Thanks, Rachel!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

False Equivalencies

A great post by tristero at Hullabaloo linked to this post by James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis"

Evolution and Indoctrination

I cannot be too critical, since I was once a loudmouth on the young-earth creationist bandwagon. I've addressed this subject countless times before on this blog. But let me address the issue on this occasion in terms that I think Jim will appreciate.

Is it "indoctrination" if we teach the history of the Holocaust and do not give equal time to the deniers of the Holocaust?

Is it indoctrination if we teach astronomy and make no mention of astrology?

Is it indoctrination if we teach the heliocentric view of the solar system without giving equal time to geocentrists?

Asking for equal time for "alternatives" to evolution is in exactly the same category. It is asking that a point of view with nothing but questions and complaints to offer be treated as the equal of a scientific field of research that has been remarkably productive and consistently confirmed by all sorts of evidence not available when the theory was first formulated.

The media makes much of being "fair" in trying to always hear another side of the story, and there is something indeed laudable about checking to see if there is an opposing viewpoint. Too many of us forget to do that, and forget too often. But not every opposing viewpoint has merit, and the reason we have education standards is to ensure that educators do not waste time on nonsense to the detriment of things that are truly important, valuable, and (ultimately) true.

.

Now you see me, now you don't.

Check out this amazing video of a presentation on exotic creatures and how they adapt to their surroundings. Hat Tip Chris in Paris

Another world, not my own.

Banjo duet, anyone?

Let me introduce you to my cousin Valencia.

The Florida Board of Education is considering new science standards which make evolutionary theory a central part of the curriculum, and limits the influence of alternative theories in the classroom. You may remember the Kansas Board of Education going through a similar experience over the last few years, with evolution proponents eventually winning out over the creationist/intelligent design crowd. If a city, state or country really cares about being competitive in the global economy and wants to prepare children for success in a variety of scientific fields, they have to strengthen their support of true science, whether that involves evolution, climate change, genetic research, or a myriad of other topics.
But the challenge ahead for science proponents is daunting as this article makes clear:

The Times survey ... revealed a huge gulf between scientists and the public. While the vast majority of scientists consider evolution to be backed by strong evidence, nearly two-thirds of those polled were skeptical.

Sha and I were fotunate to hear a some great speakers last summer at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago (now Netroots Nation). One of the panels was on science and the most entertaining speaker was Ed Brayton. Here is a post from his blog on the Florida situation:

Those who are campaigning against those standards have consistently displayed precisely the kind of rank ignorance of science that make those new standards crucial. A commenter left this transcript of what one man said during the public comment time on the new standards recently:

"Now I have in my hand an orange. I was about to eat this orange yesterday, but before I did I sat down and read about this evolution stuff. I learned that this orange is actually my first cousin. I didn't want to eat the orange no more. So now I'm going to give it to you people on the committee, and you can eat it if you want. But if you do decide to eat it, it shows that you don't believe in this evolution either. And we shouldn't be teaching our kids something no one believes."

Stunningly stupid.

Well said.

Commander-in-chief or scientist-in-chief?

Ronald Bailey in Reason magazine asks:

"Does it matter what presidential candidates believe about biological evolution?"

Discuss amongst yourselves.