A stupid, worthless, pathetic excuse for a debate

This new evolution debate thing in Kansas is really truly stupid.  But here's what really bothers me:

Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, Kansas education officials began four days of trial-like hearings to consider changes to how Kansas students are tested on the origins of life.

Science groups are boycotting the hearings, held by a Board of Education subcommittee, because they view them as being rigged against evolution. The board could revise its science standards in June to include both the theory of evolution and criticism of it.[...]

Intelligent design advocates pointed to the boycott as evidence that evolution's supporters are afraid to debate.

What I dislike is the implication that a public debate about evolution is something that would really do us any good.  And I say this as someone who like public debates, and who always calling for real public debates.  We should have public debates, real public debates that is, about all kinds of topics, from church and state to civil rights to foreign policy to tax policy, and so on.  But we should not have public debates about science.  Why?  Because most of us don't know anything about it, and aren't in a position to make informed judgments.

Whether Bach was a more competent composer than Gluck is similarly not a worthy topic for public debate.  I think I wouldn't really put much stock in the results of a school board discussing whether T.S. Eliot was a better at blank verse than Ezra Pound.  Those are things that maybe highly trained experts have sophisticated and nuanced opinions about.  As is evolutionary theory. 

As I see it, there are two reasons that evolution has developed as a political issue in this country.  One is that it doesn't matter.  Well, of course, it does matter.  A lot actually.  But that's not what I mean.  Evolutionary theory doesn't cure lung cancer.  It doesn't help AIDS patients live longer lives.  It doesn't help older men have erections.  It doesn't replace lost hair.  In short, it doesn't have much of a practical application. 

The other reason is that many people think it directly challenges their religion.  (Even though in most cases it actually doesn't.)  That's why you don't see too many republicans freaking out about string theory or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle being taught to their kids.

If it weren't for the convergence of these two elements -- if evolution weren't both relatively arcane and perceived as a threat to a fundamentalist religious beliefs -- there would be no issue here.

-- Michael

UPDATE: I think this is worth clarifying.  If evolution had a practical application, i.e., was saving lives, etc., I think the Christian right would find a way to fit it into its set of beliefs without controversy.  As it is now, there's no cost to republican party, in real terms, in trying to get fiction taught alongside science, and the gain for them should be obvious.

Comments

[Ryan]

Excellent post. Others may disagree, but I see your position as the moderate one. Some fail to realize that the ideas that led to the modern scientific body of work that is referred to as "Evolutionary Theory" was spurred by work done by Naturalists when Jefferson and Adams were running the federal govt.

If "descent by modification" didn't impede the rapid, international blossoming of Christianity over the last couple centuries, why do these activists in Kansas give a hoot? I feel that they're searching out symbolic battles. Others like this would be the Schiavo case, forced prayer in schools, and displaying of the Ten Commandments on state property.

I take issue with those claiming that this is the run-up to a theocracy. I think these religious activists are doing God's work. Even atheists (like myself) need to realize and respect that these people see God in everything. We cannot attack them for their religious beliefs, but we can't hesitate to call them on their shit and push back if need be. One thing that is lost on them is that the laws and their implementations are there for everyone's protection.

Also, really...why do they care so much about "under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance? It didn't "help" me any.

[Ed Drone]

What gets me is that "intelligent design" does nothing to forward either religion or science. If you want to say that evolution is the clock's gears working, so there must be a clock-maker, fine! If you want to create theories about that clock-maker, based on your assumpton that there must be a clock-maker, fine! Or if you want to assume that, based on religious books, you know about the clock-maker and can assume what He/She/It intends for the clock's purpose, that's fine, too.

The problem is, so what? If I were a high-school science teacher, I'd devote the first day's lesson to "Intelligent Design." It'd take about two minutes, maybe more if students wanted to discuss it, and it'd consist of a statement that

"Many believe the intricate nature of nature (no pun intended) shows that there must be a design involved, and where there's a design, there must be a designer. Some call this designer 'God,' some 'Allah,' some 'JHWH,' some 'Krishna.' This theory is called 'intelligent design,' and accounts for the 'why' in life.

This course will now discuss the 'how,' and only the 'how,' since that's all we can either prove or disprove, and proof -- or lack of it -- is the hallmark of true science.

Open your books to Chapter One."

That would do it, I'd think.

Something else I don't get is how the fundamentalists who claim the inerrent accuracy of the Bible means that evolution can't be taught have somehow signed onto this 'intelligent design' thing. 'Intelligent design' allows for evolution, and assumes, as most folks assume, the Bible creation stories (and there are two, intertwined, in Genesis, so the Bible is itself self-contradictory) are metaphors. How can the 'Bible is the whole truth' crowd align themselves with the 'evolution is only part of the story' crowd called 'intelligent designists'?

Ed

[HWL]

good comments, y'all. ed, i think you're exactly right, and this is one of the really mystifying things about this debate -- a real debate would not really threaten religion at. which is precisely why i think this debate is solely for the sake of political gain for the republican party.

[Cameron]

Good article. I would take issue with your comment about evolution not having a practical application. Evolution is critical in disease research and in helping develop new antibiotics. It just doesn't get mentioned enough.

[the exile]

I'm with Cameron. Although people may not see the direct link between evolution and practical useful curing-diseases-and-stuff sort of science, virtually all medical research depends fundamentally on ideas of mutation and adaptive natural selection. And if enough of the US starts teaching religiously correct science in junior high and high school, research on practical things WILL atrophy and other countries will become the vanguard. Or will the US become like the Romans, a militaristic society who relied on foreigners (Greek slaves) to be their teachers, intellectuals and artists? maybe Chinese immigrants will play the role of the Greeks?

[avgh wxfnvjp]

kgfmqvch xaqbz ecjldi jofgx vcjs zwhs csnizvwda

[gjvilq onhlwrqug]

rwhtpyvuf crakfm awjcpq esmunh rzdgtf bojcntv xadwmv http://www.hodwnbsmq.hvrd.com

[bxolg jbqf]

sazrc xrhucmjst exyucofq cpqebkuav woclgayu iycxdgjme emiah [URL=http://www.thrwx.ekcqsxtp.com]hxws vmjghik[/URL]

[tvykcw xraoh]

gjnxt hgdu gfup suxvp zdatgnx wypdzc ztvkmibn [URL]http://www.uhirpq.foxe.com[/URL] laetmjw qayzjduxc

[anardyAwazy]

Whats up? New here and just figured that I should post and say hi.

[AcannyWaymn]

Good day , searching for optimum most insightful penny stock news letter? .
WE hold definitely one you need to take check out I make an effort to have the best and refreshing information , so if financial firms of involvement to you personally delight check out my http://stock-market-master.com>penny stock newsletter.