Does Sarah Palin believe in evolution?
Promoted by John
Does Sarah Palin believe in evolution?
Numerous bloggers have been asking variants of this question since Palin was selected as McCain's running mate. There are two issues here:
- what does she believe?
- to what extent does it matter?
Both of these questions were answered well by The Sensuous Curmudgeon, deciding that she is "Maybe Only Slightly Creationist ", and that her personal beliefs don't really matter:
it’s fine with us if she’s privately a creationist — as long
as she doesn’t try to destroy science education by forcing creation
“science” (or Intelligent Design) into public school science classes.
I fully concur, but since I am a professional evolutionist, I thought I might have a little more to add about what I expect from politicians regarding evolutionary theory.
First, I don't expect professional politicians to know the ins and outs of evolutionary theory, or be familiar with all of the evidence supporting this theory. However, I do expect national leaders to have some minimal scientific literacy, which includes knowing some basic facts about evolutionary theory :
- it declares that species change over the span of generations.
- it declares that existing species are related to each other: they share common ancestors.
- the above propositions are uncontroversial to experts in the field, and have been uncontroversial for about 100 years. I'm not certain on this point, but I figure that by the early 20th century, all naturalists/biologists agreed that each of the major groups of life (i.e. plants, animals) could be traced back to a shared ancestor in the distant past (100's of millions, if not billions of years ago).
Aside from this basic knowledge, I expect professional politicians to recognize their lack of expertise in this area, and not to interfere with what scientists teach as modern scientific theory. I also expect leaders to be savvy enough to realize that they are being lied to when anti-evolution activists pretend that there is a scientific controversy surrounding these basic tenants of evolutionary theory.
Outside of evolutionary theory, I expect national leaders to have a basic understanding of what Science is, as a process and an institution. They might start off by reading the publication of the National Academy of Sciences, on "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science ".
When politicians make statements in favor of "teaching the controversy", they appeal to Science's emphasis on considering of multiple explanations in light of the available evidence, but their obsession with evolutionary theory reveals that their true agenda is not to encourage critical thinking among students. Take for example the platform of Palin's Republican Party of Alaska which states “We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.”
The claim that "evolution is only a theory" implies that other aspects of scientific knowledge are more than theory. Basic scientific literacy includes the understanding that scientific theory is not "The Truth": while some people are dismissive of non-scientific sources of knowledge, everyone should recognize that scientific theories are inherently tentative and may eventually be superseded by better theories.
As for the proposal to teach about scientific controversies, students would definitely benefit from being exposed to historical controversies in science and how they were resolved. Personally, I would focus on the Copernican Revolution . The evolution/creation controversy may be a bit too complicated to cover in a high school classroom, and it has the added complication in that it would necessarily show how the creationist/essentialist view in biology was conclusively refuted --thereby bringing unneeded controversy to the classroom from laymen who feel that this challenges their religious beliefs.
So, to bring this back to Palin and whether he opinions about evolution mark her as a dangerous anti-science extremist, I think "probably not". Her opposition to evolution seems to be rather passive; I would like to interpret her stated support for "teaching the controversy" to simply be the "common sense" response of a politician who was caught off guard by a question, however, the fact that this was a plank in her party's platform suggests that she should have given the issue some thought before she was faced with this question.
Anyway, she's on my "watch list", and I'll be keeping my eyes open for whether she has pushed an anti-science agenda that would fail my rather lenient standards for what makes an acceptable politician on these issues.
- adam ricketson's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
evolution vs. economics
The first essay that caught my attention here was Skymutt's
. I have to agree with the general idea, but It's important for us (scientists) to defend evolutionary theory because these attacks are not just an attack on evolution, they're an attack on science.
Ignorance of economics is more relevant than ignorance of evolution
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Yes and thank you.
It is the economy, stupid.
I won't argue with you
on whether creation or evolution is science. It seems to me that the reason evolution is science and creation isn't (if this is the case) ,is that science by its nature rules out (doesn't look for) supernatural explanation, so obviously the most obvious explanation left is going to be a natural one. That doesn't make the super-natural explanation any less true, it just means the scientific model doesn't accept it. .
Now, the problem with teaching evolution exclusively is that it gives the false idea that evolution is more true than creation - it may be more scientific, but it is certainly not more true.
The question is what purpose does government have in teaching children their origins. I do not understand how knowing what happened millions or billions of years ago is going to have any practical useful effect for anybody. I'm told it's useful to a certain branch of science, but still there's a very small fraction of kids that will be going into such a science where it matters. To the vast majority of people knowing our origins is important only important in a spiritual sense and is an esoteric question otherwise. Those going into science can learn what they need to know about evolution when they need to learn it.
As a final point, I don't think you can practically separate education from a worldview. Because of this I don't think the governemnt should control education.
Well said
Most rational "evolutionists" don't mind at all the teaching of creation in schools ... so long as it isn't in a science class. Creationism belongs in science class about as much as differential equations belong in history class.
Regarding the truth value of creation/evolution, I'll have to slightly disagree. The scientific method is essentially the only way for us to objectively prove anything as being true or not. There is really no other way to do it. If the Bible is correct about our origins, there is no way to objectively uncover this information so long as this information relies on faith. Atheists and agnostics like myself will continue to not believe (or have the absence of believing) this Genesis hypothesis until it can be proven objectively. This is precisely because we do not have the requisite faith to believe so. Of course, once God appears to me and others and we can measure him using the tools of science, God will no longer require faith because we will have objective evidence of His existence.
Now God, by definition, is outside the realm of science. Anyone trying to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God is a fool, just as anyone using religion to prove or disprove the EPR paradox
is a fool.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well faith is a subjective thing
One who doesn't have it, is not going to understand it and is therefore going to think of it as inferior to science in finding truth. I however, believe it is the ultimate way to find truth, but one can only come to that conclusion through a personal relationship with God.
That's exactly my point
Faith is subjective. Truth values of well-formed propositions can't be.
Can adding 3 and 5 give something other than 8 if you have sufficient faith that it will? Is there a way to "prove" 3 and 5 give something other than 8 relying purely on faith?
The answer to both questions is decidedly "no". Objective, well-formed propositions are required to prove the truth value of anything. Hidden knowledge or faith can't, by their very definition, prove anything beyond any reasonable doubt.
In any case, either God exists or does not. On that we can agree. The only way we can decide for certain which is the truth depends solely on our ability to verify His existence independent of any belief in him. In other words, the truth value the statement "2+2=5" does not depend on our belief in it to be true.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Math is one of the only things that can be
objectively proven. And the only reason for that is because we define math. We call 2+2 four, so its obviously four. We call a red carpet red,so its going to be red. Beyond such obvious truth though there really is very little that can be objectively proven. Most of reality could be an illusion objectively speaking.
Belief doesn't change wheter God exists it just changes whether we know he exists.
This is dimly recalled, second-hand, and vague,
but isn't there a debate as to whether math is created or discovered?
What I mean is that I'm not sure everyone would agree that 2+2 = 4 is definitional (created) rather than objectively true (discovered).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hmmm.
I don't know if there is a debate on that point, but if there is I am firmly in the discovered camp.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What is there to discover?
4 means 2+2 so saying 2+2 = 4 is like saying 4=4 or saying blue means blue. Anyhow, none of this changes my point about there being very little objectively proven reality.
You are correct.
The truth of these points exists whether man is aware of them or not. What was discovered was the concepts which are universally true.
For example, we didn't always understand the concept of zero ... but that doesn't mean that zero didn't exist only that we hadn't discovered it yet.
I suppose one could argue that zero didn't exist until we invented the concept ... but I simply don't see it that way.
BTW, my stance was merely a response to Brendan's point, not a comment on your position.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Here's one link
to the sort of thing I was recalling: Still debating with Plato
.
I'm with you in the discovered camp.
Negative numbers too, right? Like zero...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Really bad analogy
That'd be akin to saying we invented germs because we didn't know about them until recently. That is to say, it wasn't generally accepted knowledge until the latter half of the 19th century.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well...
There is a not entirely unscientific belief that things that have not yet been observed do not in fact exist. So maybe there were no germs until they were observed!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ah quantum mechanics
One of my favorite branches of physics.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Derived, not discovered
Technically 2+2=4 is derived rather than defined or discovered
i.e. 2+2 = (2+1) + (2+(-1)) = 3+1 = 4 which is 4 by definition
Or if you want to stick with unity only you have 2 = 2+(-1) + 1 = 1+1 =>
2+2 = 1+1+1+1 = 4 (again by definition of 4)
Being based upon unprovable (but widely accepted) axioms, math is generally derived and proven as opposed to defined or discovered. After all, there aren't specific observations that are noted during a discovery (Except in applied math, which doesn't really count)
enjoy
and again
There is a small debate
Math is generally thought to be discovered, but since patents can only be given on "invented" or "created" processes, math is also thought to be created otherwise we wouldn't have software patents.
The definition changes depending on what you want to prove.
I'm with GR on this one. Math is inherently discovered. The square of a hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs
whether or not we know it; this has always been true.
Math simply is. It's not constructed, so it must be discovered. Most people who have a thorough background in mathematics believe this to be true.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well, sorta:
"The square of a hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs" only in certain maths with certain base assumptions (read lower on the link you provided, especially here
). Do naturally occurring triangles which conform to our maths? Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
I'm actually in the "created" corner of the argument. It's a way for us to distill our experiences in a form that our limited brains can comprehend - but there's no "math" without a brain to conceptualize it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Once was funny
The second time is getting a bit tired.
Both of you busted me on semantic technicalities. GR knew I was talking in base 10 and you knew I was talking about Euclidean geometry (I have a degree in Mathematics in case you weren't aware).
To be consistent, you'd have to believe other abstract concepts like "love" and "evil" don't exist if life doesn't exist. I believe these concepts exist outside of us.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It's not a "semantic technicality",
it's the whole point. Mathematical systems are created as a way of our making sense of the world around us - but they're all inexact and imperfect as applied to the real world. There's no such thing as "two", but there is such a thing as us deciding what constitutes enough of a similarity between different phenomena to call them "same", and from "same" we develop an idea of counting them as such.
The example you gave, the Pythagorean theorem, is a consequence of the system as created - had it been created with a different set of rules, there would be no Pythagorean theorem, which is the case in other maths. That's why I pointed it out: it's hardly a good example of something "discovered" if its existence is predicated on creating a very specific type of system for it to work in. If I create a language with no vowels, and a consequence of that system is words that are difficult-to-speak clusters of consonants, it doesn't mean that words involving difficult-to-speak clusters of consonants are a naturally occurring phenomenon that were just waiting to be discovered.
I didn't try to "bust" you on anything. I'm pointing out that these are all created - not discovered - systems.
Love and Evil do not exist as such either.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Disagree
The Pythagorean theorem is basically independent of any particular system (ie, it can be proved algebraically, geometrically, etc) and while it may be associated with a particular curvature, this is hardly a contrived geometry -- spacetime is for all intents and purposes exactly Euclidean on relevant scales.
Put it this way, I defy you to find me any human culture with a developed widely used mathematical system in which the Pythagorean theorem doesn't hold. OTOH I can easily show that many mathematical concepts were "created" independently by different cultures.
I think it makes a lot more sense to associate math with physics than with linguistics, which is why I come down on the discovered rather than created side.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thank God for the 2nd and 3rd paragraph's! LOL! n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I'm supposed to
understand the physics end of this discussion because that was my undergrad major. Doesn't mean I actually do understand but as the cliche goes if you hum a few bars I can fake it.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I love math, but never seemed to find the time to pursue it. n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Not easy to do because
Western mathematics had a way of dominating and erasing local math systems, much like other areas of culture. So this isn't exactly something easy to research on the 'nets. But here's one
to consider:
If they Aborigines based their system of measuring on relative, rather than absolute, distances, then there's no such thing as a Pythagorean theorem for them: the relationship between sides of a triangle will be considered against the appropriateness of the sides to each other rather than with a numerical value whose ratio can be defined.
Granted I'm extrapolating from the example in the post, but that seems to me a logical extension. In order to have a Pythagorean theorem, you have to have an understanding of space as something that can be described in a quantified manner, which the Aborigines apparently don't have.
Thoughts?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think
you're giving a little too much implied credit to Western mathematics, which I was under the impression borrowed where warranted from other cultures. Regardless, one could compare to Chinese mathematics, right?
With respect to the Aborigines, I don't see any reason why they could not have understood the Pythagorean theorem through a re-arranging geometric approach, like this
one illustrated in the wikipedia article linked above. No knowledge of the absolute lengths or even algebraic relative lengths of the sides is strictly required. Granted it seems very unlikely that they would find something like this on their own starting from a "mathematical" system in which everything is relative, but then again it's questionable whether such a system merits the descriptor of "developed" -- what are the formal rules? What mathematical operations did they carry out, and how?
Your article also mentions the Mayan mathematical system -- wikipedia
says "the preclassic Maya and their neighbors independently developed the concept of zero." I don't know a lot about this but I always had the impression that the Mayans had a fairly sophisticated mathematical knowledge, arrived at in isolation from Western systems.
Anyway, seems to me we both have kind of cheap but perhaps logical methods of arguing out this point: I can say that just because any particular example you cite hasn't discovered the Pythagorean theorem yet doesn't mean they wouldn't have, once they had the necessary discoveries to base it on, while you can say that the reason cultures come up with similar mathematical systems is because they independently created systems reflective of their similar realities.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Another view of Aborigine math
from here
. I can't really add anything beyond the quote or vouch for the source, but it sounds like this source is saying they did quantify things.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
See previous diary
Yes, it could. But then the illusion, for all intents a purposes, is the reality and we must treat it in such a manner.
I touched on this topic in a previous diary
.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sure.
One doesn't have to take anything on faith as all of the following are also true:
3 + 5 = 10 (Base 8)
3 + 5 = 11 (Base 7)
3 + 5 = 12 (Base 6)
I guess your faith has a Base greater that 8? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Great answer!
It suits my application of logic as having a bias to a tee!
I love it!
It is the economy, stupid.
Ha ha
3 and 5 don't even exist in binary or ternary!
What does that say about your faith!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well...
A German merchant of the fifteenth century asked an eminent professor where he should send his son for a good business education. The professor responded that German universities would be sufficient to teach the boy addition and subtraction but he would have to go to Italy to learn multiplication and division. Before you smile indulgently, try multiplying or even just adding the Roman numerals CCLXIV, MDCCCIX, DCL, and MLXXXI without first translating them.
John Allen Paulos, Beyond Numeracy
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
There's a reason I only gave those three ...
Think about it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why?
What's the trick? Honestly curious.
5+3 can never equal 4 right?
It is the economy, stupid.
what does "supernatural" mean?
If it means "unverifiable", then I agree that science can't handle supernatural explanations.
However, if we are talking about a materialist/spiritualist distinction, then I think science is fully capable of handling supernatural explanations. For example, economics is not affected by whether we assume that humans have souls or not, or whether humans were created by a god or not. We can observe how humans behave at a certain level, and then start to make a science out of those observations.
Similarly, if there were some cave in the Yucatan where complex organisms spontaneously appeared on a regular basis (sounds supernatural to me), then we could point to that cave and say that all life has spontaneously appeared. If we could not find any way to affect that rate or nature of the organisms that appear there, then we would have no scientific theory for how the organisms appear -- but we could base subsequent theories upon the observation that these organisms do appear.
Finally, imagine that organisms could be summoned into existence by magical spells. Even if we could figure out the rules for how these spells work, I think this would still count as "supernatural" and the knowledge of this supernatural phenomenon could be worked into scientific theories.
However, if god wants to keep himself hidden from us, then we can't put him into our scientific theories.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Point is, if a scientist sees a turtle on a fence
They would theorize that it got there naturally - someone put it up there... rather than accepting theories for how it migt have happened super naturally - an angel put it there... It's the same thing for the origin of the earth. And since I believe the explanation ultimately is supernatural - God created it, I believe science came to the wrong conclusion on this - if science is indeed defined as only accepting natrual explanations.
if angels allowed us to watch them work...
If we have observed/documented angels placing objects on top of fences, then a scientist would have no problem positing that an angel had placed the turtle there.
I think this "supernatural" thing is a distraction: what matters is that we have solid/objective evidence that the proposed mechanism (human or angel) does actually exist.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Funny that you mentioned a turtle.
A scientist sees the Earth in space, and theorizes that there is space time and gravity, rather than accepting the theory that the Earth is resting on an elephant, that is resting on a tortoise.
Before a scientist made a specific theory about how the turtle got on the fence, the scientist should consider several different hypothesis. Is there some body of water near the fence, that a high tide or wave could have moved the turtle there. Was/is there some sort of bridge to the fence that the turtle could walk across, possibly the fence is built into a hill on on or more sides.
put the turtle on the fence. Or the angel put a suggestion in someones head to build a fence that ended into a hill and thus allow the turtle to walk across the fence.
Supernatural explanations cannot be tested, so far and as far as anyone knows. Accepting supernatural explanations on blind faith made people think the Earth was the center of the universe, which is theoretically possible if there actually is some sort or sorts supernatural forces. But thought experiments don't really carry the same weight as observable and testable observations. Why not accept the theory that we are all food for a giant computer and the programming in The Matrix put the turtle up there? Or that Q
A lot of the ID and creationist crowd seem to accept some sort of Occam's razor
Paradox, that evolution and a natural biogenesis are too complicated to have occurred without the invisible hand of a deity of their choosing. ie Evolution is too unlikely to "just have happened by chance" and not have been designed. But a deity, always was, and created the universe and every other thing in it.
Very similar to an old creationist argument that "a watch needs a watchmaker."
A watch is "too complicated" to have happened "naturally" so the watch was made by a watchmaker.
The watchmaker was also too complicated to have happened through purely "natural" events, so God made the watchmaker. And the logic that complicated things need a maker just stops there. They are sure the watch needed a watchmaker and the watchmaker needed God, but God doesn't need a maker, because God is the preexisting one. Sure its "possible" that the watchmaker theory is right, but it definitely appears to be too much of an arbitrary stopping point.
Scientific theories and a deity aren't mutually exclusive, if there is a deity, then science would just tell us about the observable ways the deity had things designed.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ultimately in our human way of thinking it would make
more sense for there to be no existence - except I guess one would have to be thinking in order for something to make sense. There's only three posibilites as to the ultimate origin of the universe: Something came from nothing, an eternal Creator, an eternal line of causes. I do think having a supernatural cause makes more sense as everything we know is not eternal and has a cause, therefore, whatever, the ultimate cause is its out of the realm of natural cause and effect.
Yep....
evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive and I think a lot of the most vocal anti-evolution advocates out there know that.
as the truth.
But they can go on with falsely presented evidence taken from their treasury of information built up from quote mining. And like some bizaro Richard Dawkins, they only try to tear down evidence to support evolution in hopes it will lead people to accept John 3:16
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Who says that the Earth is not the center of the universe?
It might well be if it happens to lie at the center of gravity for the entire universe, right? In that case the rest of the universe really DOES revolve around the Earth! :)
Sure, it's unlikely, but not impossible.
I agree.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
science, education, and values
I agree that it is impossible to separate worldview/values from a child's day to day education, and I am likewise uncomfortable with (though not necessarily opposed to) state control of education for that reason.
However, I strongly disagree with your dismissal of the importance of science in a regular American's education. Simply put, in the modern world, freedom requires scientific literacy. Our society has been radically reformed by science and technology, and it continues to be radically reformed. If a person has no understanding of science, then they are just a pawn in this process; they have no ability to determine how they should respond to these changes, nor do they have any basis for an opinion on the many public policy issues that deal with scientific issues (global warming being a prominent one today).
If they are just going to relinquish that authority to the experts, they should at least have some understanding of the nature of their expertise.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I didn't attack the need for science
What I question is the practical usefullness of theories of origin. I don't understand knowing how life formed millions or billions of years ago is useful to the vast majority of people if any - except in a spiritual sense in which case it is highly important.
science would have a gaping hole without evolution
I don't think we could honestly tell students that they were learning science if we didn't include evolution (or the big-bang theory) -- they are just too important to modern science.
Perhaps we could tell them that we are just going to teach them a very specific portion of science and leave vast swaths untouched, but if we are going to pretend that we're giving them a general survey of science, then origin theories need to be examined.
Anyway, origin theories are often important for our understanding of how things work today. For example, genes are often initially identified due to the fact that they are conserved in multiple organisms. The function of the gene is then validated with molecular experiments, but we wouldn't even think to look for it if we didn't have these theories of how things orginated.
Likewise, we often identify (currently acting) mechanisms because they fill the gaps in our origin theories...then we devise experiments that reveal the mechanism. I'll try to think of an example that doesn't require too much background knowledge.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Furthermore
Evolution and origin theories are among the best of the whiz bang wicked cool things that get kids actually interested in science. I mean, how many of today's scientists didn't think dinosaurs were awesome when they were kids? How many future scientists would we lose if we didn't teach about stuff like the Big Bang?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
teaching science: facts vs process
I think much of the problem comes from lazy teaching of science: teachers saying "here's how it is, memorize this".
That sort of knowledge isn't all that useful. I think it's more important for students to become familiar with the process of science, and some of the broader theoretical structures than to deal with the details that too many teachers focus on.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Ding!
We have a winner.
Unfortunately standardized tests are notoriously bad at testing critical thinking skills and a comprehensive understanding, but notoriously good at testing rote memorization skills.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Issue of process.
I'm echoing what has been said above, but my objection to creationism in the class room is that it entails a rejection of the scientific process.
You see the world around you. You make a guess about it. You test that guess. If the test fails, you make a better guess. Etc.
There's a weird dissonance to telling children that this process is the fundamental source of our knowledge about the world, except in this one particular area, and only because people object to it on other grounds. It simply doesn't wash.
So the point is, the issue of God/no-God is arbitrary: maybe he did create it, maybe he didn't, but that's not what we're looking at.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
sacrificing science to protect weak faith
It sounds like you are suggesting that certain aspects of science should be half-hidden from the masses (or perhaps, just your own children) because it might shake their faith. Considering this concern, I can see why we might want to refrain from discussing theories of origins until students are a bit older (>14) and can start to understand the difference nature and purpose of religious and scientific stories. However, as students approach adulthood, I feel that if their faith cannot withstand exposure to scientific theories, then their faith is flawed. I don't think we do them any service by protecting them from everything that may challenge their faith.
On the flip side, while kids may not benefit much from being told evolutionary stories in elementary or middle school, I think they would be left with a mutiliated education if evolutionary theory were ommitted from their secondary education (I'll explain more in other comments). I can concede that there isn't any particular need for them to learn the evolutionary theory of human origins, but familiarity with broader evolutionary theories are essential.
As for human evolution, I think it's primary purpose in the classroom is to catch the attention of students. As such, we may be able to dispense with it in the classroom, but it's exclusion would raise troubling questions for other fields of study. For instance, human evolution makes a smooth transition into anthropology and history. Are we to avoid teaching those topics because someone might want to tell their kids a different story?
Likewise, would this willingness to sacrifice science to protect faith extend to other fields that display "The great tragedy of science
, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Just as evolutionary theory (offensively) depicts humans as cousins to chimpanzes, biochemical theory (offensively) depicts all life as a chemical phenomenon, while modern astronomy and physics conflict with the faith of our ancestors 
.
This line of reasoning brings us to the question of how we decide what fields of knowledge are to be excluded from our children's education. First, will it be a communal decision, or a family decision. If it is a communal decision, then I am strongly in favor of the liberal approach to education: expose students to all types of knowledge and allow them to make up their own minds about what is important.
Even if it were to be a family decision, I'd still be uncomfortable with the authoritarian implications of intentionally shielding students from particular kinds of knowledge. It's this impulse that gives home-schooling a bad name among liberals.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Copernican revolution
is an excellent suggestion for teaching a controversy, and also for teaching basic principles of science. In addition to the religion/science question, it demonstrates Occam's razor and (with Galileo's observations) illustrates the prediction, observation, theory cycle of the scientific method.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Great Coversation!
For whatever is worth, being a Republican and a conservative one at that...
I am also Buddhist, which prescribes meditation as a vehicle to inner awakening or enlightenment.
I believe the more we clear our minds of the mental fodder that consumes the western mind and obstructs clarity of thought, the more things appear as they really are, and thus make perfect sense. I'm certainly not there.. ;-)
But what it all has left me with is a belief that both belief systems are true, that the music of the spheres would not be possible without some divine spark to set it off, and that the big bang and evolution is the result.
The whole JC came to cleanse of sins stuff I think is inappropriate to teach in schools, except in a comparative religions course, just as Hinduism, Islam, or Taoism would be as well.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Conservative, Republican, Buddhist,
You've got to love this site for the interesting variety of people. :-)
Second that!
Nice post and thought-provoking discussion.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Just for clarity
Which (if any) specific school of Buddhism do you ascribe to?
I am admittedly ignorant of non-western religions.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Theravada...
It is Buddhism in its original form.
Although the Buddha taught in India, the Hindu masses made it less popular there, so the teaching was mainly adopted in Southeast Asia, Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka, that was where the forest monasteries were established, and where people live and practice still today.
Theravada Buddhism
is a no nonsense - seek enlightenment - bare bones form of Buddhism that was what the Buddha himself originally taught - it's sole focus is on achieving enlightenment via the unfettered mind one develops from meditation 
.(Great ebook online)
From there it spread up into Tibet where it became the shamanistic driven Tibetan form so many people are familiar with vis-a-vi the Dahli Lama.
Did you know the Buddha lived and taught into his 70's?
It then flowed down into China where it became intermingled with Taoism.
From there it made it's way into Japan and Korea where it became Zen Buddhism.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Namasté
Thanks for the website link and the e-book. I'll definitely give it a look-see. Meditation, the nature of conciousness, and all that kind of stuff is a strong interest of mine. See, we have something in common! :)
If interested, there is a nearly year-old diary on free will that you might enjoy skimming. Entirely free of partisan rhetoric!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oh great! Thx...
...I'll check it out. That book, "Mindfulness In Plain English", is a classic, it makes the basic components of Meditation easily digestible by westerners. I hope you do check it out. Let me know what you think.
Who are you into if anyone.
I started out meditating doing TM
, then I was kinda digging Paramahansa Yogananda 
, if you know him?
Then I read some of Jack Kornfields Books, one was called Living Dharma (or Buddhist depending on printing) Masters
, it changed my whole life. If you can find it buy it. It chronicles all these teachers who were/are still alive in the forests of southeast Asia living and teaching just as they have for thousands of years.
Amazing.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
No specific teachers
No specific path at all, really. Trying to approach enlightenment from multiple angles at this point, I guess. :)
I read Gödel, Escher, Bach
when I was way too young to understand it, but that began a lifelong though intermittent exploration into what the heck consciousness was all about. That's included interests in everything from Buddhism and meditation to biology and quantum physics, to out-of-body experiences and lucid dreaming. All that stuff is just fascinating to me. I've wanted to try going to an actual TM program, but it's not really in the budget at the moment!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
TM is a waste of mulla now days...
Try the ebook, it'll do the trick. </