Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Paul,

1) Explain to me how business as a whole profits from the THEORY of evolution or embryonic stem cell research?

2) Also, a quick correction. Stem cell research is on-going and the actual current medicinal uses of stem cell research is coming from ADULT stem cell research, which the majority of the religious right are not against. Besides, current embryonic stem cell research is also on-going…it’s just not a booming business because PRIVATE funds are not flooding in. I wonder why that might be, could it be that this research isn’t nearly as promising as the left claims?

The religious right is against the reverence and false infallibility with which some treat science and against science that actively belittles human life. This does not endanger the science that businesses need. Nor have you cited a reasonable explaination as to how it would. You’ve merely demonstrated resistence against minor aspects of science, and leapt to the conclusion that all science is somehow doomed in the United States.

Our lack of sufficient scientists is less determined by the religious right and more determined by the recruiting efforts of our higher education institutions and the education our children receive in all our schools. You can’t have good scientifically-minded youths who can compete with the highly educated children of other nations with schools that can’t compete with the schools of those self-same nations.

Paul,
Here is an article on a topic closely related to your topic:

Political Appointees Re-Write Commerce Department Report On Offshore Outsourcing; Original Analysis Is Missing From Final Version

It is absolutely typical of the Bush administration. When the facts doesn’t support the immediate, short-term interests of big business, the facts are buried or ignored or simply denied.

It has happened with Big Oil and Global Warming. It has happened with outsourcing and IT jobs. In a sense, fixing the intelligence to the policy is just another version of this pattern. There are other examples as well.

This pattern pays off in the very short-term, but proves disastrous in the long one.

To find the answer to the question why Business is doing what it is, one has to look deeper. The issue centers on education. Business persons are constantly looking for models which produce success. They see Indian and Japanese and Chinese schools producing some of the best minds in engineering and service organizations. And when they look at the character of those schools, they see regimentation, conformity, and mass production of trained workers. They incorrectly draw the conclusion that such models for education would work in the US as well. Hence, they look to ways to reproduce that regimentation, conformity, and mass production of workers in American schools. They see the Catholic Parochial schools built on such a model, and conclude, that introduction of religion into our schools will be the mechanism to reshape our schools into cookie cutter labor force producers capable of competing with schools in Japan, China and India.

However, their conclusions could not be more wrong. The reason is, we can no more successfully transplant Japanese style education milieus into American schools than we can transplant American democracy into Iraqi government. Culture has its own limitations on what will work and what won’t.

America can only improve eduacation by incentivizing students with the belief that their education will pay off for them. For vast numbers of students in America, that belief does not exist. Students know a great job resulting in early retirement and enjoyment of life is no longer an option for them. Students know our current relationship between employers and employees is one of master and slave in many ways.

What can teachers promise students about their work lives if the students bust their ass to be the best they can be? And how many students can realistically expect to be at the top of their class? Where are the incentives?

Businesses must come up with incentives for students in American schools. Not just for the best and brightest, but for all students who graduate and will enter the work force> Those incentives must be capable of motivating students to strive not only for completion, but for the rewards that their unique experiences, strengths, and talents as individuals could bring to the work force.

But, Business CEO’s are specialists. What do they know about sociology, comparative modern culture, psychology, education, etc. As specialists, they believe they know all they need to know to do their jobs as CEO, and hence they are blind to what they don’t know. And that blindness prevents them from seeking the answers they need from the experts in the fields itemized above.

Complex specialized societies produce walls of non communication, walls between areas of expertise, walls between decision makers and wholistic answers. It has been so since the Ancient Greece, Rome, and Persia, and is so still today.

You equate Republicans with being anti-science. Ask your liberal friends how they feel about biotechnology and I bet you will hear a lot about the precautionary principle, which is as anti-science as creationism. Find out how many of your liberal friends support nuclear power. And maybe see how many of them would oppose using animals for scientific research, no matter what the cause. I wonder how many have confidence in the progress of technology. Remember when Lawrence Summers at Harvard mentioned the possibility that someone could usefully study gender differences in science? Some of the women in the audience almost fainted from the vapors and Summers had to apologize for the next months. Suffice to say no science will ever be applied openly to that subject anywhere near a liberal university. After you have done all these things, tell me how scientific you all are.

David, Asia’s school systems are not the product of some hive mentality or cookie cutter culture. Asian families know that education is the key to success, and they instill that belief in their children and thier school systems.

You seem to be saying that drive and pressure to succeed in school is something culturaly alien to America, but then you exhort Americans to exhibit that same drive and pressure. I totally agree that Americans don’t value education enough, but your comparison to Asia is flawed.

But if it is so concerned, why does it join with the religious right that is anti-intellectual

Excellent article, Paul. I’m sure you know the answer is: short term gain. Business tolerates the religious right because the combo elects pro-business Republicans.

Look at Roberts and Miers. They may or may not reverse Roe v. Wade, but they’ll for damned sure come down on the side of business in any case that comes before the Supreme Court.

BTW, here’s some more bad news for America: Cutback in R&D spending raises red flag

While third-quarter corporate profits, being reported now, are expected to soar an additional 15% compared with the year-ago quarter, companies are shoveling much of their fat cash flows back to investors through dividends and share buybacks. In the process, research and development, better known as R&D, is being ignored.

…One reason companies are R&D averse: They fear investor retribution. In a reversal from the late 1990s, when dividends were dissed and companies couldn’t spend enough on R&D, investors now want executives to return cash to them

The real problem there is that the dismal economic environment over the last four years is prompting business to only go with sure bets — unlike the Golden Age of Clinton when no one felt nervous about investing in R&D.

I think this is properly regarded as the Dire Straits problem: People want their money for nothing and their chicks for free.

People are forgetting that business has to operate in the real world, and cannot simply be a money funnelling for the rich investor class.

Our business have become soft, with bean-counting replacing doing things that stand to be practical gain for the public.

How come even Jesus gets industrial disease?

Btw, good post Jack, on the contradictions between green politics and science.

AP, either you are not well read on the cultural educational differences between the US and the countries I mentioned, or those who have studied and written on this subject are not privy to the special vantage you appear to be blessed with.

The hours spent on homework and study in Japan is vastly greater than in American schools, by the research I have seen, the discipline in the schools is much tighter and largely culturally bred in, as opposed to externally enforced. Similarities exist in Chinese schools, the urban ones anyway, where education is viewed still as a privilege and a ticket out of poverty.

If you don’t accept that these facts are true, that’s fine. But, I will take the research from Ph.D’s who study such things close up, over your American overseas p.o.v.

Just a personal perspective—one reason science is lagging behind in America is that it takes so long to get established in science that many people can’t afford to do it. At least in biomedical science, there is Undergraduate for at least 4 years. Graduate school lasts 5-6 years (up to 8), then post doctoral training for 2-3 years. Often this is followed up by another post-doc, and at the end, the prospects for a good job are not teriffic. Even the above average jobs pay much less than an MD, or someone who has succeeded in business, even though science requires intelligence, creativity, and massive amounts of risk-taking. Science is one field where increased education does not correlate as well with increased pay. If we really want to have good science, we need to make it more possible for scientists to have a family while going through the training process, and encourage R&D so that there are more good jobs at the end of the process.

Stephanie,
The theory of evolution benefits business as a whole because it is the backbone on which biological research and thought it based. It allows you to think about biological problems in a logical, systematic way. Many antibiotics, ways of thinking about antibotic resistance, antiviral drugs, antiviral treatment strategies, and many other products are a direct result of this evolutionary backbone. (I mention those because that’s what I deal with most, I’m sure there are many others in other facets of biology).
Furthermore, discounting evolution in school discredits science as a whole. How do you think it makes kids think about science when their science teacher tells them what the best scientific evidence shows, and then their principal comes in and tells them that it’s probably not true, and it may in fact be immoral to believe it? That’s going to turn many people away from interest in science. It paints the whole process as inaccurate and dangerous, instead of being the best method we have for finding material truth and the driver of a huge portion of our economy.

One thing I think it is important to point out. Science is not lagging behind in America. We still produce almost all the Nobel prize winners in the sciences and most of new discoveries involve Americans. Our R&D spending is still by far the largest in real dollars and higher than most places per capita.

Realism requires us to see strengths as well as weaknesses.

We fail in science education, compared with others. So far we have made up for it by attracting talented foreigners, who find our scientific environment better. This can’t go on forever, but it is a long term problem that has been building almost our whole history. Einstein, Werner Von Brown etc did their work in the U.S. but were not native born.

We have a problem teaching math and science. Our schools are too “understanding” of failure. Our students start off well, but gradually fall behind as they reach HS. In most countries, math moves along and those that fall behind have to catch up. In the U.S. the class waits for the dumbest or laziest students to catch up. They never do and everyone else stops too. This is the basis of our problems, not religion or money.

If you don’t accept that these facts are true, that’s fine.

Heh. Right back atcha, David. :)

Seriously, I’d be interested in a link to one of the studies, because the hive mentality you describe doesn’t exist at the school my son attends here in Singapore. The intense pressure from parents and peers to succeed at school does. Perhaps that’s what you mean by culture.

Jack, I agree that America has a problem teaching math and science at the gradeschool level (my highschool math teachers were so bad, I thought I sucked at it until I aced all my college courses), but we also have a problem promoting math and science at the University level. Fewer American college students are making the effort to get degrees in math, physics, computer science, and even engineering.

David makes an interesting suggestion that business should incentivize students. I think it also falls on parents.

AP

Math is incentivized by the world. So many careers are just not open to those without math skills. But by the time they get to college, it is almost too late.

My daughter - now in college - is very good at math. I am convinced it is because she got her grade school start in Poland. They don’t have a lot of money there and they don’t have fancy ways of doing things. They just expect everyone to keep up and teach basics. Back in the U.S., I remember a parent teacher conference where my daughter’s teacher told me that she was very good at math, but she had a problem. What was the problem? It seems my daughter got very upset when she didn’t get the right answer and seemed to have low self esteem at those times. I told the teacher that I thought that was a good thing. When you are wrong, you should have temporarily low esteem. And the teacher responded (I quote but it is only really a paraphrase) “You know getting it right is not always the most important thing and there can be more than one correct answer.” “NO – there can’t. That is the nature of math”, I told her. She mumbled something about me being rigid and unsupportive.

AP an David:

My sons are both in college. One wants to teach Music at the college level. The other, while winning all the math, physics and biology awards is studing to be an actor/writer. As a parent I felt a responsiblity to encourage both of them to exell in all classes. I pushed them for great grades AND enjoyment of what they were studying. In Asian cultures, learning/education are a privlege and thus a responsibility. Here, every child is given an education and we expect that the child will determine thier own outcome. Our lack of scientists and mathematicians but glut of sports players is a direct result of our lack of focus on real educational goals. Sports are seen as the ticket out of poverty, not education. Then, the cost of college is so out of reach for so many deserving students that they attend inferior schools or take jobs instead of college. Both of my sons had GPA’s >3.7, ACT scores in the mid to high 20’s, Merit Scholarships, ect…. But both have hugh student loans that will take many years to pay off. Asian kids don’t have that. If they earn it, they go to school - usually here. My one son has a guy from India as his roomate. He will be a mechanical engineer. He speaks 4 languages and is a straight A student. Why? Because the environment he was raised in put a premium on knowledge and hard work - not football. As Americans whine about jobs leaving, they refuse to recognize thier own part in this loss. If our local schools are not supported, teachers not given the proper tools and college made more accessable, we will continue to fall behind and then we’ll be left with lots of sports and no brains.

Because the environment he was raised in put a premium on knowledge and hard work - not football.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Thanks Ilsa.

Paul,
This was an excellent article. I would like to respond your critic Stephanie who asks the question: “Explain to me how business as a whole profits from the THEORY of evolution or embryonic stem cell research?” The assumption that the answer to this question is so obvious that it can be assumed as a “given” is probably the weakest part of your article. So I will attempt an answer. First… evolution - the short answer…

Teaching intelligent design in school - as if it carried equal scientific weight as evolution - has the effect of teaching our children to be stupid. Teaching it as a faith based belief - one among many - which it is - would be fine. If the fundamentalist Christian right wants to spend their own money to teach their own children to be stupid, that is fine. But they are not going to spend my tax dollars to teach my children to be stupid. I use the term stupid here - but idiotic is actually more appropriate - more on that later.

But now I need to explain why teaching the faith based belief of “intelligent design” as if it were intelligent is stupid / idiotic.

There are three principal ways that the religious right attacks the scientific THEORY of evolution. The first one is that there are missing links in the chain therefore evolution cannot be proven. Each species was magically created out of whole cloth and you must have every missing link to prove otherwise. In other words - you must have every link in the chain in order to prove that the chain is a chain. I feel that I cannot go on to state their second point without addressing this idiocy. I can take my GMC pickup and a chain and hook them up to stump and jerk on that stump and break the chain. Then I can tie to two parts of that chain back together and break the chain again. Now I can bring the four pieces of chain in and lay them on the table and you are going to tell me that the chain is not a chain because I don’t have the missing links? You can have lots of different theories about which parts of the chain connected to which other parts. You can have theories about the four different pieces of chain being part of four different chains. But you cannot tell me that the chain is not a chain. The chain is a chain. Evolution happened. I don’t need every link in the chain in order to prove that the chain is a chain. In fact any one link in the chain is enough to prove that the chain is a chain. You want to spend my tax money to teach my children that the chain is not a chain and then you expect them to have the critical thinking skills to grow up and be scientist.

Evolution is a theory only because scientist are not exactly sure which parts of the chain connected together, how long ago they split off, and why they split off (in other words which stump was being jerked on, what truck was being used, and who was driving). But they know that the chain is a chain. They know that - through numerous different independent and unrelated scientific studies - involving different branches of science - all leading to the inescapable conclusion that evolution happened. We have more than enough evidence in the fossil record to prove that evolution happened. We have more than enough evidence in biology to prove that evolution happens. In fact biologists have literally seen it happen before their very eyes. In the image of God, geneticist have created, controlled and directed their own intelligent design through the natural process of evolution. Every single year new flu and cold viruses evolve before our very eyes and within our very bodies. AIDS, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and new diseases evolve every year. Evolution happens. How, why, when, and where are all a matters of theory. But evolution happens. The chain is a chain. And you want to spend my tax dollars to teach my children to be so profoundly idiotic that they think that the chain is not a chain - all in service to your idiotic religious ideology - and then you think that the children will have the critical thinking skills to grow up and be scientists.

The second way that Christian fundamentalists attack the scientific theory of evolution is the idea that complexity can not evolve out of simplicity so a creator must create it out of whole cloth. It is the mousetrap analogy. The mousetrap needs a spring, a latch, a hammer, and a base in order to be a mousetrap. All of these things could not spontaneously evolve and come together as a mousetrap therefore the mousetrap must be created out of whole cloth. Well of coarse the mousetrap is the product of intelligent design - intelligent design that is - through the process of evolution. The mousetrap did evolve out of simplicity. The separate parts of it did evolve separately and with different purposes and then were brought together in a creative fashion. The base of the mousetrap is a board. The board was not created because someone wanted a mousetrap. The board was created because someone wanted a board. Then the board found other creative uses. Somebody figured out that it could be used as a base. The idiotic fundamentalist flat earth Christians of the day figured out that it would make an excellent base for a rack on which to stretch heretic scientist like Galileo… but I take rhetorical liberties here - Galileo was actually a little too popular to actually be put to the rack. Anyhow… the same thing for the rest of the components of a mousetrap… they all evolved independently out of simple unrelated creative processes - were applied together in variety of unrelated creative ways until the complex mousetrap finally evolved out of simplicity. Now if the fundamentalist Christians were trying say that God used a parallel process and creatively worked through the natural process of evolution to create the intelligent design of human life, then that would be an intelligent faith based position to take. But that is not what they are saying and that is not what the faith based theory of intelligent design is about. They are saying that God magically created out of whole cloth - which is fine as a purely blind faith based belief - as long as one is not so foolish as to attempt to connect it with science. To do so denigrates both science and faith. It is the worst kind of cultural relativism. It teaches our children not to develop and use critical thinking skills which are vital to all areas of life, all areas of business, and all areas of science. In other words it teaches our children to be stupid. More accurately; it hamstrings our children’s innate intelligence with an ideology that causes them to be idiotic instead of the free, creative and critical thinkers that our schools must produce if we are to have the scientist and engineers that we will need in the future.

More importantly it denigrates the intelligence of faith. The faith based belief in God involves making a blind faith belief against logic and reason and through that faith finding an experiential relationship with God that transcends logic and reason… and transfigures the human heart. The foolish attempt to tie faith to science must kill faith and science. Fundamentalist Christians wind up placing their faith in ideology instead of God. They should not try to be intelligent. They should try to be faithful. This will set their innate intelligence free so that they can apply their creative capacities to build a better rack for heretics like me.

The third attack that fundamentalist Christians make on the science of evolution is that it is just a theory. I have already addressed this above. Evolution is only a theory because scientist have questions about how, why, when, and where it happens. But the fact that evolution happens is a scientific fact - not a theory - and to teach our children otherwise out of the “the reverence and false infallibility” that fundamentalist Christians treat their idiotic religious ideology of intelligent design is to profoundly undermine the quality of science education, and our children’s thinking skills which will have harmful effects for society and of course business.

As far as embryonic stem cell research is concerned the pharmaceutical companies will profit directly and all business and society will benefit from healthier people.

AP, here is one link amongst many, (google “comparative education”, it is a rich and broadly researched area - even Hong Kong is big into it)

The following is from the National Clearinghouse for U.S. - Japan Studies.

Japanese K–12 Education. Even though the Japanese adopted the American 6-3-3 model during the U.S. Occupation after World War II, elementary and secondary education is more centralized than in the United States. Control over curriculum rests largely with the national Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Monbukagakusho) and education is compulsory through the ninth grade. Municipalities and private sources fund kindergartens, but national, prefectural, and local governments pay almost equal shares of educational costs for students in grades one through nine. Almost 90 percent of students attend public schools through the ninth grade, but over 29 percent of students go to private high schools. The percentage of national funding for high schools is quite low, with prefectures and municipalities assuming most of the costs for public high schools. High salaries, relatively high prestige, and low birth rates make teaching jobs quite difficult to obtain in Japan while in the United States there are teacher shortages in certain fields. Although more Japanese schools are acquiring specialists such as special education teachers and counselors, American schools have many more special subjects and support personnel than is the case in Japan. Japanese schools have only two or three administrators, one of whom has some teaching responsibilities.

I could cite a very large number of such sites, but, a simple google will do the trick. The overwhelming evidence that schools in China, India, and Japan are more centrally run by the federal state, are more regimented in their daily activities down to school uniforms, and hold out the incentives and promises of a bright future for those who graduate (whether or not it is in reality true) are key fundamental differences.

By culture I meant both the above and the fact that teachers and parents take education in these other countries very seriously. But, it has also been true, that if those nations needed some students to become highly creative and innovative, they sent their best and brightest to the U.S. where the regimentation and group think limitations would be challenged and altered.

Happy googling, there really is a plethora of research in these areas.

Business only supports science (for the most part) to the extent that it can increase profits.

Yes, it’s no wonder little Johnny can’t read.
I live in Texas, and the emphasis on football is ridiculous. The difference in budgets for football (i.e. stadiums, equipment, etc.) and scholastics and academics is shameful.

Watch the movie (or read the book) “Friday Night Lights” to get the idea. Too bad we don’t approach other truly important things (i.e. education) with that same passion.

Unfortunately, the lack of emphasis on education is just another symptom of a more deeply rooted problem: a generation going awry, and doing (or did) a bad job of parenting the next generation that follows. It’s alarming to see so many uneducated young people these days, and so many that didn’t finish high-school.

There comes a point in time when we have to eventually realize that our many numerous problems, growing in number and severity, can only be due to one thing: us
It’s not just bad government.
It’s also voters that apathetically tolerate it.
It’s not just corporatism & corpocrisy.
It’s also the people in their employ.
It’s not just bad teachers or bad education.
It’s also bad parenting.
It’s not just poor economic conditions.
It’s also the fiscal & moral bankruptcy of government and the people.
It’s not just government failing the people.
It’s also the people failing themselves, by tolerating and/or empowering it.
It’s not someone else’s fault (in this era of blaming everyone else).
It’s our own fault.

We live in an era of greed, selfishness, irresponsibility, and unaccountability. It will (someday) be followed by a new era of courage and responsibility. But the process is slow, and it will be many years before it gets better.

Brian Poole,

The reason I find your argument unconvincing is because I belong to a church that doesn’t believe in evolution as the creating force of life on earth. They don’t recognize the theory of evolution as valid in that sense. And yet, a significant portion of our population (2nd or 3rd generation) is made up of doctors and engineers, because education and the ability to support one’s family well is highly valued. In the ward I was a member of for a short while in Milwaukee a good 60-90% of the population was made up of doctors or dentists and their spouses.

A belief in evolution as the creating force isn’t necessary to understand and appreciate genetic mutation or generational progression (sorry, I don’t know the scietific terminology for this idea). You can understand, appreciate and use the knowledge that animals and people can and do adapt to their environment with small genetic changes over generations without assuming all life on earth came out of some primordial ooze.

Also, in regards to your concern for our schools… My husband was taught (for a time) in a Luthern private school. His teacher taught his class about the theory of evolution and when she was done told them she doesn’t believe a word of it. Yet, as an adult, it was my husband who told me about the study about the moths in (I believe) London whose coloring changed to match the buildings, presumably so fewer would be eaten by the birds. While he doesn’t believe the grand-scale version of evolution (and he and I readily agree that the platypus is probably God’s way of showing how unreliable the theory can be, and that He has a sense of humor), he can readily recognize how evolutionary theory works on a smaller scale and is well aware of how we, as human beings, can and do use it to our benefit in ways such as antibodics and breeding livestock that is better suited to our purposes.

In short, recognizing the value of an idea and its usefulness is one thing…taking an idea and forming a complete world-view around it is quite another.

AP,

“Fewer American college students are making the effort to get degrees in math, physics, computer science, and even engineering.”

Part of the problem here, from my husband’s experience, is awareness about job availability. After graduating near the top of his class in high school, my husband went to Reed College to get a degree in mathematics. There he was told that to get a job in mathematics (other than as a college professor) he’d have to get a doctorate and even then, he’d likely end up teaching mathematics instead of applying it. That (amongst other things) eliminated his drive to study hard-core mathematics. Now, he’s studying business because it seems more practical and he can get an interesting career out of it much more quickly.

Ray,

First, I’m not a Christian fundamentalist because I don’t believe all aspects of the Bible should be translated literally.

Second, unless some grand breakthrough has been reached that I’m unaware of, there’s still no proof of any kind of anything that caused your precious chain to come into being. As to your claim of a lack of belief into the theory of evolution equalling stupidity (or idiocy) see my response to Brian. A scientific belief system is not necessary to be readily capable of critical thinking. Part of the great success in science and elsewhere have come from those who could think “outside the box” and not from the linear chain thinking you suggest.

Your mousetrap thing… Evolution doesn’t allow for creativity. While I’d never heard that particular example before. Your own evolution relies on creativity. Evolution, by it’s very nature, is devoid of creativity.

“Now if the fundamentalist Christians were trying say that God used a parallel process and creatively worked through the natural process of evolution to create the intelligent design of human life, then that would be an intelligent faith based position to take.”

Fundamentalist Christians cannot think that way and remain fundamentalist Christians. However, I’ve held this belief since I was (approximately) fourteen years old, much to the chagrin of my mother who thinks a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only way God could possibly exist. However, for myself, this “intelligent faith based position” as you call it is the only explanation I can come up with that both explains the scientific and the miraculous in our universe, and since it’s God we’re talking about, there doesn’t seem any reason it couldn’t be. If God could come up with human beings and our universe out of whole cloth, why couldn’t he also (and more practically) create the system in which we know we live. Basically, if there was a Big Bang, then I believe God planted the “dynamite”.

However, instead of getting all bent out of shape about what the schools are teaching my kids (unless it will put them and their fellows directly in harms way…but that’s the ultra-liberal agenda) I make sure I spend time teaching my kids, including ideas that I don’t agree with and telling them I don’t agree with them, and urging other parents to do so as well. Far too many parents are far too complacent…believing that their responsibility to their children stops as soon as they enter the school building.

“More accurately; it hamstrings our children’s innate intelligence with an ideology that causes them to be idiotic instead of the free, creative and critical thinkers that our schools must produce if we are to have the scientist and engineers that we will need in the future.”

I admit I know little about intelligent design as taught in some schools. I care even less. However, I think your concern is unfounded, or more accurately, misplaced. Intelligent design is a fairly new (and probably short-lived) phenomenon. Whereas, our schools “teaching our kids to be stupid” is an on-going phenomenon as demonstrated by the percentage of Americans who can’t find North America on a world map. Our schools are in trouble, I grant that readily enough, but not because of intelligent design but more, it seems, because of the lack of it in their curriculum and their parents’ urgency for their children to learn the curriculum.

“This will set their innate intelligence free so that they can apply their creative capacities to build a better rack for heretics like me.”

Cute, but not recommended. Their intelligence is not nearly as hindered as you suggest. They are still a minority in this nation, and yet they seem to have significant political clout. Their intelligence is apparently tied up in their development of strategy far too much to be worried about building a better rack. See, first they have to get to a point where they could actually use it…which is highly unlikely.

“Evolution is only a theory because scientist have questions about how, why, when, and where it happens.”

I personally think those questions are pretty significant, since those (or at least so I was taught) are exactly the questions science is supposed to answer. See, theories have this tendency to evolve and change. At one point it was considered a “scientific” theory that the world was flat (based on observable evidence). Now, that idea as being science seems absolutely absurd to us. It is my opinion that hundreds or thousands of years from now when the THEORY of evolution has itself evolved to the point where we have many more of those all-important questions answered, probably after having traveled to other planets with a wide variety of life including other intelligent species (sorry, that’s just the sci-fi writer in me), our current version of evolution will seem equally absurd.

I would suggest you worry less about the influence intelligent design has on our kids…since statistically speaking many of them don’t really listen to their teachers (or their principals) anyway, it’s not likely going to make much of a long-term difference. We’re already teaching our kids to be stupid, because our society as a whole doesn’t actively care enough whether they learn or not.

“As far as embryonic stem cell research is concerned the pharmaceutical companies will profit directly and all business and society will benefit from healthier people.”

Then why aren’t the pharmaceutical companies investing much in this form of research? From what I’ve heard, they’re investing much more in adult stem cell research, since that’s where they’ve actually had some success.

AP
Look at Roberts and Miers. They may or may not reverse Roe v. Wade, but they’ll for damned sure come down on the side of business in any case that comes before the Supreme Court.

And you know this for a fact?

jack
After you have done all these things, tell me how scientific you all are.

The left is very scienitific, as long as it suits their idealoligy.
I don’t remember where I read it, but DNA is doing more to dispove evaloution and support creation than any of the so called science that supposedly backs evolotion is to prove it.
I’m supprised that they aren’t trying to get it thrown out.
Go ahead neolibs disprove me if you can. WITHOUT MAKING ANYTHING UP.

“You know getting it right is not always the most important thing and there can be more than one correct answer.†“NO ⦣x20AC;“ there can’t. That is the nature of mathâ€, I told her. She mumbled something about me being rigid and unsupportive.

Cheer up Jack, Your not the only one a teacher has called unsupportive. Any parent that vaules their childs education over what the school board has decided what’s best for them is unsupportive.

Ilsa
As Americans whine about jobs leaving, they refuse to recognize thier own part in this loss. If our local schools are not supported, teachers not given the proper tools and college made more accessable, we will continue to fall behind and then we’ll be left with lots of sports and no brains.

But as soon as anyone tries to improve the stanaeds of the schools the liberials start crying and holler about how it would be discrimatory against minorities.

I’m a BIG football fan. I love to watch the Pop Warner teams. I love high school football. I think college football is alot better than pro.
However I think that too much is made of this and not enough of a good education. I’ve noticed though that over that last serveral years that colleges have started making their playeers maintain a good grade adverage in order to play. I’m glad to see this and woould like to see our public schools start this. But then, that would discriminate against minorities wouldn’t it?

Geech, I need to start proof reading before I post.

Stephanie,
Hi. I belong to the same church you do. Surprise, huh?! That’s one reason I like reading your posts. You may be surprised what a lot of those scientists believe about evolution (at least the biological scientists, it doesn’t matter much to physisists or engineers). Many of my classes in college spent a few days on reconciling church beliefs and evolution. However, at that point, everyone in the class was commited to science.
I actually believe in a modified type of intelligent design, but I don’t want it taught in schools. It isn’t scientific, and it doesn’t belong in a science class. I think that it is much better to discuss conflicts between science and religion on a one-to one level than to have an anti-evolutionist come in and read government-mandated, poorly writted statements about how it’s wrong.

Your example about your husband doesn’t refute my statement about motivation to pursue science. The fact that your husband can remember an example of an evolutionary process doesn’t mean that his view of science as a whole wasn’t tainted. One thing that bothers me is the setting up of science against religion by these government intervention types. I’m not the enemy, but am often cast in that role by people who want to maintain religious veiws in schools.

In short, recognizing the value of an idea and its usefulness is one thing…taking an idea and forming a complete world-view around it is quite another

The one benefit I can see to intelligent design is that religious people who want to go into science may be able to overcome their reservations about believing in a heretical idea if they have an alternative. However, that doesn’t justify teaching it in science class, and I don’t think that would be the case considering how it is being promoted. I think parental or teacher involvement at an individual level is best.

Brian,

Ha, ha, ha! Yes, definitely surprised!

“Many of my classes in college spent a few days on reconciling church beliefs and evolution.”

I’d be very interested in the results of that discussion. Unfortunately BYU or the derivatives are not feasible in my foreseeable future.

“I actually believe in a modified type of intelligent design, but I don’t want it taught in schools.”

I can agree on a basic level with that (aside from privately funded religious schools), except in the fact that, considering the way our schools are typically run and the predominant level of parental involvement, I really don’t think it matters that much at this point. Our schools have an obvious, fundamental flaw…or else our high school graduates wouldn’t be so uneducated.

“While it is true that people can utilize scientific ideas without an understanding or appreciation of evolution, the scientists who came up with those ideas may not have been able to without the theory of evolution. Things just don’t make sense without the context.”

You can understand and appreciate evolution, without it being the only possibility you’re taught. I don’t in the least suggest the context not be taught, but holding it up on a pedastal and not measuring it against other ideas is something I do object to. If evolution can’t stand up to an idea which you clearly believe is wholly inferior in the minds of our kids, then there is certainly a problem. However, the kids who are going to get it are going to get it whether their principal is a shmuck or not.

“I’m not the enemy, but am often cast in that role by people who want to maintain religious veiws in schools.”

I’m not the enemy either, but am cast in that role by people on both sides of the argument because I can see the merit on both sides.

For this particular thread, I simply do not see the connection between intelligent design or embryonic stem cell research and the lack of scientists to meet the needs of business. It doesn’t compute. Maybe ten to twenty years from now, if there were a significant decline in scientists available, that would be something connectable. Right now… there is no logical reason to make a connection between two fairly recent issues and a lack of scientifically minded people available for business.

The lack of sufficient engineers and scientists to supply the needs of our businesses is not because of fundamentalist Christians being against science. It’s because our education systems and our recruiting efforts have not been up to par.

JACK

That response is from a teacher trained in a university that hates america and Americans. This same teacher is most likely a result of the 30years of dumbing down in our schools, that no longer work, partly to do with a NEA that no longer cares about children. School boards who think they are above the law, and can tell parents and there children what they can and can not do Why do think that the rich send there children to private school. So they will learn that science isn’t where the money is. Sometimes math is where the money is!

just some random thoughts!

Stephanie

The overwhelming evidence that schools in China, India, and Japan are more centrally run by the federal state

Ah, I see. Your original post made it sound like you thought Asian schools are run by robots who manufacture new generations of robots to live out rigid, insect-like hive colony lives.

But yes, the governments of most Asian countries set the curriculum and standards for their schools, and are very successful in training mathematicians and scientists — who, by the way, are eating our lunch.

Look at Roberts and Miers. They may or may not reverse Roe v. Wade, but they’ll for damned sure come down on the side of business in any case that comes before the Supreme Court.

And you know this for a fact?

Haha! Ron, if your wife conks you over the head with a frying pan every five minutes, how long does it take before you stop thinking she couldn’t possibly do it again? :)

The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization; Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining.

A couple of pragmatic points about intelligent design and abortion.

Intelligent design - who cares? Evolution is a process that we can map, understand and use. We learn more every day and the details change, but the general has remained that same. It is just statistical probability, random mutations and a long time. It is important in the application of biological sciences. We can assume that God uses this process or not. That is something that is beyond science. It doesn’t matter since the result is the same. We can just stop arguing about this.

Abortion rights - who cares? What would happen if the SC threw out Roe v Wade tomorrow? Nothing. It would just go back to the state legislatures where it could be decided democratically. Do pro-choice people really believe that their idea are so unpopular that they would lose in the fifty states? Getting rid of Roe would probably result in some states having some restrictions, but it wouldn’t make a practical difference for most people most of the time.

It just goes to show how ideological these questions have become. We are fighting about things that have almost no practical consequences.

AP
You still haven’t backed your statement with facts.
All I see are the same old liberial rantings.

jack,

“It just goes to show how ideological these questions have become. We are fighting about things that have almost no practical consequences.”

It’s the age-old battle between federal and state’s rights, just a new angle.

Why does business profess to support science then turn around and climb in political bed with religious fundamentalists who oppose a lot of science and technology on moral grounds? Definitely because they can and probably because they should.

Business in this country, by and large, is nothing if not pragmatic. So it supports regulation when regulation benefits it and it opposes regulation when regulation does not benefit it. It opposes pork when pork doesn’t benefit it and it supports pork when pork does benefit it.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of the really big companies (size on the order of Enron and WorldCom, for example) support both parties, just in case the conservative doesn’t win?

Remember when Oprah was sued for product defamation by the Texas beef council? They are probably a lot of the same guys who support Tom DeLay and, by extension, the defamation of the prosecutor who convinced a grand jury to recommend charges.

Is this paradigm philosophically and morally consistent? Absolutely not. Is it hypocritical? Absolutely yes. Is it the smartest and best thing for business to do? That would be an unqualified yes, because business has no real constituency besides its stakeholders (equity holders, customers and employees) and no real purpose but to remain in business and make profits. For a business to ignore the political reality and/or fail to capitalize upon it would be as negligent as failing to consider an attractive buy-out offer.

The most troubling thing about the original post to me is that it shows that Libs/Dems STILL do not understand the problems they have or the slightest clue what to do about it. It is another example of what is becoming a real albatross for Libs/Dems: inordinate and obsessive focus on what is wrong with the people who don’t vote for them - not on what’s wrong with the positions/platforms of the left and why (in many jurisdictions) voters reject those postions/platforms, but rather on the inconsistencies/hypocrisies of the right and their supporters.

What are you proposing as the Lib/Dem alternative to the Con/Rep status quo?

AP said, “But yes, the governments of most Asian countries set the curriculum and standards for their schools, and are very successful in training mathematicians and scientists — who, by the way, are eating our lunch.”

Yes, that was the gist. They are consistently producing competitive workforces while our system is stagnant and failing to adapt to changing circumstances and needs. There is such a thing as too much freedom in some circumstances. When each school district, each teacher and principal, are free to develop curriculum, basic student-teacher relationships, and define expectations for students and teachers according to their own needs and desires and cultures, education is bound to fail students, communities, and the nation in part. Freedom to experiment and differentiate is very positive, but only if it does not sacrifice basic tried and true fundamentals known to be effective. This is the advantage of centrally organized education, it sets minimums known to be effective and enforces them. And that is why some other countries are eating our lunch educationally.

David:

When each school district, each teacher and principal, are free to develop curriculum, basic student-teacher relationships, and define expectations for students and teachers according to their own needs and desires and cultures, education is bound to fail students, communities, and the nation in part.

It might encourage you to know that SAT math scores are at 40 year highs and are increasing at a very good clip.

It might also encourage you to look at the Nobel web sight and see how American dominates.

Also, the same criticisms were made of the US education system with the red scare of the the 1950’s. The Soviet Educational system was viewed as superior and a threat to our future because of the sciences.

Take a look at this quote from “A nation at Risk” written over 20 years ago:

Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility.

“Competitors” of course meant Japan, Korea etc. Since that time, American lead the technology revolution in the 1990’s.

In summary, criticism against the US Educational system is a constant. Our threat of the 50’s and 60’s, (USSR) is gone, our threat of the 80’ and 90’s (Japan) has been mired in recession for a decade. Now the present threats of China and India are here, and the same arguements from the 50’s, 60’s and 80’s are being used once again.

It is nice to know you are Reagan agree though!! :-} .

Craig

Why is it that you democrats focus on nothing but to tear down the republican party. I am a 17 year old ni**a who rap, from Indianapolis,IN and I don’t understand why most of us black folks don’t take the time to learn the histoyr before we make our moves. If you even take a look in our History Books here in my Democratic school, you’ll see one of the Klan’s biggest goals was to destroy the republican party. Now I know we aint stupid so you ask yaself why that is. Now I was one of the 90% of black people who didn’t like Bush when I didn’t know nothing, but it was for the same reason that about 85% of us don’t like him now(because he look funny, because I heard this and I heard that). It’s time for us to start opening our eyes and see the Deocratic Party aint got time to run a nation, their too busy trying to put down the republicans. I’m not saying I 100% approve of what president Bush is doing, if I was him I would have exposed the democrats little kintera act and told EVERYBODY how the governer of Louisiana made the mayor wait and wait and wait to say ok Mr. Bush can send in help for all the poor black people in New Orlens that’s sitting in water with no food no water and no shelter. The point is we have STATE RIGHTS, no matter how much he wanted to, Bush could not just send people in without the mayor saying ok. And if you are BLACK and like i was 5 years ago you know nothing about state rights and you automaticlly think it was Bush fault that it took so long for help to get to the people. But the main question is DEATH and how do we beat it. It’s believeing that The father sent Christ to die for YOUR sins and he rose again on the third day. And that’s is the ONLY way we are saved.THE ONLY WAY.

The religion in the this country has been declining for the past 10 years. As of late it has been making a come back to the public. A few groups of power people with a president that play off their belief. People Pat Roberts and his group the 700 club, who threaten sentors and group that opposite them. When people are afraid to stand up for real science because they know that their belief in god will be mocked. I believe in the higher power, but the I know that science and faith need to be seperate because faith is a real to the person who believes it. But when you want to hide the belief behind changing the name of creationism is a direct attempt to forced christanity on to everyone. Religion has become a force in which will be the and has been the down fall on many nations. When religion takes over it destroys the foundation of government and human rights, the example of this is rome, which is the was like us the powerful nation of the day. I hope that religion christanity will not become the only controlling factor in the united states. We a people need to stand up a fight back groups of people who want to get control everyone else freedom of religion. But of course we could always go back to the dark ages when the catholic church would torture people to death if the didn’t agree with the church. Reason and Faith are to different thing and so be keep seperate and one will destroy the other. Business and church are repidly become the same thing in the united states.

Thanks Big Dog.
You get it.
You understand the real meaning of peoples’ rights.
Unfortunately, you may be correct about the disturbing trend in the U.S.
There are many that have not yet truly grasped the concept of freedom, do not truly respect others, and still do not understand the true wisdom of the 1st Amendment ( YEAR 1791: Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances )

Those that don’t understand it, argue against the 1st Amendment, and continually try to force religion, prayer, oathes, and pledges onto others, do it for two reasons: (1) to control others, and (2) fear of anyone who believes differently, and insist that their way is THE ONLY WAY

As you said, history has shown us time-after-time how religions have been used, and abused to control others. So, it’s understandable when people, like yourself, are alarmed by those that insist on controlling you and what you believe.

The term ‘Intelligent Design’ has been bantered around lately. I’ll bet most of those who use it don’t really know where it came from.
It’s not a term that the regligous right came up with as a way of slipping creation into the class rooms. Youall give them to much credit if you think the like of Falwell, Robertson, or Swaggart could think of something like that.
The term was, as I understand it, started by the atheistic scientist who used to believe in evolution until DNA came along and shatted their beliefs. These scientist still don’t want to admitt that there really is a God but cann’t believe in evolution anymore because of the evidence against it. They realize that some sort of intelligents had to kick things off so instead of admitting God exist they coined the term ‘Intelligent Design’ to keep from admitting that there really is a God.

Ron,
Can you give me some information on how DNA disproves evolution? I’d really like to refute what I know is a ridiculous idea, but I don’t even have enough to go on to get started, except to say, no it doesn’t.
I’ve never heard an actual intelligent design argument that isn’t just “you know it when you see it,” or that has seriously flawed assumptions.
I’m looking forward to your explanation.

Paul,

Late to the game, but there is one very important missing supporting fact from your post (and from many similar posts).

How have you determined that business is Republican?

This assertion seems to go unproven (and worse yet unchallenged) in post after post here.

Second, I’m a Republican, believe in evolution, and don’t believe that Intelligent Design belongs in the science classroom (at least not as big “T” Theory, maybe as an interesting aside to illustrate the differences between Theory in the scientific world and the lay person world).

I don’t feel the need to run from my Party. In fact, I don’t believe that I have even strayed from an accepted plank of the Republican party platform. The Republican party is bigger in philosophy this decade just like the Democrats were last. There is room for disagreement on this topic among us just as there was in the Democratic Party when Clinton signed NAFTA.

This thread is silly. There is no way the US is “falling behind” in science. The US has the most funding, the best paid jobs and the best universities of any country in the world.

The reason these companies are whining is because they want more Government money. America is in kind of a weird position because they’ve backed themselves into an ideological corner with regards to public funding. So whilst other countries can fund drug development or sustainable fuels research by their corporations, the US can’t, because it’s “inefficient”.

But obviously the politicians realise that they do have to fund science in order to maintain the technological edge. So we have millions for research into fuel cell powered tanks. Or millions for supercomputers to control an anti ballistic missile system. Or millions for environmental remediation research to clean up army bases and get rid of stockpiles of chemical and conventional weapons.

Not really sure these companies have much to whinge about anyway. Was $20.6bn from the DoD alone in 2004 not enough for Lockheed Martin? Could ExxonMobil afford to spend more than 2.5% of its $25bn profits on R&D?

Stephanie,
Thanks for your reply to my post. I do tend to carried away by my own rhetorical flair. I tried to go back and find the exact reference to the mousetrap analogy that I referred to in my first post but I cannot find it. Anyhow that analogy was put forward as an example of irreducible complexity by a proponent of Intelligent Design. There are several other examples of comparable analogies at: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf One refers to a pocket watch and another refers to a bacterial flagellum. My point in referring to that was to show that irreducible complexity is often not irreducible. A bacterial flagellum is used by proponents of Intelligent Design as evidence of intelligent design because all 30 parts of it are required for it to function as a flagellum - true… But just like the mousetrap each part of the flagellum could evolve independently for some other useful / adaptive function. So the so called irreducible complexity of the flagellum is not irreducible at all. In fact it is easily reducible.

Certainly, many scientist believe that God planted the dynamite for the big bang. That as well as creationism, intelligent design and many other religious faith based beliefs are all fine and should be taught to our children - in a comparative religion or philosophy class - not in science class because they are faith based not scientific.

I took rhetorical liberties regarding “my children”. My children are somewhat euphemistic. My daughter is a combat medic serving in Germany, my son a construction worker in greater Detroit. I am really talking about grandchildren, children of friends and the children that happen to attend the school where I pay taxes. Yes I think that children should be exposed to many conflicting ideas. For example, although an atheist at the time, I sent my real children to church and then talked to them about God and religious concepts and encouraged them to figure it out for themselves… but not to be indoctrinated. Religion is wonderful but it has no place in a science class. ID is based on religion. Thanks.

You still haven’t backed your statement with facts.

Ron, I gave you a link that leads eventually (David once chewed out a writer who didn’t link to previous WatchBlog articles enough, so now it’s a habit :)) to the book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas”. It’s filled with all the facts you want — and it’s a good read. Enjoy.

If you even take a look in our History Books here in my Democratic school, you’ll see one of the Klan’s biggest goals was to destroy the republican party.

Mink, keep flipping pages and you’ll find the part where the Democratic Party embraces civil rights and the Southern Democrats and the KKK switch sides to the Republican Party.

Oh, and here’s a good timeline of the Hurricane Katrina response. It sounds like you’ll be very surprised.

Ray,

“Thanks for your reply to my post.”

You’re welcome. I’m willing to butt heads with just about anybody. ;-)

The pocket watch analogy I’ve heard…usually involving monkeys for some stupid reason.

“in a comparative religion or philosophy class “

A very good idea! I advocate such a class as being mandatory for high school graduates on general principle considering how diverse and dynamic American culture is, but hey if it’d end the “intelligent design” debate all the better!

“I took rhetorical liberties regarding “my children”

I still have small children, 9, 6, 5 & 3. Personally, I’m much more worried about what they’re learning in sex ed and the “I’m great no matter what I do” attitude some schools are teaching, then the particulars of their science classes. And, to be totally honest, I’m mostly worried (at the moment) about whether we’ll be able to mainstream my 5 year old or whether he’ll have to go to a special ed class.

If in my initial post it seemed like I was trying to discredit science, I apologize. I simply don’t see either of the examples that were cited as particularly threatening to science and know of no other examples that could readily be cited. As I’ve said, I believe the intelligent design vs. evolution thing will be shorted lived, and I really don’t think most kids at the high school level really grasp evolution one way or the other. I know in my science class the teacher (who truly believed it and was absolutely thrilled with teaching it) made it sound like the most ridiculous thing I’d ever heard. Which was odd, because I’d already covered some of the details in an extra-curricular event three or four summers before and had already “bought” the idea.

Though, the truly most ridiculous thing I’ve been taught in school was in a college level algebra course…imaginary numbers. I just couldn’t take math very seriously after that. ;-) And I can still do a better job balancing the check book than my math-savvy husband!

“For example, although an atheist at the time, I sent my real children to church and then talked to them about God and religious concepts and encouraged them to figure it out for themselves…”

I applaud the example you set for you’re kids! Most parents, especially currently, either don’t take the time or lack the awareness to take such actions. This problem leaks into many different aspects of life, which is why so many kids are so lost now.

“Religion is wonderful but it has no place in a science class. ID is based on religion.”

As someone who listened to an entire one-hour lecture on the scientific advancement that was duct tape…I really don’t think it makes that much of a difference, one way or the other. So, if the decision were between you and I ID would be out for lack of support. However, one more cautionary comment: kids really aren’t as gullible as you seem to believe. Impressionable yes, but not quite so gullible as a whole as all that.