Telic Thoughts, I'm compelled to come here (my compliments to you for having an open commenter policy).
While you stated some things I agree with, there are a few points of contention starting with your view that NOMA is wrong.
Western philosophy 101, is that the wise man knows he doesn't know (see Socrates 400BC). NOMA is about recognizing this. Those that embrace NOMA recognize and accept the existence of multiple Truths. I explain my version of NOMA as “Philosophy is about the search for Truth, science is about the search for usable knowledge.”
Embracing NOMA is a person choice. Most Young Earth Creationists and Dr. Myers choose to reject NOMA. Theistic evolutionist and earnest proponents of ID SCIENCE (e.g. myself) choose to embrace NOMA. I view it to be a hypocritical position to embrace NOMA only when it is convenient to do so. I disapprove when this is done be senior fellows of a certain “brain trust” based in Seattle. I also disapprove of it when a blogger promote others to do it too.
History is full of “mind tyrants” (a term TT’s Joy uses) who think they know the one and only Truth for all. Students deserve to be respected. Lying to them (even for their own good) isn’t showing respect. The truth isn’t hard because the truth is that no one knows the truth. Meanwhile, they can be given useful knowledge even if its use is limited to passing the next test.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
TP,
Are you sure? Maybe you can ask Cortunix if he considers you a useful idiot. You know, since you personally defend and offer NOMA, which he clearly believes is bunk, yet a useful way to gain students' trust and help divest them of any religious, social, or political beliefs he finds distasteful. Which, apparently, is what "let's do science!" is all about.
Raevmo,
If Cortunix believes that NOMA is wrong - yet he offers it up as truth, as a reason to regard science and metaphysics as distinct considerations, using it (in his own words) as a tool - then guess what? He's lying.
But hey, let's turn it around.
Let's say I was a biology teacher in a state where teaching ID was legal. There are some students raised by atheists in my class. When the lesson begins, I tell them that merely detecting design in nature has nothing to do with religion. I bring up NOMA to put them at ease, showing how science and metaphysics are distinct topics. I even mention that ID is merely an idea, a possible explanation for what we see.
Then I post on my blog how I think NOMA is utter nonsense, but it's a useful tool for getting students to let their intellectual guard down. What's more, I mention how I'm teaching ID because I view my role as a teacher as one that's meant to counter the backwards, deluded culture of their parents - and I go on to mention how my primary hope is that what I and others teach lessens the grasp their parents' beliefs hold on the students, leading them not only to Christianity, but politically and socially conservative beliefs. But hey, even if they don't go that far, it's better to have theism-friendly agnostics and quasi-deists than atheists.
Would I be lying? Would I be deceptive?
Comment by nullasalus — August 30, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
TP:
Yeah. That's happened before too. Think Gulf of Tonkin. Someday we might learn something, you never know.
I disapprove of all lies told for sociopolitical reasons. I have found in the course of my life that serious sociopolitical evil starts by ignoring, overlooking or tacitly approving a lot of "little" sociopolitical lies. This soon allows big sociopolitical lies that everybody will be sorry for.
Why should anybody teach "temporary inaccuracies" about gravity? Everyone from squirrels to polar bears knows gravity - we live right smack dab on a shell around a gravity well, for goodness' sake!
You teach that something we call "mass" - a property of matter, but not one that we can quantify definitively - attracts other mass to itself. Mass is observed to attract mass in certain ways we can formulate with some nifty mathematics [f=ma, inverse square], and this explains why we don't 'fall' off the planet into space and why our planet orbits the sun and why stars aggregate into galaxies and why there are gigantuan black hole 'engines' providing the center of mass for most galaxies we've examined - including ours. What We Think We Know, It Works. FAPP.
No lies here, no little untruths, no deceptions. Such things are completely unnecessary to science, and can only be considered corruptions of science. If your hypotheses are tentative and untested, just present them as tentative and untested. That doesn't change any hypothesis into something it's not. No one need present any hypothesis with lies.
I call foul. Teaching evolution isn't the least bit dangerous. I, my brother and my sisters were all taught evolution in high school. All our children were taught evolution in high school, my grandchildren were taught evolution in high school. We all passed the course without problem. We haven't launched any revolutions, murdered any of our fellow citizens, burned or bombed a single church, started any wars, or guillotined even one scientist (or preacher). This is, in short, just one of Coturnix's "little" lies.
It's NOT science that needs to be dishonestly presented wrapped in a lot of "little lies" (or any big ones). It's Coturnix's personal politics and anti-religious prejudice. He can keep that to himself, rant about it on his blog or at his workplace all he likes (if they don't fire him for it). He can't teach his personal politics and anti-religious prejudice to conscripted public school children on state time without running afoul of the US Constitution. THAT nefarious, illegal agenda is what needs lies and deception to shield itself from the light of truth and law.
Oddly enough, I have noticed that your arguments often tend to promote your personal politics and anti-religious prejudice too. We've all got political issues and personal prejudices, nothing unusual there. I have learned that one cannot earn liberty or respect by disrespecting others or abrogating their rights. I guess that's the good part of not spending my life in some ivory tower country club where lies and deceptions are not very cleverly crafted to serve sociopolitical goals We The People wouldn't support democratically. That has nothing to do with science, everything to do with the very authoritarianism Coturnix pretends he dislikes. My evolutionary bullshit detector is pegged, his deception isn't getting past me.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Zachriel:
The simplifications you cite are posed to advance understanding of conceptually difficult concepts. That was not the idea behind inaccuracies. The inaccuracies cited in the blog were to be used to counter religious and cultural norms the writer found odious. There is a huge difference in intent. I don't want teachers appointing themselves gods able to determine what cultural values are to be uprooted and which ones are OK.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Coturnix responded:
"I have no intention to waste my time "debating" Creationists over on Telic Thoughts - it is a useless activity because they do not debate honestly. There is really no debate to be had - they are plainly wrong on every point, but will NEVER acknowledge it (too weak egos for that)."
Hahahaha!!!!! [wipes eyes] That's truly a knee-slapper. Um… who was the one posting about lies and deceptions to sneak his sociopolitical agenda and anti-religious prejudice into high school science classes? LOL!!!
As I explained before, TP, this is not someone out to promote independent thought. If you stepped back a moment and pretended you were an disinterested observer, you'd have long ago noticed that about the Swamp denizens as well. Who had (last I checked) a total of 42 posts to "science" and tens of thousands to… um… whatever.
Coturnix does much better than that usually. Something recent must have hackled his haunches a bit.
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about in