The CFI World Congress had Michael Ruse speak on science education and religion, which I could have told anyone would be a ghastly mistake. The guy has got some very peculiar notions that, if more widely accepted, would destroy science education in this country. Larry Moran was annoyed to find that scientists aren’t being asked to speak on this issue, while Kristine Harley seems appalled at some of his specific answers.
Then, Michael Ruse drew the analogy that a science teacher who taught evolution without mentioning the Bible or God, but nevertheless caused a conflict within a student who was indoctrinated by creationism, was attacking that student’s beliefs (actually that student’s parents’ beliefs) and therefore violating the Constitution!
Using this argument, Michael Ruse then compared the above science teacher to a teacher who taught the students that “some animals with certain genitals are inferior to other animals with different genitals,” and then claimed, “Oh, I said nothing about men and women! I didn’t teach one was inferior to another!” Now, I ask you, is that analogy apt? Considering I was the only woman who asked a question, and it didn’t get answered?
Well, a man asked him if a teacher taught that the value of pi was 3.14 but a parent believes that it is three (as it is in the Bible), if the teacher was, according to Ruse, violating the Constitution. Ruse said yes! (Then he attempted to spin it and accused Tabash again of being dishonest.)
Then he said, “I agree with Eddie Tabash! I don’t want The Flood taught in schools!” ignoring the obvious fact that, by what he claimed above, any teacher teaching geology would, according to Ruse, be attacking theology, rendering the teaching of geology “unconstitutional” and allowing that parent to block the subject or remove the child.
See what I mean? If we interpreted Constitutional restriction on the endorsement of religion in the classroom to mean that we could never teach anything that contradicts a religion somewhere, we could teach nothing at all.
Looks like you forgot to close the second URL tag
and if something slips through that doesn’t contradict the bible… i’ll make something up in my religion that it does contradict! BAM
< /a> ?
Off Topic, but since I have PZEnvy and will never get Donahoe to hate me, maybe PZ will topic us on this:
http://thefaithfulpenguin.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-catholic-inanity.html
I have a friend who is very smart yet still insists on believing that shaving hair makes it grow back thicker and darker. Should we prohibit biology classes from teaching her facts that go against her belief?
Well then. I had typed a closed “A” tag, and it still became invisible even though it was broken apart with spaces.
But yeah. You should probably clean up your markup. The blue hurts mein augen. :(
I bestow upon Paul Zachary Myers the title of
Earl of Unclosed Tags
He shall forever be known as such.
Whaddya expect? Michael Ruse is from Florida!
*ducks hail of rotten citrus*
The bible contradicts the bible. Does that make it unconstitutional?
I’m having a hard time believing Ruse actually wants us to not teach evolution, but reading Kristine’s blog,I can’t tell WHAT the hell he wants, other than a vague impression it involves bending over backwards to accomodat religious sensitivities.
Incoherent and annoying- yup, sounds like Ruse all right. Such as he are the reason why, to the shock of some, Paul Feyerabend has long been my favorite philosopher of science; if you set aside some of his little shock-the-bourgeois fusillades, his basic point is that philosophers have nothing of value to say about how science ought to be done, and should just shut up and let the scientists get on with it.
Another Joel, it did that because HTML is more ‘logical’ than people – which causes some unexpected behavior. HTML renderers will read anything within ‘< ' and '>‘ as a tag, whitespace insensitive; even if it doesn’t recognize the tag as anything, it still won’t show it.
If you want a tag to show as text, rather than have it interpreted, you need to use < and > – this will be displayed as ““.
The more you know!
There should be an amendment caveat that says freedom from stupidity.
Michael Ruse: Undercover IDiot.
Ruse is the Cliff Claven of philosophers. It’s amazing that someone gives him a forum, instead of letting him hold court at a bar somewhere while the regulars ignore him, and the new people listen for about a minute and then find an excuse to leave.
Hmm, and in today’s lesson, I learn that when you preview a comment, it interprets all of the ampersand abbreviations, and changes it in your comment text.
Weird!
My above post was supposed to be:
Another Joel, it did that because HTML is more ‘logical’ than people – which causes some unexpected behavior. HTML renderers will read anything within ‘<‘ and ‘>’ as a tag, whitespace insensitive; even if it doesn’t recognize the tag as anything, it still won’t show it.
If you want a tag to show as text, rather than have it interpreted, you need to use < and > – this will be displayed as “<and>”.
The more you know!
The bible also says the earth is flat, the center of the solar system, and insects have 4 legs.
And Ruse neglects to point out that the majority of xian sects worldwide don’t share his Death Cult viewpoint that mythology is real. Creationism isn’t xian, it is narrow fundie cult insanity that other xians find cuckoo.
And what is so privileged about Death Cult xianity in the US constitution? The scientologists say that we were all dumped here by Xenu the Galactic overload about 70 million years ago in the age of the dinosaurs. The billions of soul sucking Thetan ghosts haunting us were produced by blowing up large nukes in volcanos like Mr. Shasta and Mr. Etna. Which BTW, didn’t even exist then.
The dozens of Amerind creation stories have quite different explanations.
If the schools censored their curriculum to avoid contradicting any religion’s mythology, it would be a short school year producing near illiterates.
Ruse is indeed a malevolent idiot.
I was teaching a unit on logarithms in an intermediate algebra class and used a problem involving carbon-dating as an illustration of their application. A student came up to me at the end of the class period and solemnly informed me that my math was wrong because her religion told her that carbon-dating was false. I asked her to point out the mistake in my calculation. She sniffed at me and marched off.
Logarithms! Tool of the devil.
What if a religious belief was that not teaching a particular topic was sacrilegious? Then teaching that topic and not teaching it would both be unconstitutional.
Moses @ # 4 – helluva catch!
Don’t worry, Donohue does hate you, even if he doesn’t know it yet.
Send him an illustrated copy of Orlando, and then he’ll know…
This is the problem with resting the entire argument against Creationism as “violation of separation of Church and State.” Creationism shouldn’t be taught because it’s wrong — not because it’s ‘religious.’ Yet there is nothing in the Constitution which protects science from bad science — only from religion. So the people fighting Creationism think they have to rest the bulk of their case on the separation of church and state argument.
What that argument does, however, is grant religious beliefs a special, protected status. People’s faiths are people’s sacred virtues, and they have a “right” to keep them inviolate. You can’t bring them into question in the school room. Nobody should ever feel as if their faith is being “attacked” in an institution funded by taxpayers.
How is faith “attacked?” By introducing doubt. Faith can’t stand on its own merit against reason and evidence, so virtually everything is a potential threat to someone’s faith. And now you’ve got conflict. Sacred spaces like that are a bad idea.
I think Ruse failed to mention those annoying “evolutionists” who continue to insist that bats aren t birds. /Deut. 14:11-18/
How do people this dumb even have the ability to survive?!
My sister teaches kids at a fundie school in Texas.
This is the kind of twisted stuff their teaching them now:
http://www.baptistcommentary.com/2007/earth-could-be-millions-of-years-old.htm
“Nor would anyone argue that the animals were of adult age and the trees and plants which were provided as their food source was already old enough to bear fruit. Yet when someone says that the earth is millions or even billions of years old they tend to object, to which I ask “Why?”
If God created man and animals in a state other than that of an embryo, and plants and trees instead of seeds and bulbs, why could he not have also created earth with canyons, continental divides, soil layers, etc… so that it also was created at an age older than a single day?
So it is my opinion that the earth may indeed be millions or even billions of years old, but has only been in existence for about 7000 years, just as Adam was 14 years old or more, but had only been in existence for a single day.”
This is not just one persons opinion, It’s what Baptist are teaching their kids.
This kind of thinking makes reasonable discussions impossible.
So what do we do?
They’ve been successfully ignoring science, evidence and reason for what? 1900 years? I guess Ruse doesn’t have as much faith in his faith that he thinks he has. He need to pray more.
The only reason to bring up issues like those is to understand why creationists are offended by being taught actual science.
But it’s their problem that they’re offended by being taught what’s real.
Ruse should tell us why astronomy should be taught without astrology being given its “due,” since people whose religious beliefs include astrology are no doubt offended when astronomy is taught as superior to astrology.
Of course, one could even argue that creationism isn’t being put down by teaching evolution. Only if “revelation” is considered to be inferior to science does it make sense to say that merely teaching the scientific processes and answers constitute any attack upon religion.
Unfortunately for Ruse and like morons, virtually everyone does implicitly accept that science is superior to religion. Again, though, that’s only the problem that it is, not that schools are actually teaching that science is superior to religion.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Using this argument, Michael Ruse then compared the above science teacher to a teacher who taught the students that “some animals with certain genitals are inferior to other animals with different genitals
Hear that biology teachers? You had better not teach children that angler fish exist. The males of that species are vastly inferior, as they exist merely to attach themselves to a female (parasite-like) and shrivel up to uselessness. Talk about a sugar momma!
If you teach them that, people will think your sexist. Well, unless they have an IQ above that of a cucumber.
I was at the CFI Conference when Ruse made these statements. The surprise and frustration in the audience was palpable. (One minor correction…in his example, he didn’t say “genitals”, rather he referenced chromosomal differences between men and women). Nevertheless, it was a stupid example, and he seemed truly befuddled by the legal and scientific issues related to his proposal.
This is the Omphalos hypothesis. It is morally twisted beyond belief.
1. It is a variant of Last Thursdyism. If the earth was created 6000 years ago looking 4.5 billion years ago, it and we could have been created…yesterday on thursday, complete with all our memories. It could also end next thursday and god the game player could create another universe. Maybe the dinosaurs evolved intelligence in the next one. This makes us and our lives completely meaningless not to mention short, a week.
2. The deity who would create an new world that looks old is a sadistic, evil monster. It says, believe in me or go to hell and be tortured for all eternity. Then it makes itself invisible and makes it look like it doesn’t exist. Such a being might be feared but never respected or worshipped.
Fundies are just stupid when they are not lying or being evil.
Baptists are divided up into 30 or so sects. Hard to believe they are all this dumb.
Zeno #18 sez “Logarithms! Tool of the devil.”
Aha! That’s why Napier threw them in a drawer so he could concentrate on his important work ! Apparently the book of Revelation says that the world will end in 1688. Repent! repent! As proven by a bona fide mathematical genius ;)
Glen Davidson #26 wrote:
In India a few years back, several of the universities were teaching astrology as a science — as a branch of astronomy.
I know some people who would buy into Ruse’s argument (or what he seems to be arguing) regarding the importance of making sure that nobody ever has their faith views challenged in science class. They seem to feel that, in the long run, the only progress which matters is spiritual progress. Everything else in the world — including science, technology, and politics — are tools we use in our journey towards God or Spirit. Respect all beliefs, and you will end up at the same place: universal enlightenment.
These folks would love the idea of a science class teaching completely contradictory theories as separate but equal, in much the same way they love the idea of a religious studies class teaching all the faiths as separate but equal. It’s so wonderfully non-judgmental, and therefore progressive. They’re living out tiny little meta-narratives in their heads — where humanity all strives through different paths, only to discover holistic Truth at the end.
@Fl bluefish (#24);
The “Last Thursdayist” approach to scientific discovery amuses me greatly. It reminds me of Bishop Berkeley: we’ll *pretend* that atoms and molecules and light actually exist, because they make useful predictions, even though we really *know* that we’re souls experiencing an illusory world created by God.
Of course, the doublethink required to believe the world is billions of years old while doing science and “know” it’s a few thousand elsewhere is beyond most school kids, or indeed beyond most adults raised outside a cult.
… Is it just me, or is Michael’s last name waaay too ironic? I mean, really, it’s just perfect.
@Sastra
You do know Michael Ruse in an atheist right?
here is an interview with him here
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ruse.htm
But is that not the avowed intent of the fundamentalist pilgrim to jeebus?…and do you not think that ID would back that up to the hilt?
Creationists liked to publicly boast …not so very long ago…that they want to discredit and ban evolutionary theory from every textbook…school and University in the land and beyond…although they learnt some valuable lessons…it is only whispered now among themselves to make each other pant a little in ecstasy…
Now you see the emphasis changed to ‘teach the controversy’ and seeing as there is no controversy they seem able to convince others of now it is ‘analysis of weaknesses in evolution’…they are living proof that evolution occurs in their micro sized brain on a macro level…
That’s the point…and they are using every manipulative trick they can find…up to…and almost exclusively…lying their collective butts off…
And if allowed to compete with Evolutionary theory they will surely sneak it elsewhere in science…geology is a prime target also…let alone ancillary biology.
That is the game plan formulated in the wedge document…that is the goal…cripple science education…return the USA to the 16th century…well the parts not already there… and take their chances with jeebus…simple like so!
Sometimes I think they might just do it…because apathy and indulgence in the religious viewpoint by secular authority is fast becoming dogmalogged to the point that it will not be indulgence…or freedom of speech but simply mandatory….stat!
Some fundie cults actually allow this sort of doublethink.
You are allowed to believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
As long as you also believe Adam and Eve were real people and the earth is 6,000 years old.
And allowed to admit that you and no one else knows how to reconcile those mutally contradictory statements.
Seems too much work for most to keep such cognitive dissonance going but humans are adaptable.
Posted by: Kristoff | April 10, 2009 10:59 AM
I think Ruse failed to mention those annoying “evolutionists” who continue to insist that bats aren t birds. /Deut. 14:11-18/
Just had to go check out Deuteronomy…
I think it says we’re not aloud to eat squid….They are unclean.
14:10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
You do know that
1) we’re all aware of this, and
2) it’s totally irrelevant to the fact that he says really dumb things.
Right?
@#18,
You asked her to correct your work but did you ask her to show hers? To show her calculations that would disprove yours? You should have required her to present her work or have her grades reflect her lack of effort.
I first ran into Ruse on Nightline, or something, were he was supposed to be against…Dembski, I think. He put on such a pathetic showing that I figured he was an ID supporter, even though he says he is not. I think he’s gotten his head too far up his philosophy to realize what he is saying (and this is without assuming that what he said above is 100% accurate – I’m thinking of everything else I’ve heard him say). If the above is accurate, it’s pathetic.
Creationists who reject C14 dating don’t typically argue against the math. They argue that C14/12 ratios were different in the past, that samples are contaminated, that the flood washed in C12 or washed out C14.
I would have asked the student to work backwards from a result less than 10 thousand years to what the ratio of isotopes would have to have been to get this result.
Just a thought on this problem.
Seems that part of the problem stems from the need for some objective standards that education must meet. A uniform set of objectives that students must understand to be get certified by the state as educated. What if we let the “market place” determine what it thinks it wants in educated “workers” by letting people, students and parents, determine what they want to study if they do not want any “anti-creation science” then they do not have to take it. Let the Businesses and industries that feel they require good science education pick those with the appropriate education. Doctors would need grounding in the sciences, Geologists would need to understand geological history as well as physics, chemistry.
Grocery clerks would need to be able to read and write and do simple math.
The big issue I see is that the creationists and the fundies want the benefits of an education, increased earning potential and prestige without doing the work of learning the “new learning” (none middle ages)
It is a choice that they should be able make.
If you do not like the practices of modern medicine you should not get to call yourself a MD or a Pharmacist. let the “all powerful Market” determine with the appropriate testing and certification what it wants.
an idea. what are the flaws please
@daveau (#9) we should be so lucky!
Let’s see. According to Dr. Ruse:
Evolution teaches an atheistic point of view. Atheism is a religion. Promotion of religion in a public school classroom is unconstitutional.
Therefore, teaching evolution is unconstitutional.
OK, fine.
Any alternative to evolution is either a form of Creationism or Intelligent Design.
Both Creationism and ID are religious in nature, invoking either a supernatural creator or a supernatural designer. Both violate my religious beliefs as an atheist.
Because promotion of religion in a public school classroom is unconstitutional, teaching any alternatives to evolution is ALSO unconstitutional.
Therefore, we just shouldn’t teach anything at all, because it might come into conflict with someone’s religion, and that would be a de facto endorsement of religion, and that would be wrong.
Dr. Ruse: TARD and FAIL.
Interesting – Ruse is the co-editor of the new “Evolution the First Four Billion Years” with essay contributions from people like Francisco Ayala and Genie Scott. I read his intro and was doing fine up until the BS about the wonders of evolutionary science glorifying his god. Generally a very interesting book, if you can overlook the religulousity in the intro.
Uh-oh! Factual contradiction between comments 34/38 @ 45!
Is Ruse an atheist, or does he have a god (& if so, which?)?
Inquiring minds gotta know!
Ye gads. “@” = “&” in # 46.
Could someone please reference where the Bible says “PI is 3”?
I Kings 7:23 –
Pi equals 3 twice.
See 1 Kg.7:23
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1kg/7.html#23
and 2 Chr.4:2
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/4.html#2
At #29…
Baptists are divided up into 30 or so sects. Hard to believe they are all this dumb.
I don’t know….check this out:
Carter cuts ties to ‘rigid’ Southern Baptists
Source: Atlanta Constitution-Journal, 20 October 2000
By: Gayle White
URL: http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/newsatlanta/carter/carter1020.html
Former President Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher since he was 18 years old, is cutting ties with his denomination, which he says is becoming increasingly “rigid.”
“This has been a very difficult thing for me,” Carter said in an interview Thursday. “My grandfather, my father and I have always been Southern Baptists, and for 21 years, since the first political division took place in the Southern Baptist Convention, I have maintained that relationship. I feel I can no longer in good conscience do that.”
Michael Ruse — A Personal Encounter:
Several years ago, while I was on the academic job market, I got a call from Ruse: I had applied for a position in the department in which he was then employed, and he wanted to arrange an informal meeting with me at the Eastern Division meetings of APA (the big jobs conference), which we were both going to be attending. We met, and after a few pleasantries he simply declared, without asking me any questions about my work, that I did not adequately fit the job description. When I protested he simply stated that I was no longer going to be considered for the job and sent me on my way.
Presumably he had opposed my candidacy for the position, but there had been some dispute in his department about it. And, again presumably, he met with me so he could claim to his colleagues that I had confessed, or otherwise revealed, that I wasn’t really suitable. Fucking dickhead.
And, as the current post/ thread reveals, Ruse’s dickishness has not been tempered by time.
Never even heard of Michael Ruse before.
Doesn’t look like I missed anything. And he looks like a grade A kook.
To be consistent, Mr. Ruse should certainly insist that any teacher that caused any of his students to question elements of his religion should be condemned to drink a bowl of poison hemlock. (This is exactly the crime for which Socrates was condemned to death.)
FP #34 wrote:
I wasn’t sure if he was an atheist or a liberal theist (I had thought he had some non-traditional, ideosyncratic definition of God), but your link and Moran’s essay have him acknowledging he doesn’t believe in God. His atheism, I think, is one of the buttery “friendly-to-faith” versions, which inspires and supports the happy-clappy non-critical sort of “every religious view is legitimate” viewpoint I was trying to describe.
This usually ends up going one of three ways: religion is aesthetics; all religions are really the same; or, being self-contradictory and illogical is a good thing. Sometimes all 3.
PA @ # 52: Fucking dickhead.
Well, if one criterion for the job was that you had to have a philosophical attitude, you’ve just proved him right.
*ducks hail of rotten textbooks*
@56
If by a “philosophical attitude” you mean quiet tolerance of dickishness, then, no, I didn’t (and don’t) have that characteristic. But I don’t recall it being part of the job description.
Ruse is evidence that one can be a PhD philosopher and still be an ignorant idiot.
I’m not sure I follow Ruse’s analogy here. It was premised by “If Darwinism [sic] implies atheism, does teaching it [evolution] in school become unconstitutional?.” He’s argued elsewhere (and continues) that evolution doesn’t imply atheism. And he’s also argued that some forms of “evolutionism” are a religion, namely, those who take evolution to imply atheism, when it doesn’t!
So I take the analogy to be that if you take evolution to be atheism, then you’ve got evolution as a religion…call it “evolutionism.” At that point, you’ve got the conclusion that PZ drew, which is you can’t teach anything. So what do you do…you don’t accept the claim that evolution implies atheism.
A couple of things that should be mentioned–before all of the “PZ enviers” (of which I am one) attack Ruse–is that Ruse has done a fair amount of work on the side of teaching science (e.g. Arkansas 1981, and a long list of publications since), and Barbara Forrest–who was another philosopher on the panel–has a done a great service uncovering a number of motives from the DI (see her and Paul Gross’ http://books.google.com/books?id=raqJjM9LkeAC&dq=creationism's+trojan+horse&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=La7fSaDdGIKkmQe86tGKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4, . These folks might not be scientists, but they’ve done their part in helping to keep ID out of public schools.
As for the atheist question(s): Ruse is not a believer. But unlike Dawkins, he’s sympathetic to their views. And doesn’t think the two are imcompatible. It’s quite clear that he in no way feels that creationism/ID should be taught as science and/or in a science classroom, or as an alternative to science, etc. If people want to learn about the design argument, teach it in a history/philosphy of science classroom, as it usually is.
@45, Ruse isn’t the believer; evolutionary biolgist and co-editor, Joe Travis, is the believer.
@52 and 56, interesting story.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the Constitution says that Congress will pass no law establishing a religion. Logically, that doesn’t mean that Congress must not pass a law that effectively refutes one, nor must it pass laws that make all religious beliefs equal. What it really says is that the government can’t get into the business of deciding which religion is right, or is favored over the others.
On that basis alone, what those folks were saying makes no sense.
As an FSU alum, I am kind of embarrassed by him. I have heard him speak many times and have met him a few times and I have not been particularly impressed with either his style or his content. And yet his certain amount of fame means that he can’t just be swept into a dusty corner of the Philosophy Department and forgotten about.
Fl bluefish:
The author was on a roll until his last statement:
It actually doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
raven:
No more so than believing the evidence is literally true. Both ideas are unfalsifiable.
And as for it being evil:Not necessarily. A kind and loving god could have created the universe this way as a favor to scientists, to give them a head start on understanding how it works!
What the hell is Ruse meant to be talking about? Folks who remember the old Beetles’ “Sergeant Pepper” album may recall that extremely annoying last track that skipped back onto itself. As the story goes (and I have no idea of its veracity) one of the Beetles picked up some of the recording tape, cut it up, glued pieces every which way onto lead tape, and played the jumble. The resulting garbled noise makes more sense than Ruse.
Thank you for alerting me to this issue. I have now initialed legal proceedings against my old high school for violating my constitutional rights by teaching in English class that the works of Shakespeare were written by a mere human, whereas my religion teaches that these works are of divine origin. Does the bible not tells us that god, after banishing Adam and Eve from the sacred garden, then left an angel of the lord, brandishing (shaking) a flaming sword to guard the garden from their reentry? And is the name “William” not just a corruption of “Elohim”? So, now we know the true source of these inerrant words with their indisputable moral lessons, and any suggestion that Queen Ellie I or Bacon are the original authors is pure blasphemy.
I’m at the conference but I got in too late for the opening volleys. And for some reason my wireless connection doesn’t work in the conference areas. Sigh.
But The Amazing Randi is amazing!
Posted by: uncle frogy @ 42 “… What if we let the “market place” determine what it thinks it wants in educated “workers” by letting people, students and parents, determine what they want to study if they do not want any “anti-creation science” then they do not have to take it. … let the “all powerful Market” determine with the appropriate testing and certification what it wants. … what are the flaws please”
1. It would create a class-based society where the religious, uneducated get low-paid jobs (and will be stuck there for generations even if the religious fervor wanes) and the less religious educated get the higher-paid jobs and would set up the country for continual hardship in some sectors and eventual civil war. At least now if any kid from an over-religious family has an epiphany about reality s/he has a basic education level that allows for further study and escape, which allows for some hope of social mobility.
2. It would waste the minds of all those intelligent kids that had the misfortune to be born in the wrong family. Or at least set them up with even greater roadblocks to education than they were born with.
3. The market would probably be quite happy to have an uneducated underclass to work for even less money than they do at present and would eventually have systems set up maintain their advantage. Which is a shame considering the last century of effort to improve workers’ and female rights. You want to just hand that all back without a fight.
4. Providing a broad-based education for everyone makes it easier for kids to see the world as it is for themselves. Most of them will remain trapped in their parent’s worldview to some extent, but the way of escape is there for those who are able to see it and want to take it. Yes it’s stressful for the kids to have their beliefs challenged and it’s stressful for the teacher to be challenged, but it’s necessary for the society people want to live in.
I think education is the foundation of a free society. If you want a society that allows some measure of individual freedom (social, economic, political and religious) you have to invest in the education of the people. Whether they want it or not. Parents can pull their kids out of school and stunt their prospects for life if they want, but the government shouldn’t be doing it for them.
This Michael Ruse sounds very much like a regular poster over at RDnet/forum called Seth.
Tis Himself #58 says, “Ruse is evidence that one can be a PhD philosopher and still be an ignorant idiot.”
Ruse is also evidence consistent with the possibility that “philosophy” is the occupation of ignorant idiots.
Never mind the PhD. That just tends to amplify as well as aggravate the presumption of competence.
I prefer to see PhD’s in a particular field issued to people who actually all study the same damned thing and can reach something resembling a consensus out of independently verifiable observation.
I had, up to this point treated Mr Ruse as a voice worth listening to… No more.
Has he taken complete leave of his senses? Are we supposed to take the complete slander of the Ancient Egyptians as historical fact? Are we supposed to treat every man with an equal number of ribs as a freak?
By the dog, science is too precious to prostitute it to religious dogma. The bible was writtten by people who weren’t in a position to know what we now know, yet didn’t have Socrates’ wisdom not to write of that they did not know.
As a philospher, Ruse should NEVER side with the ignorant. He betrays Socrates’ memory and there is no greater failure.
I think that if the marketplace sets the standards of what it wants in an educated person and that we the people as a whole provide for that education but let there be clear choice about the expectations. Letting all who have the desire and the ability to learn what ever subjects that they wanted and at the same time fully fund and staff such institutions as would be required. It would not be very long before the ideal of an educated population would be accomplished. Very few people would allow themselves or there children not to take advantage of that education.
That is not what we do now of course. We do not fund or staff our primary or secondary schools any where near an adequate level for that. Our institutions of higher learning the universities and colleges are struggling also and all cost a small fortune.
I think that the market gets what it wants now!
But they have a problem though, they need an educated work force but an educated work force is harder to control, they want too much money and see through the B.S. quicker. So they do not advocate in any serious reform in education and export work to lower wage countries when they can and bring in lower wage immigrant workers both skilled and unskilled when they can. While we fight the good fight over the scraps that are left of funding and struggle to keep education real.
creationism, pass them through, buildings falling apart.?
At the risk of stating the obvious, the Constitution says that Congress will pass no law establishing a religion.
No, it doesn’t say that. In fact, that misreading is common among religious conservatives who claim that Congress can do anything short of that even if pro-religion or pro- some religion.
Unfortunately, what it does say is doubly ambiguous, as both “respecting” and “an establishment of” have multiple meanings.
I prefer to see PhD’s in a particular field issued to people who actually all study the same damned thing and can reach something resembling a consensus out of independently verifiable observation.
It might do to remember that “Ph” stands for “Philosophy”. You’re talking about science, but Ph.D.’s are also given in non-scientific fields, like philosophy and literature.
Not that it’s really relevant here; Ruse could have a Ph.D. in, say, crystallography, and he still would have no authority in regard to religion, evolution, education, and the law. All that matters are his arguments themselves … which are rotten.
Ruse claims that teaching reality may be disturbing to certain people, that these people have a legal right not to have their prejudices questioned, and therefore reality should not be taught. No wonder philosophy has such a bad reputation among non-philosophers.
Ruse has somehow become completely befuddled about these issues. I hope we’re not seeing another Antony Flew situation emerging here. That would be tragic. If he were ten years older, I’d be really worried about that; as it is, I wonder whether this is bitterness of some kind, rather than senility, that’s distorting his judgment.
But whatever the case, he deserves our respect if only for what he did when he was younger. Some of you write as if you don’t know who he is and how much we all owe him for his HUGE contributions to the struggle against creationism. He ought to be one of our heroes, but he’s throwing it away for whatever reasons.
To be perfectly honest I had never heard of Michael Ruse before yesterday. The ever authoritative wikipedia informs me that
Fine, he was a good guy 28 years ago. Apparently he’s lost his way since then.
We already have in this country a system in which the educated become more educated, the superstitious more superstitious. Now we are seeing the creation of a system (Regent and Liberty Universities, homeschooling, “Academic Freedom” bills, etc.) by which the superstitious can claim to be educated.
Is there any way to assert a fact without, in fact, tripping on someone’s superstition (“alternative” fact)? I think not.
Therefore, Ruse would have these kids, who let’s remember cannot really hold any religious beliefs themselves but are beholden to their parents’ religious beliefs, exist in an echo chamber, whereas children of educated parents would receive an education. This becomes, as I said, a class issue.
That’s what it all comes down to for me: that we cannot, in the name of religious or cultural “sensitivity” impose an educational apartheid in our society!
I was at the conference as well. There seemed to be a profound disconnect between Tobash’s comments regarding legality and Ruses assertion involving philosophy. These things are not fungible. Philosophically, any idea can be debated, however practical application of these ideas is quite another animal. This is where I think the audience had difficulty and Ruse himself seemed to vacillate and back peddle as though chasing an argument that has no connection. I was waiting for him to offer a practical avenue of action rather than to simply create doubt and obfuscate. I cannot help thinking that he could not think of anything else to contribute to the conference.