Pharyngula::Philosophers, are you furious yet?

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Philosophers, are you furious yet?

PZ Myers • 89 Comments (last page)

Since biologists have proven intractable, the next direction the IDists are going to take is to target other spots in the curriculum. Here's the comment that leapt out at me in an article on California creationism.

At a special meeting of the El Tejon Unified School District on Jan. 1, at which the board approved the new course, "Philosophy of Design," school Supt. John W. Wight said that he had consulted the school district's attorneys and that they "had told him that as long as the course was called 'philosophy,' " it could pass legal muster, according to the lawsuit.

Oh. So "philosophy" is the new dumping ground, the subject with no serious content, the one where you can safely present any ol' garbage and it still fits? Like the colloquial definition of "theory" (any guess), I suppose the new definition of "philosophy" is "idiots babbling".

Any doubts that this is a serious course in philosophy are dispelled by the description.

Philosophy of Intelligent Design: "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative response to evolution. Topics that wlll be covered are the age of the earth, a world wide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and geological evidence. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions. The class will include lecture discussions, guest speakers, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution."

How about the instructor's qualifications?

Name: Mrs. Sharon Lemburg
Department: Special Education
Brief Biography: B. A. Degree in Physical Education, Social Science: with emphasis in Sociology, Special Education
Class Description: Special Education
Club Advisor or Coach? Soccer and Softball

And then there's how the course will be taught…

Board members recommended changes to the original course plan, which included 24 videos - 19 of them supporting intelligent design. They also voiced concern over scientific issues in the class, such as the laws of thermodynamics and how fossil dating works.

One weblog has a complete list of the videos and speakers, and there is also an annotated breakdown of the course syllabus by one of the listed speakers for evolution (he was not asked nor did he consent; the other one who is, well, dead…and wasn't it a little presumptuous of the teacher to expect to get a Nobelist to drop in to her little school?) It's worse than you might think: 19 are creationist videos, 1 is about catastrophism, and the remaining four are of mysterious content.

So we have here a course "taught" by a soccer coach and special ed teacher who has no training in either science or philosophy, which will consist of day after day of the teacher queuing up creationist videos (I assume she is capable of running a VCR, but there is probably an A/V department in the school to help her if not), and she's going to teach the kids the evidence that the earth is ten thousand years old.

It's a good thing that the school district is being sued over this course.

With one exception, the suit asserts, "the course relies exclusively on videos that advocate religious perspectives and present religious theories as scientific ones — and because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of the presentation."

…

One of the parents, Kenneth Hurst, who has a doctorate in geology and is a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, said in court papers that the class "conflicts with my beliefs as a scientist. I believe this class undermines the sound scientific principles taught in Frazier Mountain High School's biology curriculum and is structured in a way that deprives my children of the opportunity to be presented with an objective education that would aid the development of their critical thinking skills."

Hurst, who has children in 10th and 12th grades, said the class also interfered with his personal religious views as a Quaker and "reflects a preference for fundamentalist Christianity over all other religious and scientific viewpoints."

That represents reasonable cause, but I think they're missing the most important justification of them all: we ought to have some expectation of competence and some standards of quality in our public school education. This course fails to meet even Sunday School standards of rigor. The school board rushed to have a meeting about it when parents complained about the conflict between religion and state, but they weren't doing their job when they initially approved it—I would be questioning what other dreck they've allowed to slide by.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3703/egeJmXDX/

Comments:

#57467: — 01/11 at 11:24 AM
I've read a little (but not much) of how philosophers view ID, and from what little I've read, it appears they also object to the "God of the Gaps" argument. For example, read

http://www.techcentralstation.com/111705B.html

It's a little long, but its point is to show how good philosophy tries to fit in with naturalistic explanations, not refute those explanations.

Anyway, I'm peeved at the way the IDers have come in for a four-week course here. It's an approach we better be wary of. In most cases, the legal system won't move fast enough to stop a four-week course. It's a clever approach on their part; once a court steps in and orders the course stopped, the damage will already have been done. The "course" will be over.

#57471: mark — 01/11 at 11:34 AM
Why stop with Francis Crick? Can the soccer mom also get Charles Darwin and William Paley to appear?

#57472: — 01/11 at 11:41 AM
The mystery is why the "Intelligent Design" brand name is getting applied to this course. It appears Young Earth Creationism is riding ID's coattails, skirting by the science class roadblock erected in Dover, PA, and landing in "philosophy."

From what I read of the Dover ruling, calling it "philosophy" is no help, since the main part about the policy was not that it wasn't science, but that it was creationism in drag. That's no different here.

As for NPR, Barbara Bradley-Hagerty also gave airtime to Barry Lynn of AU, but Luskin got the zinger about how "even Barry Lynn said it could be taught as philosophy."

I can't recall if the NPR bit couched the dispute as one about ID, or revealed its YEC roots.

#57473: Dr. Free-Ride — 01/11 at 11:44 AM
Geez, can we possibly arrange for a week or two where we philosophers don't have to be furious?

And, wouldn't a better title for the course in question be "Religiously grounded attacks on an accepted and productive scientific theory, with very little context concerning science's scope or methodology, no positive scientific argument for the design proposal, and no objective consideration of the relative merits of scientific and religious approaches to understanding the world"? 'Cause calling this course the philosophy of anything is just wrong!

#57475: — 01/11 at 11:49 AM
The sad part is, the Philosophy of Design is indeed a legitimate and interesting subject. Too bad it'll get tarred with this El Tejon nonsense.

#57476: Bryson Brown — 01/11 at 12:01 PM
I'm late piling on, but I'm way ahead of you on the title question, PZ. I've been ranting against the cultural equation of 'philosophy' with 'any silly BS someone likes to spout' for a long time. I recall a student comment on my intro course: the student couldn't understand why s/he wasn't getting an 'A', since (after all) philosophy is just a matter of opinion, and s/he had indeed presented his/her opinions in the course work.

It's clear the teacher of this course has no qualifications at all either as a teacher of science or as a teacher of philosophy-- and both should matter in this case. Worse, of course, and utterly unconstitutional, is the wild religious axe grinding in the course contents.

As another Canadian, I'm unsure about whether to pity or envy the US on these issues. On one hand, we don't have nearly the level of political support for ID/creationist nonsense the US has. On the other, we have no constitutional barrier between church and state-- so, for instance, here in Alberta, lots of public money goes to support church-run schools that teach creationism in their biology curriculum. They do have to meet provincial standards, but those are pretty soft (the general science curriculum for high school didn't even mention Darwin when I last saw it, though the biology curriculum does). Which is worse? Hard to say, but the battle goes on, on both sides of the border.

#57478: — 01/11 at 12:11 PM
From MikeM's link:

Consider the following example. Imagine yourself as a visiting alien; when surveying "Africa" you discover large termite mounds. Most of the crew gets right down to the business of studying termites and figuring out how they manage to produce their nests. But, a few make a different claim. Given that the termites are clearly not sentient, they decide that the termites could not possibly have built their nests in the absence of an independent sentient nest designer -- The Termite Farmer. Therefore, they take off and go looking for The Termite Farmer instead of studying what termites actually do.

That's as good an analogy as you're probably going to find on TechCentralStation.

Also, another enjoyable read from TCS. Two in one day! That's quite a bonanza.

#57480: — 01/11 at 12:18 PM
Here in Spain, when I explain to my brother-in-law, who teaches math at the local university, that these sorts of arguments are taking place in the US, and being settled in courts no less, he just shakes his head in amazement. Ironically, Spain is a mostly Catholic country where the Church receives public funding and where religion is taught in school (though that's about to become elective) and yet there's no argument about the validity of evolution and even less about this YEC nonsense. Interesting how in a country where there are supposed to be no ties between church and state you have these constant battles going on, while in country with an official state religion there's no controversy whatsoever.

#57482: — 01/11 at 12:26 PM
PZ, let's help this poor district stay legal: How about you and I go out and do some tag-teaming? You can give the kids real evolution information and dissect the phony philosophy ideas, I'll give a legal overview for how and why such courses are illegal, and with good cause -- I'll bet I can get Timothy Sandefur to come in for a day, too!

Can we snag Daniel Dennett to do the remedial philosophy stuff required to save the course? Anybody else available?

And if Casey Luskin's group will cover our air fare and hotel, we can all claim to have collaborated to keep public school courses legal.

Whaddya think?

#57488: bourgeois_rage — 01/11 at 12:58 PM

On a somewhat related note, did anyone watch the Frontline (PBS) miniseries, "Country Boys" which is playing this week (and is free to watch online on the pbs.org web site). They had some segments in a science class in rural Kentucky and the teacher was saying things like "Evolution says we came from monkeys. I don't think Jesus Christ was a monkey, do you?"

It was a private school, but still it was a little painful to watch. It seemed like the teacher was trying to be somewhat dutiful to teach the state standards but she was unable to hide her surety that the Christian bible was the true account.

I saw that too, and had to laugh. The teacher didn't seem real effective. She didn't even seem sure of what she was saying. I haven't watched the whole series, but what I caught of it was interesting and disturbing.

#57489: — 01/11 at 01:02 PM
I pity the poor biology, chemistry, physics and geology teachers who will have to clean up after this mess. "But during the intersession course, we learned that the second law of thermodynamics says that snowflakes can't form.."

#57490: — 01/11 at 01:03 PM
"Philosophers, are you furious yet?"

"Furious" ain't the word....

#57494: The Countess — 01/11 at 01:16 PM
Gee, all the class needs now is field trips to see God so students can talk to The Big Guy In The Sky in person. Or they can pray for correct answers on their tests.

#57497: — 01/11 at 01:32 PM
blockquote
Interesting how in a country where there are supposed to be no ties between church and state you have these constant battles going on, while in country with an official state religion there's no controversy whatsoever.
/blockquote
Dear SergioPOE
In fact, the ID controversy is the apanage of the US. It is not an issue in other European countries where church is separated from state like France. Hence the problem might be more the success of evangelists or the mean education level.

#57502: Ithika — 01/11 at 01:41 PM
PZ: The second link to the "instructor's qualifications" points to this page

#57503: — 01/11 at 01:49 PM
Maybe all us heathens should just move to Canada - strict gun laws, low crime, few religious zealots. Sure it's cold there now, but thanks to the Republican-sponsored Global Warming Initiative(tm), the Canadian climate will soon be transformed into a paradise.

#57513: Reese Urcher — 01/11 at 02:20 PM
I wonder how easy it would be to get an actual critical thinking or philosophy of science course approved for high school students. How could someone object to students learning to differentiate good ideas from bad ones?

I took this class in high school. It was called "Contemporary Issues in Biology" and I learned more in this class than any other. We debated cloning, abortion, euthanasia and other things. But each issue was presented fairly and objectively. When we were debating abortion two women came to speak with the class in the same week - one from a anti-abortion group and one from Planned Parenthood. They spoke and we had the opportunity to ask them questions.

In the final few weeks of the class we each had to present an issue to the class. We had to lay out the facts and the opinions from two sides of the issue and then take questions from the class.

It was brilliant.

#57514: jre — 01/11 at 02:22 PM
For those who want to listen to it, the NPR piece is OK -- could have been better, but could have been a lot worse.

Casey Luskin has driven to the front in the race for this year's Golden Weasel award. I'll get the foundry working on it.

#57518: Reese Urcher — 01/11 at 03:05 PM
I wonder how easy it would be to get an actual critical thinking or philosophy of science course approved for high school students. How could someone object to students learning to differentiate good ideas from bad ones?

I took this class in high school. It was called "Contemporary Issues in Biology" and I learned more in this class than any other. We debated cloning, abortion, euthanasia and other things. But each issue was presented fairly and objectively. When we were debating abortion two women came to speak with the class in the same week - one from an anti-abortion group and one from Planned Parenthood. They spoke and we had the opportunity to ask them questions.

In the final few weeks of the class we each had to present an issue to the class. We had to lay out the facts and the opinions from two sides of the issue and then take questions from the class.

It was brilliant.

#57521: Phoenix Woman — 01/11 at 03:22 PM
Gracchus, I'd scout around. Google things like "Seattle ID schools" and see what comes up.

#57524: Joe Shelby — 01/11 at 03:42 PM
As long as "teaching ID" means "repeating the same lies, falsehoods, and oft-discredited evidences against evolution", then teaching ID should not be done in schools regardless of what subject matter the class is.

taxpayers pay enough to politicians to lie to us (and in court, as Dover, PA showed). we shouldn't be also paying them to lie to our kids.

what is left to teach about ID can be done in about a minute, and showing its scientific invalidity would take another 2. and THAT i have no problem teaching in class.

#57529: — 01/11 at 04:08 PM
That certain educators would rather teach WHAT to think as opposed to HOW to think is what disturbs me about courses such as this. Unfortunately public schools will likely not institute genuine programs in critical thinking and informal logic. Such an education would seem all too subversive to those who would have their beliefs uncritically accepted by participants in what is already a coercive institution. That such incoherent nonesense could be presented to the general public as "philosophy" is profoundly insulting.

#57531: JMJanssen — 01/11 at 04:13 PM
I dunno about this, but ID was brought up in the intro philosophy course i took this past semester. It wasn't focused on at all, it just had to given what we were reading.

#57534: — 01/11 at 04:35 PM
That Intelligent Design was merely "brought up" in an introductory course to philosophy does not thereby establish its merit as a philosophical concept. Instead, Intelligent Design was likely meant as a topic for discussion, an object to which philosophical concepts were to be applied in its evaluation. There is a difference between dialogue and the subject of that dialogue.

#57535: — 01/11 at 04:39 PM
That Intelligent Design was merely "brought up" in an introductory course to philosophy does not thereby establish its merit as a philosophy. Instead, Intelligent Design was likely meant as a topic for discussion, an object to which philosophical concepts were to be applied in its evaluation. There is a difference between a dialogue and the subject of a dialogue.

Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >

Next entry: Half full

Previous entry: Zero

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Philosophers, are you furious yet?

Info