Would The President of C.O.P.E. Please Stand Up?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Fantastic. Many thanks, Jorge. I'll give those pages some serious consideration.

This is now a discussion thread; everyone please remember to keep questions, critiques and opinions as scientific and impersonal as possible.

--Sam

[Tiggy]

Wow, what a steaming pile.

Let’s take a quick looksee.

Page 1: Rant about how religious discrimination is a terrible thing, demand that children not be taught only one religious view.

Page 2: Teach the controversy! Claim that the ToE is atheistic and/or is based on secular humanism, therefore ToE counts as a religion. Claim that by teaching ToE the Kansas standards would be teaching a religion.

Page 3: Whine that ToE is based on methodological naturalism and therefore excludes supernatural explanations. Conveniently ignore the fact that ALL science is based on methodological naturalism and excludes supernatural explanations.

Page 4: Try to create a false distinction between “operational science” and ‘historical science”. Demand again that historical sciences should be required to include the supernatural. Make the false claim that methodological naturalism excludes “competing hypotheses” like intelligent design.

Page 5: Demand again the standards teach that supernatural intervention was likely. Whine about how teaching “materialistic” ToE will turn kids into atheists. Begin standard list of Creationist PRATT arguments:

• life appears to be designed
• universe “fine-tuned” for human life,
• genetic code too complicate to have evolved.

Page 6: continued PRATT list:

• Don’t know every step in OOL therefore Design.
• Natural processes can’t create information
• Point to minority views like Shapiro’s that ToE is in disarray and divided by controversy.
• Argument from bogus probabilities
• Flat out lie about the effects of mutations.

Page 6: whine that Creationist definitions of terms be used.

Page 7. Whine because the standards don’t include the word “religion” they must be teaching atheism and are violating the rights of religious students. Claim that by the standards not including religion that the Fundys are victims of religious discrimination. Assert again that atheism is a religion.

Page 8: Whine because the personal religious beliefs of the science committee aren’t included that they must be hiding their atheistic agenda. Whine about Eugenie Scott (bet Jorge put that one in there, right? ) Claim that teaching ToE is the equivalent of indoctrination and evangelism about the religion of atheism.

Page 9-10: Complain that scientific views are agreed to by consensus, and that “big science” deliberately keeps out ideas it doesn’t like. EXPELLED!! Whine that inputs for the standards only came from legitimate scientific sources and not from Creationist ones.

Wow Jorge. No wonder you were embarrassed for that to be seen in public. The whole letter is basically a demand for an affirmative action program for Creationist stupidity.

- T

[Ansgar Seraph]

As scientific and impersonal as possible, please!

[Tiggy]

As scientific and impersonal as possible, please!

I looked hard but I didn't see any scientific content in there to address.

- T

[phank]

Maybe we can start with the letter's point #1, which sets up the playing field for the rest of it. And that point is that IF Jorge's religion makes a claim testable by science, then ipso facto anything science says about it encroaches on religious territory. In other words, science is a competing religion to the extent that anything it ivestigates overlaps any creationist belief.

Oddly enough, science also overlaps claims made by the Hindu religion, but these don't seem to count.

As has been pointed out many times, if a religion invades the territory properly claimed by science, this is a problem for the religion and not for science. If we read the remainder of the letter and omit any arguments it makes that rest on this initial false territorial claim, there really isn't anything left at all.

[Tiggy]

OK, here's a science question.

Jorge, in your letter you made this demand:

"Accordingly, we believe the Framework and Standards must (1) describe methods of testing
historical hypotheses in historical sciences by seeking the best of competing explanations"

Please describe for us the scientific method of testing the hypothesis of Biblical Genesis Special Creation that you want the standards to include. Describe how to test that the universe and all life in it was created only 6000 years ago, and that a global Flood killed all life except for a few mating pairs only 4500 years ago. Please list the observations that would falsify the hypothesis.

Thanks in advance.

- T

[phank]

Moving along with the letter, point #2 quote-mines court decisions to fabricate the argument that religion has nothing necessarily to do with deities or the supernatural, but in fact includes anything you choose to SAY it includes.

Point #3 is that in omitting Jorge's god from science, science is making a religious statement, which makes it "secular humanism", which means atheism. Since they SAY atheism is a religion, therefore it IS a religion according to a misunderstanding of the courts.

Point #4 misrepresents the nature of science, almost beyond recognition, by declaring that one of the rules of science is that religious evidence must be ignored. The complaint, to be as generous as I can be, is that scientific hypotheses require TESTING, and since the creationist god can't be tested, science is therefore explicitly atheistic, because science is not permitted to see what isn't there. And there's more stuff in there about how actual testing, being inherently atheistic, violates the religious rights of children to remain ignorant of the nature of science.

Point #5 goes to considerable lengths to draw a distinction between "historical" and "experimental" sciences, for the purpose of discarding "historical" sciences. After all, life LOOKS designed, and since it was designed back in history where "real" science can't go, we can only use our conclusions as our postulates. Because science draws conclusions from evidence rather than confecting "evidence" as required by conclusions, it is inherently atheistic. And science atheism is hereby DEFINED as a religion, it's illegal!

Anyway, more when I can generate another healty dose of Willing Suspension of Personal Integrity.

[Tiggy]

Maybe we can start with the letter's point #1, which sets up the playing field for the rest of it. And that point is that IF Jorge's religion makes a claim testable by science, then ipso facto anything science says about it encroaches on religious territory. In other words, science is a competing religion to the extent that anything it investigates overlaps any creationist belief.

According to Jorge, we can't teach that lightning is cause by an electric charge differential in clouds, because that would contradict that the Norse God Thor causes thunder and lightning.

According to Jorge, we can't teach that welling underground magma cause volcanoes to erupt, because that would contradict that the Hawaiian Goddess Pele causes eruptions.

According to Jorge, we can't teach that Mercury and Venus are planets that orbit the sun, because that would contradict that the Aztec God Quetzalcoatl is responsible for the morning and evening stars.

Right Jorge?

- T

[phank]

Tiggy,

I'll bet a nickel that Jorge only wants to see HIS religious claims included as science. Your post, by implication, accuses Jorge of both honesty and consistency, accusations he's guaranteed to renounce in strong language.

[rogue06]

As has been pointed out many times, if a religion invades the territory properly claimed by science, this is a problem for the religion and not for science.

And vice versa

[phank]

And vice versa

To support this assertion, you really need to address Tiggy's post #38 in detail. The problem here is, science investigates everything for which scientific evidence can be generated. This does NOT render science any sort of religion just because SOME of these things overlap SOME religious assertions. If science were not allowed to investigate anything impinging on any religious position (of any religion), there'd be precious little it could investigate, and practically nothing it DID investigate could be presented in science class.

You might read the letter.

[rogue06]

To support this assertion, you really need to address Tiggy's post #38 in detail. The problem here is, science investigates everything for which scientific evidence can be generated. This does NOT render science any sort of religion just because SOME of these things overlap SOME religious assertions. If science were not allowed to investigate anything impinging on any religious position (of any religion), there'd be precious little it could investigate, and practically nothing it DID investigate could be presented in science class.

You might read the letter.

I wasn't addressing the letter from Jorge's group but rather what you said. I agree that "if a religion invades the territory properly claimed by science, this is a problem for the religion and not for science" but conversely if science invades the territory properly claimed by religion (or philosophy for that matter), this is a problem for science and not for religion.

[phank]

Ah, I didn't read it that way (and I should have, sorry). And I agree with you, science has no business doing religion either. I think you could make a good case that teleological explanations fall outside the competence of science.

Though it would be helpful to me if you were able to cite some instances where science (as opposed to some specific scientists) invaded non-scientific territory.

[Carrikature]

My initial impression is that, with some decent proofreading and editing, this 10 page letter could have been condensed in a manner which was both more clear and more concise.

I'll start putting together a critique of the major points.

[Carrikature]

1. The “stakeholders” COPE represents are children, parents and taxpayers who share our
views regarding the need for objectivity in public education that addresses religious issues.
COPE is a nonprofit organization that seeks to ensure neutrality in the teaching of subjects in
public schools that touch on religious issues. Curricula that address religious questions should
objectively inform students in a manner that produces a religiously neutral effect, given the age
and maturity of the expected audience. This approach not only seeks to preserve the religious
rights of children, parents and taxpayers, but it also promotes critical thinking and logical
analysis important to good education.

This part is pretty straightforward. I don't understand why children are being represented, as they legally have very few, if any, rights. However, taken on its own, this section *should* be fairly clear. Note: I'm not saying that the curricula in question does address religious questions. Rather, I'm consenting that religiously-oriented curricula in a public education system should be as objective as possible. And yes, this includes Pele and Thor.

Subject to the rights of parents to direct their religious education, children have the right to
choose what to believe about important religious issues, whether theistic, pantheistic or atheistic.

If the curriculum promotes only one of competing religious viewpoints then it will indoctrinate
in the preferred view rather than objectively teach about it. This will effectively deprive the
child of the right to make an informed decision about the religious issue. Religious
indoctrination will also take away the right of parents to direct the religious education of their
children. Similarly, it will offend the rights of taxpayers who do not support the particular
religious position being presented to students and classify them as outsiders within the
community.

IF it can be shown that failing to present all viewpoints can and will indoctrinate children, I would allow this section a pass. However, I think this section fails to take into account the parental rights and obligations. Ideally, parents should take an active interest in their child's education. Presumably, parents who feel the need to join COPE agree with this. I fail to see how a parent could take an active interest without addressing any concerns, religious or otherwise, on a regular basis. Further, if the issues with teaching evolution in school are as obvious as this letter would imply, it should take little effort on the parents' part to set the record straight.

The State may satisfy its First Amendment obligations by excluding religious subject matter
from the curriculum. It can also include the subject matter if it does so objectively and in a
neutral manner that respects the Constitutional rights of children, parents and taxpayers. This
may be accomplished with some subjects through carefully designed programs that inform
students of the competing or alternative viewpoints that lead to differing religious implications
and inferences. Neutrality may also be achieved through an objective consideration of the
strengths and weaknesses of explanations that support a particular religious viewpoint.
Objectivity opens rather than closes the minds of students. It encourages critical thinking about
answers to ultimate questions that may profoundly affect the way they choose to lead their lives.
Objectivity and neutrality will also enhance science education by encouraging critical and
independent thinking and analysis.

I'm fairly happy with this section. I'm not going to address whether or not First Amendment rights are actually being violated at this time.

We are furnishing this comment because the Framework and Standards address religious
questions and then provide Atheistic/materialistic explanations in a manner that is not likely to
produce a religiously neutral effect.

This remains to be seen. I'll be perfectly honest and say I have not read the Framework and Standards, nor do I intend to unless it becomes necessary. I think we can work within the content/context of this letter for the time being.