4 ms·

Dissenters and outsiders who are refused entry cannot be the ones politicizing the issue. If they were, they wouldn't be impotent. It makes no sense.

eesmith 8y ago
It doesn't make sense because you are only looking at one group of people in your analysis, while the politicizing occurs among a much larger group of people. All evidence leads to the strong conclusion that creationism is not a viable way to understand geology, paleontology, biology, and a dozen other fields. While modern biology does not exist without the concept of evolution to bind things together. Yet there was/is a large push to teach creationism in some form or other ("intelligent design") as being co-equal with evolution, or a viable and meaningful alternative. The phrase was "teach the controversy", as promoted by the Discovery Institute - a dissenter/outsider organization with respect to science. But biologists are the outsiders to what it taught in school. While members of a large and powerful subgroup of American Christians believe that creationism must be correct, as a matter of religious faith. These people can use their political power to manufacture the perception of dissent. And get schools to teach creation science and disparage evolution, despite the lack of a scientific basis for either. It wasn't biologists who passed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which specifically calls for support for those wanting to criticize evolutionary theory ... and global warming. Similarly, climatologists are the outsiders when it comes to policy decisions related to human-generated wastes, like CO2. You know how I know? Look how impotent they are.
- Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
  Creationism is not talked about in public schools. Biology and evolution are. I'm not sure you're proving the point you think you are. At least I don't understand how you think the dominant ideology which has displaced all others and allows no dissent is the one that is the underdog, and anyone criticizing the dominant ideology is politicizing the issue. It is a self serving argument that was used to deny most science ever. From gallileo to the ideolization of Newton which stalled physics for generations. Orthodoxy is anathema to science. Either reality agrees with your argument or it doesn't. No one should have the power or authority to deny access to people based on differing opinions. Otherwise the only solution to the contention is violence. Instead one should focus on respectful dialogue where you treat the other person with respect. You don't have to agree. You don't have to defend the position. But you have to treat everyone with respect. Otherwise we don't have science, we have a religion.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    I did not say that creationism is talked about in public schools. That would be illegal, as affirmed in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Note that the Dover school district required the teaching of intelligent design, which is a form of creationism. I wrote "Yet there was/is a large push to teach creationism in some form or other ("intelligent design") as being co-equal with evolution". The "was" exists specifically to point to Dover as an example of teaching creationism in schools. My statement also includes charter schools. (Charter schools are not public schools.) For example, quoting from https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/creationism-in-texas-public-schools-undermining-the-charter-movement.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/creationism-in-texas-pu... : > When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies. My statement more specifically refers to the people doing the pushing, which includes the current US vice president. When he in the House of Representatives he said (quoting https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2002/7/11/house-section/article/h4527-1?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22mike+pence%5C%22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=190 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2002/7/11/hous... ): > The truth is [evolution] always was a theory, Mr. Speaker. And now that we have recognized evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask, can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species? He has declined to inform us on any changes to his views. You have not demonstrated that "the dominant ideology .. allows no dissent", etc. I agree that the "dominant ideology" - a politicized way to say 'the considered opinion by those with the most training on the topic' - says that the views of climate change denialists - a politicized way to say 'those who do not believe there is global warming and/or that human action is a significant driver of that warming - has the strength of evidence behind it. Just like the views of creationists do not have the strength of evidence behind them. In other words, they are wrong. If they are wrong, why should they be granted an undeserved platform? I don't understand the rest of your commentary. Were you treating me with respect by presenting a strawman position of my statement? Most of your text appears so highly abstract that it's meaningless. Should the 'Smithsonian Barbie' be published in Science magazine as a new paleontological find, or would the orthodoxy prevent that from happening? What violence will result by preventing that path as a way to spread knowledge of 'ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams'? What you wrote reminds me of a criticism by Martin Luther King: > I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Based on your comment, I believe you are more devoted to order and the absence of tension to justice.

eesmith 8y ago

It doesn't make sense because you are only looking at one group of people in your analysis, while the politicizing occurs among a much larger group of people. All evidence leads to the strong conclusion that creationism is not a viable way to understand geology, paleontology, biology, and a dozen other fields. While modern biology does not exist without the concept of evolution to bind things together. Yet there was/is a large push to teach creationism in some form or other ("intelligent design") as being co-equal with evolution, or a viable and meaningful alternative. The phrase was "teach the controversy", as promoted by the Discovery Institute - a dissenter/outsider organization with respect to science. But biologists are the outsiders to what it taught in school. While members of a large and powerful subgroup of American Christians believe that creationism must be correct, as a matter of religious faith. These people can use their political power to manufacture the perception of dissent. And get schools to teach creation science and disparage evolution, despite the lack of a scientific basis for either. It wasn't biologists who passed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which specifically calls for support for those wanting to criticize evolutionary theory ... and global warming. Similarly, climatologists are the outsiders when it comes to policy decisions related to human-generated wastes, like CO2. You know how I know? Look how impotent they are.

Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Creationism is not talked about in public schools. Biology and evolution are. I'm not sure you're proving the point you think you are. At least I don't understand how you think the dominant ideology which has displaced all others and allows no dissent is the one that is the underdog, and anyone criticizing the dominant ideology is politicizing the issue. It is a self serving argument that was used to deny most science ever. From gallileo to the ideolization of Newton which stalled physics for generations. Orthodoxy is anathema to science. Either reality agrees with your argument or it doesn't. No one should have the power or authority to deny access to people based on differing opinions. Otherwise the only solution to the contention is violence. Instead one should focus on respectful dialogue where you treat the other person with respect. You don't have to agree. You don't have to defend the position. But you have to treat everyone with respect. Otherwise we don't have science, we have a religion.
- eesmith 8y ago
  I did not say that creationism is talked about in public schools. That would be illegal, as affirmed in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Note that the Dover school district required the teaching of intelligent design, which is a form of creationism. I wrote "Yet there was/is a large push to teach creationism in some form or other ("intelligent design") as being co-equal with evolution". The "was" exists specifically to point to Dover as an example of teaching creationism in schools. My statement also includes charter schools. (Charter schools are not public schools.) For example, quoting from https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/creationism-in-texas-public-schools-undermining-the-charter-movement.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/creationism-in-texas-pu... : > When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies. My statement more specifically refers to the people doing the pushing, which includes the current US vice president. When he in the House of Representatives he said (quoting https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2002/7/11/house-section/article/h4527-1?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22mike+pence%5C%22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=190 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2002/7/11/hous... ): > The truth is [evolution] always was a theory, Mr. Speaker. And now that we have recognized evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask, can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species? He has declined to inform us on any changes to his views. You have not demonstrated that "the dominant ideology .. allows no dissent", etc. I agree that the "dominant ideology" - a politicized way to say 'the considered opinion by those with the most training on the topic' - says that the views of climate change denialists - a politicized way to say 'those who do not believe there is global warming and/or that human action is a significant driver of that warming - has the strength of evidence behind it. Just like the views of creationists do not have the strength of evidence behind them. In other words, they are wrong. If they are wrong, why should they be granted an undeserved platform? I don't understand the rest of your commentary. Were you treating me with respect by presenting a strawman position of my statement? Most of your text appears so highly abstract that it's meaningless. Should the 'Smithsonian Barbie' be published in Science magazine as a new paleontological find, or would the orthodoxy prevent that from happening? What violence will result by preventing that path as a way to spread knowledge of 'ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams'? What you wrote reminds me of a criticism by Martin Luther King: > I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Based on your comment, I believe you are more devoted to order and the absence of tension to justice.