About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Creationists push for critical thinking (no joke)

Creationists and intelligent design proponents have scored an important victory in Louisiana this week, at least for now. In its appalling lack of wisdom, that State’s legislature overwhelmingly approved a bill that requires teachers to introduce to their students material that “promotes critical thinking skills.” The Republican Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, predictably said that he will sign the bill into law because “the way we are going to have smart and intelligent kids is exposing them to the very best science,” according to an article in (real) Science magazine.

What’s wrong with that?, the naive reader may reasonably ask. Surely the main point of education is in fact to instill critical thinking skills into students, just like the bill says. Precisely, and since this is what every teacher in the country is already striving to do, do we need a law for it? It would be like passing a law directing all physicians to do their best to save people’s lives, or mechanics to repair cars. Duh. No, the new bill is the handiwork of the infamous Discovery Institute, the Seattle so-called Think Tank that has been pushing intelligent design creationism for more than a decade now (and who suffered a spectacular defeat two years ago in the Dover, PA case).

The new strategy is to cry out for “academic freedom,” which is then interpreted as the freedom to teach nonsense about the history of life on earth. Imagine if astrologers were to invoke academic freedom so that astronomy classes would include the preparation of horoscopes and the “critical” assessment of the Copernican theory. That’s just about what is going to happen in Louisiana, and probably in several other states, unless there is a successful legal challenge or grassroots movement like the one being currently attempted by the Louisiana Coalition for Science under the guidance of philosopher-activist Barbara Forrest.

One way to smell the rat here is to look at the specific language of the bill, which says in part that educators are encouraged to hold “an open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including but not limited to evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” If you think this is not a (maliciously) intelligently designed list you are far too optimistic about human nature and the current Republican war against science. (Notice, too, that “human cloning” isn’t a theory, but a technological possibility with obvious ethical implications. But there is no point in being too subtle here.)

Despite the dismay at how easily such a gross manipulation of the concept of academic freedom can pass muster, or at how willfully and disingenuously a large number of politicians keep pandering to the minimum common denominators of the American public, there is some silver lining in this story. It comes from taking the relatively long view on the issue of the evolution wars. Less than a century ago, the battle in Dayton, TN was about prohibiting the teaching of evolution altogether, and the forces of obscurantism won. They have been on the retreat ever since, first having to accept the teaching of evolution in public schools as the default position, then having to invent a series of ever more esoteric and vague versions of their “ideas” to keep fighting on the legal front (equal time for creation “science,” disclaimers about evolution on textbooks, intelligent design admitting that god might not be the designer, and so on). Now they have been pushed so far into the corner that they can only resort to generic appeals to critical thinking and academic freedom, the very same concepts that are daily rejected by right wing religionists.

Want some real critical thinking? How about critically reading the Bible as just one of many “sacred” books written by perfectly human beings, the product of an ignorant and bigoted era? Or perhaps we should ask our students to critically think about the efficacy of “abstinence only” sexual programs that the current Administration keeps pushing on the basis of its misguided ide-theology? Or maybe critical thinking exercises in our classrooms should include a study of how it happened that the United States went to war on false premises, is wasting hundreds of thousands of lives (I’m counting the Iraqis here) and trillions of dollars, all in the name of greed and national pride? Now, that is a critical thinking curriculum I can get behind. Any chance it will pass in Louisiana?

15 comments:

  1. Massimo is correct. I blogged about this very issue myself a few days ago. See http://tinyurl.com/3rvq5w

    This bill has got nothing to do with academic "freedom". It is just an ingenious, I must admit, way of using dull politicians to open the door to the teaching of ID in our schools, since everything else failed. Why else would the bill specifically allow the teachers to use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials"?

    Anyone with two working brain neurons immediately sees how this opens the door to legally introduce children, and make them read as part of the "curriculum" books such as "Of pandas and people" and any other ID tracts a teacher may fancy.

    The problem is not with the supplementing materials themselves. The problem rests with the complete lack of any guidelines as to what sort of supplemental material are acceptable. The way it is worded now everything goes. That's not academic freedom. It's chaos, anarchy, it is anti-science pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Massimo, I think there is a typo here:

    "Less than a century ago, the battle in Dayton, TN was about prohibiting the teaching of evolution altogether, and the forces of obscurantism won."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Leo, not sure where the typo is...

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Or perhaps we should ask our students to critically think about the efficacy of “abstinence only” sexual programs that the current Administration keeps pushing on the basis of its misguided ide-theology?"

    Whatever keeps families intact (and un-divorced) is the best possible thing for a society. And if you don't ask young people to use restraint before they are married, they certainly will give it little thought after they are married. Just a fact of life.

    Being "faithful" and loyal is a discipline just as many other things we must practice in life are. Such as, saving money..not spending money we don't have, ect. Why ever, Massimo, would sex lives be treated in a less disciplined fashion? To not do so IS IGNORANT.

    Societies that do not care about this type of discipline eventually turn out like Haiti. One guy w/ two or three wives, several girlfriends. Children from all these unions starving and impoverished.

    So this the kind of world you envision?

    And that is why your ideas about critical thinking do not add up to critical thinking.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cal, in what way is keeping a woman married to an alcoholic abusive husband who rapes their children "good for society"?
    You are assuming without evidence that marriages are de facto happy. The reason people divorce is because they are demonstrably unhappy in their marriage.
    Marriage is not some acred cow; it's a legal status that must be revocable by either or both parties when it goes pear-shaped. People don't necessarily marry under false pretences, either; but they do change, and it is possible that a couple have simply grown apart. Why should they stay legally trapped in a relationship neither of them wants any longer?
    Or, then again, maybe he just beats her...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was wondering how long it would take, and for what post it would be before Cal figured out how to sign up for an account.

    Cal, I assure you, we rational secularists are not against encouraging teens to exercise restraint, responsibility and good judgement when it come to sex.

    The problem is of course that we know that they often don't. That is why abstinence only education is such a failure. And that is just an empirical fact. It has simply led to more unwanted teen pregnancy, more stds, and more abortions! There have been numerous studies documenting this.

    And I might also add you really have no idea how Haiti became the way it is. Suffice it to say it wasn't all due to the cause you attribute it to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. kp: "Cal, in what way is keeping a woman married to an alcoholic abusive husband who rapes their children "good for society"?

    Why would anyone do that?

    I don't believe that we have to turn ourselves into a 'covenant breaking' people because a few people act uncivilized.


    "You are assuming without evidence that marriages are de facto happy. The reason people divorce is because they are demonstrably unhappy in their marriage."

    Happiness can also come from sticking to your commitments and following through. So unless the spouse is doing something truly dangerous and potentially unlawful, one ought to hang in there till the feelings correct themselves. And they will. People get accustomed anymore to remedying difficult situations with solutions that require the least amount of effort from them. They can be ultra dedicated to their work or other hobbies, but they will not invest time and energy where it matters most. Their home. Life is totally what you make of it.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  8. sheldon,

    Had an account for a year or more? (lost the original password and and didn't know how to initiate a new one) so I didn't complete it till we got past our oldest daughter's wedding earlier this week. Too busy anyway. Finally asked my husband for h-e-l-p. That was rather painful. :)

    And I do know all about Haiti. One of my older sis's lived there for 8 years as a nurse for an orphanage. She also has an adopted son whose father has 30 some children, several wives and girl friends. He has children with 4 or 5 women total. Whenever cultures choose to live that way, the men treat the women like crap.


    "The problem is of course that we know that they often don't. That is why abstinence only education is such a failure."

    No, that is not why.

    Young people would be more likely to follow this path if their parents held strong convictions themselves and lived by them. One can't get the government to impose convictions on teens and the college set. It has to begin at home.


    "And that is just an empirical fact. It has simply led to more unwanted teen pregnancy, more stds, and more abortions! There have been numerous studies documenting this."

    And back again to why keeping marriages and fidelity as a high value in our society matters so much. If our youngins don't see it in us, why should they care who they sleep with? It's ultimately a parenting problem, not one of whether birth control should be handed out freely or not.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  9. "to hold “an open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including but not limited to evolution, the origins of life, global warming..."

    Regarding critical thinking and evolution vs. creationism. In the case of public schools and the teaching of science, it seems to me that things like the "origin of life" are really off the table anyway. That is because the topic is really a frontier of knowledge, and biology has not yet come up with a well established theory. Generally speaking, in a high-school biology class, and even in most college level biology courses, the curriculum is well established knowledge. Am I correct on this?

    My point being, when the IDers want to have an open discussion of the "origin of life", what they really want to do is insert their God of the gaps theory into a gap that science has not yet filled. Thats my take anyway. Of course their is nothing "open and objective" about that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are right, Massimo. I was too optimistic about the american legislature history (I didn't know that that stupid law prevailed until the 60s...)
    Oh dear...

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Whatever keeps families intact (and un-divorced) is the best possible thing for a society. And if you don't ask young people to use restraint before they are married, they certainly will give it little thought after they are married. Just a fact of life."

    Notice the lack of facts in this argument. She uses the phrase "use restraint" to mean "not have sex". And then (is Cal Catholic?) she says that people should "use restraint" "after they are married". Are marriages being broken up because of too much fucking?

    Next, she goes on to say that "Being 'faithful' and loyal is a discipline just as many other things we must practice in life are." Exactly what does this have to do with anything? Abstinence is not the opposing of adultry.

    Then, in a virtuoso display of non-thought, Cal tries to link comprehensive sex education to polygamy. Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Aren't polygamous fundamentalist Mormons big fans of abstinence?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joseph,
    Actually Cal is some sub-species of evangelical.

    However, it is kind of ironic that Cal is here preaching to us, when various studies have suggested that it is various denominations of Christians that have higher divorce rates, and that secular folks have lower divorce rates. Here is a link to a discussion on one such study.

    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

    Other studies tracking the lives of teens who took "abstinence pledges" found that they were the ones who were actually more likely to end up having STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Since people are talking about this... I also remember hearing that these kids who suffered abstinence-only "education" were many times more likely to have anal or oral sex than other, control kids (haven't seen the original data, and can't remember the details or where I read it either).

    Now, I wonder whether this was the original intent of the idiots who came up with such program...

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, ashamed of my laziness, I resorted to Google University and found this report and this too. Not that it makes any difference for those who are the worst type of blind, but here they are anyway...

    That second one, by the way, had this little gem (among many others), which would be interesting for "some people" around here who's always accusing Europeans (French in particular) of being so badly liberal left leaning promiscuous godless whatevers:

    Using figures from 1995-2000, Advocates for Youth (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org) reports that the HIV rate for Americans 15-24 is five times that of German youth of the age. The U.S. teen syphilis rate is six times higher than the Dutch; the chlamydia rate is 20 times that of French teens; and our teen gonorrhea rate is a whopping 74 times higher than the Dutch.

    European programs that provide uncensored sex education and promote condom use are the reasons for this success. Contrary to what one might expect, European youth have fewer sex partners than Americans do and begin sex slightly later than Americans. What is alarming, however, is that America has the largest percentage of girls who have sex by age 15.


    Priceless. So, it looks like the American hyper-religiosity is NO help there either...

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.