#36789: Adam Ierymenko — 08/21  at  07:28 PM
I've always found Moon interesting in that right-wing ideologues seem to not have all that much problem with him or his followers. There are actually quite a few Moon-inspired loonies in the religious right.

Moon has claimed the following:

1) That Christ failed in his mission.
2) That he is the second coming, is God (or Christ), and that his job is to complete Christ's failed mission.
3) That he intends to create a one-world government unified under him and with all religions unified under him.

Sounds like an almost textbook description of the antichrist. I guess it doesn't matter that someone denounces Christianity, rejects Christ, and sounds like a caricature of the antichrist as long as they give money to right-wing Christian think tanks.

#36790: coturnix — 08/21  at  07:35 PM

Most of the time in the classroom, micro-evolution - the development of antibiotic resistance, for example - is accepted, said one teacher. It's the concept of macro-evolution - the study of changes over eons - that sparks objections.

"That's like saying, '<b>I believe in feet but not miles</b,"'...

I like this short and to-the-point statment: "I believe in feet but not miles"

#36792: — 08/21  at  07:41 PM
I always cringe when I see someone suggest adding ID to a philosophy course. I mean, as much as philosophy genuinely is a dumping ground for crappy old ideas that have been dressed up to look modern, it's not that bad. Likewise, history, social science, comparative religion, etc, should be focused on providing a lasting foundation in those subjects, not appeasing the latest lunatic right-wing fad.

#36794: John Wilkins — 08/21  at  08:01 PM
Science is not elitist. It is a democracy of experts...

#36795: ekzept — 08/21  at  08:04 PM
it's interesting that Robert Sapolsky claims religiosity and prayer (as well as meditation) provide specific stress-reducing benefits, and so can contribute to medical well-being. (this is from Science Friday.) isn't it horrible to imagine that increased religiosity and consequential apathy towards science might be the result of a broadbased cultural exposure to excessive stress? Sapolsky seems to say prayer and such is the cultural equivalent of hominid grooming.

my view is that he's just saying that to sell books. more and freer sex is an efficacious means of reducing stress, too, modulo risks from STDs and such.

#36796: — 08/21  at  08:06 PM
One part of the recipe is a set of leaders who aim to demolish a scientific principle, not because it is wrong, but because they don't like its consequences.

Even this gives them too much credit. Frequently, IDers and their ilk commit the naturalistic fallacy, taking the illogical step from 'there is survival of the fittest' to 'there should be survival of the fittest.' Without this, there aren't any direct moral implications of descent with modification.

Alternatively, creationists display absolute ignorance of moral philosophy (e.g., Rick Santorum) by simply asserting that, without god, morality is impossible. The impossibility of morality is an unlikable consequence. Ipso facto, evolution is bad. Too bad for senator Frothy Mixture (and good for most others), lack of morality is not a consequence of lack of god, much less of evolutionary biology.

And even if a deity lacuna did imply a wholly inadequate basis for morality, you couldn't infer from this that evolutionary biology is to blame. That would affirming the consequent, another fairly straightforward logical fallacy. A implies B, B, therefore A is not a valid syllogism.

#36797: bill — 08/21  at  08:09 PM
All them five-dollar words like "nucleus", heck, even the President cain't say it rite: nuklus.

Don't need all them five-dollar words to know for a FACT that Darwinism's got Gaps. Big un's, too! I seen em. Drive a truck thru em they're that big. Ford F150 Extended Cab, I reckon.

(and the secret word is "dinosaur". How appropriate!)

#36799: — 08/21  at  08:15 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty ignorant of biology, but I could answer those questions based on my 9th-grade biology class.

I thought it was spelled meiosis, though.

Although I'm not sure that Iv could give a good explanation of the role of mitochondria. I mean it's an organelle in a eukaryotic cell which has something to do with providing energy, and they have non nuclear DNA (matrilinear, right?), but how they work, I couldn't tell you.

So shame on me too!

#36801: — 08/21  at  08:51 PM
mIosis -- constriction of the pupils.
mEIosis -- the formation of 4 haploid cells from 1 dividing diploid cell.

I know, minor nitpick. But anyway, I'm a scientist. The American public is largely ignorant of science. But we can't hide behind this. If we want to get through to the public, we need something to seize their imagination. Each of us needs to get out into the community and (excuse the choice of words here) proselytize science. We need to all be big advocates of science. I would love to see a NCSE or NAS or NIH or NSC initiative that gave a grant for graduate students to go out and teach at a local high school one day a week, in their field.

But we even need to go a step further. Like the evangelicals, we need to cater to our audience without speaking down to them. We need to get behind the "rock star" scientists out there and play them up in the media. I'd like to see popular sitcoms or reality shows centered around science. A good starting point (and one that I saw a lot during grad school and that I see a lot now in medical school) would be the television show CSI. Seize it, promote it, teach classes about it. Move forward with it -- let's have a weekly show a la "The Daily Show" or "Talk Soup" about the science in the popular press and on TV shows, explaining it, criticizing it, whatever. Get a charismatic funny scientist to host. The blogosphere does it all day every day, why not a weekly television show?

#36802: Matt Dunn — 08/21  at  08:52 PM
As far as actually teaching Intelligent Design in a philosophy class, for example, there's not really a whole lot to teach. It's not like there is a body of theory and textbooks etc. There aren't any lab exercises. But I find Intelligent Design is a very good topic to discuss in a philosophy of science class when you're dealing with demarcation, i.e. what is science and what's not. It also works well to bring it up in the context of theory testing and confirmation.

I strongly object to teaching it in science classrooms because there you should be learning science. But in philosophy of science courses, you're learning ABOUT science, i.e. what we currently think makes science special. One of the more popular intro to phil science anthologies, Curd and Cover, has the entire first section devoted to science and pseudoscience and has three papers specifically about 'creation science'. The time is ripe for an update I think.

#36803: Jim Harrison — 08/21  at  09:01 PM
Since the general public does not know and will never learn much about biology, the issue is a bit of a distraction. What would help, I think, is to increase of understanding of evolutionary thinking among otherwise educated people. Even people with advanced degrees often have amazingly uninformed ideas about biology, in part because the religious right has been able to frighten off high school teachers from doing an adequate job of teaching the subject and lots of folks go through college without taking biology.

People mostly go along with the opinions of authority figures. Nothing's going to change that; but maybe we can increase the number of authority figures on our side by dong a better job of reaching the medical doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and MBAs.

#36804: Jeff Durkin — 08/21  at  09:30 PM
While I agree that ID is not science and that the half-baked Creationism in sheep's clothing should never get near a science class, I do disagree that it would be out of place in a sociology class, as an example of how religion adapts to socio-cultural changes, in this case, religion accreting the terminology of science in an attempt to appeal to a more rational, secular culture (at least, a more rational, secular culture in theory).

By being dismissive of ID as a socio-cultural phenomenon, you miss an opportunity to study how such constructs develop. Saying it is "a poor and artificial philosophy with no respectable history" pretty much describes any belief system in its founding phase. Both Christianity in the 1st century and Islam in the 7th could be described like this; now they are the faith and moral superstructures of billions. I doubt ID will ever be more than an offshoot of Christianity, but it is too much of threat and an interesting phenomenon to be so dismissive of.

As to labeling "old school" creationism - i.e., fundamentalist Christianity - as "junk religion," you demonstrate an unfortunate bias against a system of belief that, for better or worse, is adhered to by millions. Why is this "junk religion" but not that of the "Iroquois, the Chinese and the Egyptians?" Unless, of course, you think that the study of any religion is a waste of time (something that even I, an atheist, would find an indefensible position, given the centrality of religion to humanity).

I can't believe that any rational person would be that dismissive of a cornerstone of human civilization, and therefore must conclude that you are only referencing fundamentalist Christianity. Why is that?

Given that something like 60% of Americans claim to believe the Biblical account of the origins of the universe, perhaps exposing students tot he wide range of creation myths in the context of a comparative religion or cultures class might help to create a more rational society.

Of course, this assumes that such courses - while conceptually sound - could be run in a reasonable fashion; that is, without becoming an excuse for pro-Christian propaganda or just devolving into a confused mess of politically correct platitudes. On that count, given the caliber of the public school teachers that I know and the reports of the generally low levels of competence among public school teachers, I am not sanguine.

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth.

#36805: — 08/21  at  09:32 PM

As far as actually teaching Intelligent Design in a philosophy class, for example, there's not really a whole lot to teach.

Exactly.

Although, maybe it would be interesting to discuss the ethics involved when a Designer (purposefully) creates a flawed and tragic Universe, such as our own.

#36806: Delta — 08/21  at  09:39 PM
Good post!

#36811: ekzept — 08/21  at  11:17 PM

Even people with advanced degrees often have amazingly uninformed ideas about biology, in part because the religious right has been able to frighten off high school teachers from doing an adequate job of teaching the subject and lots of folks go through college without taking biology.

alas, indeed, inadequate familiarity with the facts of biology is rampant indeed. and, if we need to rely upon medical folk to spread word about biology, we are sorry sods. nurses don't know Bernoulli's principle or how to make 1 Normal solutions, and doctors don't know Bernoulli's principle.

this is not uniform practice. if someone wants to transfer to MIT from another university, even if it be Harvard, they are required to complete a semester course in biology as well as advanced calculus, physics, and chemistry.

#36813: — 08/21  at  11:29 PM
What's missing here is a basic understanding of human motivation. The strongest human motivation is fantasy. Evidence: How much money does Disneyland make in a day?; The O.J. trial.; 50% divorce rate in the U.S. = we marry a fantasy of what we would like to believe the woman or man we are dating is - the facts are boring.; There are 1 billion practicing Catholics in the world today and 1.5 billion practicing Muslims. Need any more evidence?

#36829: — 08/22  at  03:11 AM
Fantasy? Maybe. But what is fantasy but the craving for wonderment? What is faith but an attempt to claim wonderment, to personify it in the form of God?

A preacher might hold up a flower at the commencement of a sermon as evidence of the hand of providence in the world about us, interpreting the beauty of the world as a reflection on Earth of the beauty of God, the imperfections in the world as indicators by omission of God’s own perfection.

Such a preacher, like his congregation, will feel awe and wonder at the glories of creation, will marvel at the miracle of life, and will feel sorrow for those who see in the flower a machine, a chain of chemical processes, and not the hand of God.

I wish that I could convey to such as these the sense of wonderment that sometimes overcomes me, the true depth of the awe that I feel when I see a flower - or an insect, or a sunrise - to realize that this thing which itself is a wonder of existence is no more and no less than a part of an ongoing explosion of energy that includes us all and which has lasted from the beginning of time and will last until its end. Even a graffiti’d tag or a cigarette butt, that most worthless and unwanted of waste, can hold a world of wonderment - things almost wholly devoid of function in themselves, they too are nonetheless parts of this energy, each an ugly little miracle.

I wish that I could convey the sense of sorrow and pity that comes over me when I think of how these people, themselves each and every one a miracle, cannot appreciate the grandeur of the universe without having to imagine it as the creation of a God. Can they not see that a God would rob the universe of miracle? A human work of art, the function of an artist, can be a wonderful thing, yet it is not a miracle; likewise creation, the function of a God, might be a source of wonder but could not be a source of awe save at God’s greater power. Is it not a far more glorious thing to see the universe in terms of evolution? Is this not a thing to wonder at more?

I wish, too, that I could convey to this imagined preacher and his congregation, to those who believe that the miracle of the world is the hallmark of God, that seeing oneself and one’s kind as mere components of a natural machine adds to and does not deplete the wonder of our own individual miracles of existence. Each of us alone, and even as a species, are wondrous not as special creations of a God but as animals which have evolved to the point where we can actually discuss these ideas; as parts of a natural machine without inherent meaning we can create meaning and live by it. From ourselves, and not from God, we gain value that is far beyond and far greater than our negligible mechanistic value to the natural machine of time: yet we have gained this ability through being but parts in that machine. Is that a paltry miracle?

In short, I wish that we could come to help people to realize that science does not rob the world of wonderment and beauty. Often - far too often - I encounter people who find it hard to accept atheistic materialism, not because they find it offensive but because they imagine that wonder is dependent on ‘spirituality’, that a materialistic philosophy is a cold and inhuman one.

#36833: Alon Levy — 08/22  at  05:47 AM
Maybe it's just in the nature of most people to think that science is boring and mechanical. Maybe we who are awed by the evolution of color vision or spacecraft propulsion or the ultimate fate of the universe or Galois theory or the formation of hydrogen bonds are destined to always be in the minority.

#36834: Paul — 08/22  at  06:06 AM
It's a long time since I did biology, so while I know in broad terms what these things are, an actual definition might leave me flailing a little. Except for the first issue, thanks to Joanne, who I sat near in biology class:

mitosis happens in my toeses, meiosis happens in my ovaries.

#36835: Johnny Vector — 08/22  at  06:17 AM
I don't think it's in people's nature to think science is boring and mechanical; I think that's learned. From grade school science teachers who convince kids that science is a bunch of boring facts you have to memorize to poets who should know better spewing chunks like When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer. The idea that someone would enter a job market like astronomy for any reason other than the beauty of it all is pretty funny, really.

The worst bit is that so much of science really isn't that hard to understand at a basic level. In the hands of a Sagan or a Morrison, science can be accessible and entertaining. The real work is in getting science education up to an acceptable level, but given the strongly anti-science mood in this country right now the first step is getting people interested enough to demand good science education.

#36839: Alon Levy — 08/22  at  06:54 AM
Well, by grade school I was already very interested in science - I only began admiring mathematics and marginalizing my interest in science around 7th grade - though even before then my parents had promoted my interest in science and math.

But I don't think that anti-scientism is cultural. If you measure the ratio of students in science and mathematics to students in other disciplines in universities, I'm fairly certain you'll get that the West has a lower ratio than any other major culture group, and I know you'll get that the USA has a lower ratio than Europe. But in the Middle East and East Asia, the penchant for learning science is driven by mechanical rather than esthetic aspects; learning science is in this view more like learning engineering or medicine or law than like learning social science or the humanities. And despite European cultures' valuing erudition more than American culture does, Europeans performed worse than Americans on a science test with questions such as, "Does most of the oxygen we breathe come from plants?"

#36840: Matt McIrvin — 08/22  at  06:54 AM
Ideally, science is not elitist about groups of people. The community is intensely competitive and reputation-driven, but you can't get that reputation from Daddy or even coast along on perceived brilliance; you have to start from nil and keep working.

On the other hand, science is historically elitist in the sense that, while it's profoundly difficult, it's not a good way to get rich, so it's not a profession for those seeking to be upwardly mobile. At one time it was mostly the province of gentlemen, the only people with any leisure time. The introduction of government funding for science has helped with that, but I think there's still a tendency not to get into it unless your family is at least middle-class, since it'll make you poor for a while and it'll never make you rich. If you're seeking to lift your family up from grinding poverty, science is a terrible vocation.

But the people who accuse science of being elitist typically mean something different from that: they're upset that it denigrates certain ideas, that in some sense it's just not fair to label some ideas scientific and theirs unscientific. I think this is kind of bizarre: I'd like to see the profession that is completely open to ideas of any kind. Your car mechanic won't give equal credit to your idea that your car's alternator is possessed by demons.

Maybe it's not specific to science, but is a problem with any profession whose area of concern overlaps significantly with that claimed by somebody's religion. After all, doctors and judges get flak for encroaching on religious territory too.

#36842: Matt McIrvin — 08/22  at  07:01 AM
"Does most of the oxygen we breathe come from plants?"

Come to think of it, I don't know the answer to this question. When I was a kid I'd have said yes, but now I'm not sure. What's the fractional breakdown of plants vs. cyanobacteria (if that's still the correct term)? Are other kingdoms involved—are there photosynthesizing archaea? I don't know.

#36845: Matt McIrvin — 08/22  at  07:17 AM
exzept, one of the great nightmare thoughts of my life is that prolonged exposure to the truth is toxic to humans, and we need to believe in lies in order to stay healthy. Maybe it's childhood frustration at being repeatedly told by the mass media to believe in Santa Claus.

There's a sense in which it's true: the ongoing story we tell ourselves about our minds and our motivations that we perceive as the memory of self-conscious experience is mostly a post-hoc fabrication, but keeping that story going is probably necessary in order to remain a sane human.

On the other hand, just knowing intellectually that it's a post-hoc fabrication doesn't drive you mad. And in general I cling to the idea that cultivating doublethink about the world is not good for you in the long run.

#36850: Alon Levy — 08/22  at  07:29 AM
Actually, as soon as I saw the questionnaire (there's a detailed article about it somewhere on The Panda's Thumb) I scoured Wikipedia to answer this very question, since in the one biology class I've taken in college the professor said that cyanobacteria provide 80%+ of the oxygen we breathe. Wikipedia does not provide exact figures, but does claim that plants provide most of the oxygen we breathe.

Archaea don't photosynthesize: "Of note, the halobacteria can use light to produce ATP, although no Archaea conduct photosynthesis with an electron transport chain, as occurs in other groups." Only plants, cyanobacteria, and algae are capable of photosynthesis.